Peer 
 
 Saleem a tt 
 
 κι a 
 eek rare 
 
 crane weber 
 
 ———— τις gece etn AEE eee ππο κυνῶν ee et ene τον εἰν co Pet en SD 5.19 20 iit eb anne ee Se tie 
 
BV 6825 (1243 
 Taylor, James, 
 
 The true doctrine of the 
 Holy Eucharist 
 
bat 
 
 j ; a 
 f ὶ 5 f Pie ey | 
 ᾿ at ᾿ γι ve: Γ ἢ na" 
 Ἶ υ δ at | Ἀν ὁ 18 / ἥν ἵ 
 ὶ ι ᾿ς i. Ae i Bria! i 
 Ἐπ Dh ᾿ ' 
 i ‘i 7 i) 
 
THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE HOLY EUCHARIST, 
 
 AS INSTITUTED IN SCRIPTURE, 
 
 AND RECEIVED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ALL AGES, 
 
 IN REFUTATION OF 
 
 ARCHDEACON WILBERFORCE’S BOOK, 
 “The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,” 
 
 AND THE POPISH VIEWS OF THAT SACRAMENT, IN GENERAL. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. TAYLOR, M.A., 
 
 TRIN. COLL. CAM. 
 HEAD MASTER OF QUEEN ELIZABETH’S FREE GRAMMAR SCHOOL, WAKEFIELD, 
 AND EVENING LECTURER AT THE PARISH CHURCH. 
 
 LONDON: 
 LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, & LONGMANS, 
 
 PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 1855. 
 
* 
 
 ‘al, ὃς Ἵ "ἢ 
 
 a ΞῚ an WAKEFIELD: 
 
 “."-. : CHARLES HICKS, PRINTER, MARKET PLACE. 
 av 5 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 SincE the commencement of the present undertaking, several 
 important changes have taken place in the position of both the 
 persons and matters concerned in it. The “Doctrine of the 
 Holy Eucharist,” when first published by Archdeacon Wilberforce, 
 purposed to be a book of scriptural doctrine, supported by ancient 
 testimonies, for the guidance of members of the Church of 
 England. The author was a beneficed clergyman, and even a 
 dignitary of the ecclesiastical establishment ; and his bouk came 
 upon the Church, recommended not only by the weight of the 
 author's official character, but also by the prestige which apper- 
 tained to his inheritance of a great name. Under such circum- 
 stances, it was no wonder if the work had a large sale and 
 widely - extended influence. 
 
 But if the book was hailed with approbation by that party 
 in the Church which acknowledges its object to be to unpro- 
 testantize the Church of England, it was received with equal 
 alarm by those faithful to the Reformation. To those who knew 
 anything of the Popish controversy, the “‘ Doctrine of the Holy 
 Eucharist,” as propounded by Robert I. Wilberforce, was pure, 
 unalloyed Popery, in all its hideous deformity, hesitating at 
 nothing save the adoption of the word transubstantiation, but 
 in everything else adopting not only the doctrines, but even 
 
 the phraseology, of Trent. For many months the Protestant 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 world stood in expectation of seeing some official visitation 
 of censure on such manifest treachery, or some vindication, by 
 those in authority, of the cause of truth ; but they looked in 
 vain. The only thing which they saw was every effort made, 
 by the cheapening of editions, to push this pestiferous work 
 into every nook and corner of the land, and to extinguish the 
 truth by an overwhelming deluge of error. 
 
 When, however, it was found that waiting was vain, either 
 because of the impotence of those in authority, or of their 
 unwillingness to act, some feeble voices were raised, and a 
 decided effort made, by a few earnest men, to bring the matter 
 to a legal issue. The result is known. Conscious of the abso- 
 lutely-defenceless nature of his position, and of his own entire 
 abjuration of Protestant truth, the Archdeacon of the East 
 Riding pronounced his own sentence, acknowledged his doctrines 
 to be purely those of Rome, and betook himself to the communion 
 of that Church, whose creed he had adopted and taught, more 
 or less, years before. 
 
 It is a matter of notoriety, that not a few of the clergy, among 
 the younger especially, have adopted the views of Archdeacon 
 Wilberforce, and unhesitatingly preach them from their pulpits. 
 These, from their comparative obscurity, have, hitherto, for the 
 most part, passed unnoticed ; but the case of Archdeacon Denison, 
 who has adopted expressly the views propounded by his brother 
 Archdeacon, is now before the Church and the world, and will 
 probably bring the questions involved to a legal issue. 
 
 In reviewing the positions assumed by Mr. Wilberforce, and 
 now adopted by Archdeacon Denison, I have sought rather that 
 confutation should come from the authorities adduced for that 
 purpose, than from any reasoning of my own. On this ground 
 it is that I have quoted /argely; and not on this ground only 
 
 but that every reader might be enabled to feel satisfied that he 
 
PREFACE. Vv 
 
 had the true views of the writers referred to, which, by short 
 and dovetailed extracts, can never be the case. I must confess, 
 that with regard to the testimony of the ancient Church, my 
 own opinion has been changed by this enquiry. I had not 
 before so thorough a conviction, as now I have, that Popery 
 can lay no claim to its authority. The strongest expressions 
 used are generally either explained or limited by the Fathers 
 who use them, while the peculiar doctrines of Rome are sought 
 for in their writings in vain ;—statements are found which 
 could never have been made, had the peculiarities of Trent's 
 teaching been known to the early Church. I rise from the labour 
 which has necessarily attended this investigation, thankful to 
 that good Providence which has preserved to our day the valuable 
 records of the primitive Christian Church. 
 
 In the examination into, and comparison of, the several Pro- 
 testant Confessions, an agreeable surprise has also been the result, 
 in witnessing their general agreement and scriptural character. 
 I find these confessions, on the subject of our enquiry, as far 
 removed from Socinian coldness and emptiness, as from the 
 superstitious and unmeaning awe and meretricious pomp of Po- 
 pery- In protesting against the subtractions of the one and the 
 additions of the other, I find these confessions all but unanimous. 
 Theirs is no uncertain or discordant sound; but the constant 
 reproach which is sought to be cast upon the various bodies 
 of Protestant Christians, on account of their differences, is found 
 to be more imaginary than real. It is only a pity that these 
 bodies do not more consider the important and essential points 
 in which they agree, rather than the minor ones in which they 
 differ, and so present a more compact and resolute front to the 
 common enemy. Rome, if ever she gains a triumph over Pro- 
 testant truth, can only do so by dividing before she conquers. 
 
 As an appendix, I have given the ‘‘ Book of Ratram (or 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 Bertram) on the Eucharist,’ which has providentially escaped 
 the ravages of time, and the more fatal hands of the emissaries 
 of the Pope, as well as some exceedingly valuable Saxon remains 
 —all of which are directly opposed to the doctrine of a corporeal 
 presence. Following these will be found a few original notes 
 and extracts from authors not in the hands of every one. It 
 is hoped that these will be considered valuable and important 
 for the purpose for which they are given. 
 
 I should have been glad had I been enabled to give all the 
 passages which are quoted or referred to 12) their original, but 
 this would have swelled out the volume to a much larger size 
 and price. As it is, the more important are given in their 
 original form and language, and will enable those who desire 
 it to see that the sense of their authors is faithfully given. It 
 seems to some perfectly unaccountable how any man, brought 
 up as a Protestant, with a liberal education and the Bible in 
 his hands, can renounce his religion and embrace Romanism, 
 and there is, unquestionably; very much in it to astonish. But 
 it too often happens, with even the Bible itself, that it is per- 
 verted to the support of preconceived opinions, rather than 
 examined for the truths which it teaches. It seems to me to 
 be by such a process that men are led astray. They neither 
 examine Scripture nor consult the early writers of the Christian 
 Church with the feeling that the one is supreme, and the other 
 useful in the teaching of truth, resolved to submit to the latter 
 wherever they find it; but having embraced principles, according 
 to taste and feeling, they then ransack the pages of inspired 
 and uninspired antiquity to find support for their preconceived 
 views. It can be little matter of surprise if such persons be 
 given up to “strong delusions,” and to the belief of lies, when 
 they search through even the charter of their salvation for means 
 
 of arriving at victory, not at truth. 
 
PREFACE. Vil 
 
 In conclusion, I have only to apologise for whatever defects 
 may be detected in this volume, either in matter or style, by 
 alleging, in extenuation, the daily demands of a laborious occu- 
 pation. The work which the reader has in his hand does not 
 pretend to much. It is more of a compilation than of an original 
 essay, which seeks to let the persons introduced speak for them- 
 selves. It is not often that either the clergy or the laity have 
 opportunities, ability, and leisure for lengthened investigations 
 into the writings of Christian antiquity; and it is only in an 
 abbreviated form that the results of more favoured scholars can 
 be made available for the many. The sources whence my infor- 
 mation has been derived are generally indicated in the proper 
 place; and to the authors, whose works are quoted, I must refer 
 those who wish further to pursue their enquiries. 
 
 In one word—may it please God to grant that this feeble 
 effort may be of some little service to the truth in the present 
 erisis of the Church. The ecclesiastical horizon is certainly 
 full of ominous forebodings of storm, and it may please Him 
 who has so long blessed us with light, to punish our unworthy 
 use of it, by removing our candlestick out of its place. Our 
 only hope for the averting of such a calamity must be in the 
 blessing of God upon the efforts and upon the prayers of His 
 faithful people. It can scarcely be doubted but that, if they are 
 unremitting in both, the divine favour will be vouchsafed, and 
 that speedily. The labour and prayer are from below, the 
 blessing and power are from above; the benefit is ours—the 
 glory is God's. 
 
ra 
 ia he 
 Sera ge ὯΝ 
 
 Fs bes att hv 
 
 ἘΌΝ a at ts ἢ 7 a) ΔῊ oem 
 Ane wage "ly ἀπ πὉ Thi ἐλ 0: det} | 
 : τ ῬΑ yt τ" 3 μέν 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 BO OK yl 
 
 —— 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IN DECIDING CONTROVERSIES OF 
 FAITH, AND THE RIGHT USE OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 Testimony of the Church of England on this point, 1. Her rule not to 
 propound anything contrary to Scripture and inconsistent with Catho- 
 lic teaching, 2. English Church places the Fathers where they have 
 placed themselves, 3. Augustine’s testimony, 3,4. J erome’s, 5, 6. 
 Various reasons why the Fathers could not be arbiters in our present 
 controversies, 7. Bishop Warburton on this point, 8. Jeremy Taylor, 
 11. Hooker, 13. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CONSECRATION, AS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, NOT ESSEN- 
 TIALLY DIFFERENT FROM CONSECRATION, WHEN USED IN OTHER CASES. 
 
 Doctrine of Archdeacon Wilberforce on this point, 15. Limit to his phrase- 
 ology, 16. True idea of consecration (Augustine), 17. Our Lord intended 
 direct reference to the bread, and to nothing else, when he said this, 
 17,18. No scriptural testimony on consecrating water in baptism, 19. 
 Testimony of the early Church (Bingham), 19. Tertullian and Cyprian, 
 20. The effects of consecration were supposed the same in baptism as 
 in the Lord’s Supper—testimonies of various Fathers, 21—23. Nothing 
 can be safely deduced from the names appropriated to sacred symbols, 
 24, Further attempt of the Archdeacon to establish an essential dis- 
 tinction between consecration in the Eucharist and in baptism, by 
 alleging an essential difference between the sacraments themselves, 
 24—26. 
 
 b 
 
x CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THERE IS NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SACRAMENTS, 
 BAPTISM AND THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 Church of England’s definition of a sacrament, 27. Water the outward 
 sign, the Holy Spirit “the inward part or thing signified” in baptism 
 —Scripture testimony, 27, 28. Opinions of various Fathers, 30—33. ἷ 
 Table exhibiting the parallelism of the two sacraments, 34. Minister 
 of both sacraments the same (Scripture testimony), 35; (of the Fathers), 
 36—38. The same proved by a passage, quoted by Mr. Wilberforce, 
 from Chrysostom, 40. Practice of the English Church immediately 
 after the Reformation, 41. Lay-baptism disallowed by Forbes, Law- 
 rence, Taylor, &c., 41. Foreign churches divided in opinion, 42. 
 Reasons why baptizing might have been delegated to lay-persons, but 
 not the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, 42, 43. Instances of dea- 
 cons consecrating the Eucharist, 44, 45. Testimony of St. Ambrose, 
 46. ‘Two reasons why such instances are few, 46. Answer to the 
 question, “ Why is not consecration put more prominently forward by 
 our divines?” 48. There is, then, no essential distinction between 
 the two sacraments, 49. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CHRIST IS NOT PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST BY A CORPOREAL PRESENCE IN 
 ANY MANNER—2.€., NEITHER NATURALLY NOR SACRAMENTALLY. 
 
 Subject (this) and predicate (my body) identical, according to Mr. Wilberforce, 
 51. Attempted to be proved from the Fathers, 52. No safe conclusion to 
 be drawn from names and epithets, 53. Gregory Nyssen on the change 
 effected by consecration, 54. The testimony of various Fathers to 
 Christ’s corporeal absence, 55, 56. The Archdeacon’s mode of solving 
 
 the difficulty of multifarious presence, 57,58. Opinions of the Fathers 
 on it, 59,60. Decree of the Council of Jerusalem on transubstantia- 
 tion, A.D. 1672, 61. “The gift” in the Eucharist not different from 
 that in any other religious ordinance, 62. Opinion of Fathers, 63. 
 Such sentences as “Believe, and thou hast eaten,” refute the idea of 
 transubstantiation, 64. Language of Jesus in John vi. considered, 65. 
 Antagonism to this of Romish teaching, 66. Impossibility to reconcile 
 Scripture and Popery on this point, 67. Testimony of the Fathers as 
 to the faithful alone partaking of Christ, 67—70. Article of the English 
 Church on same point, 71. Blasphemous opinions of the Romish doc- 
 
 tors, 72. Mr. Wilberforce acknowledges Origen to be apparently against 
 him, 73, 
 
CONTENTS. Xl 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE ANCIENT FATHERS DID NOT WORSHIP CHRIST “IN THE ELEMENTS,” 
 NOR DID THEY CONSIDER THESE, NOR CHRIST IN THEM, A PROPITIATORY 
 OFFERING FOR THE SINS OF THE LIVING AND THE DEAD. 
 
 Mr. Wilberforce’s opinion stated, 75. Instance of Jesuitical reasoning, 76. 
 Christ, in His human nature, limited as to place, 76. Adoration of the 
 host absolute idolatry, 77. Homilies misapplied and misinterpreted, 
 78, 79. Manifest Jesuitry of the Archdeacon, 80 (note). Sense of 
 expression, “Christ ought to be worshipped zn the sacrament,” 82. 
 Fathers on the same point, 83. Ambiguity of language used, 84. 
 Examination of passages brought to prove the adoration (Anastatius 
 Sinaita), 86 ; Cyril Hier., 87 ; Chrysostom, 88. Case of the Ener- 
 gumeni, 89, 90. False reasoning and puerility, 90, 91. Theodoret 
 too strong for Mr. Wilberforce, 92. A prayer in St. Chrysostom’s 
 liturgy considered, 93. Leontius, who? 94. Ambrose and Augustine 
 on 98th Psalm, 94, 95. General remarks on the subject, 96. Mr. Alber- 
 tine’s summary out of Augustine, 97. Mr. Daillé’s, 98—101. Mr. 
 Whitby’s, 101. If the adoration of the host had existed in the primi- 
 tive or medieval Church, we must have known it, 102,103. In what 
 sense the Eucharist is a sacrifice according to Mr. Wilberforce, 104—106. 
 Difference between Bishop of Exeter and Archdeacon Wilberforce, 106. 
 Consideration of passages of Scripture brought in proof (Melchisedec), 
 107. St. Paul ignorant of Mr. Wilberforce’s ideas, 108. The signifi- 
 cance of ancient sacrifices, 109,110. Jesus Christ the great antitype 
 of all Jewish sacrifices, 110—112. This lost sight of in the “ Doctrine 
 of the Holy Eucharist,’ 112, Date of Christ’s appointment to His 
 mediatorial office, 113,114. Antagonism of Mr. Wilberforce’s views 
 to Scripture, as also of the “Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” to 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, 115. Explanation of Hebrews xiii., 10 ; 
 116. Proper reference, 117,118. No reference to the Eucharist, 119. 
 St. Paul often classes himself with Jews, 120. Paraphrase of the 
 whole passage, 120, 121. The question, “Is there any scriptural 
 testimony that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a sin-offering ?” answered, 
 122, Not the Eucharist, but Christ’s sacrifice, the antitype of the 
 Jewish sin-offering, 123. The prophesy of Malachi considered, 124, 
 It does not refer to the Eucharist, 125. Superiority of Christ’s sacri- 
 fice over the Jewish, 126. Concluding remarks on alleged Scripture 
 evidence, 127. The evidence of the Fathers entered upon, 128. How 
 they are to be understood, 129. The case stated by the Archdeacon, 
 129—131. In what sense the words sacrifice, oblation, &c., were used 
 in Scripture, 131 ; and by the Fathers, 133. In what sense applied to 
 the Eucharist, 133—135. (1.) The gifts presented by the worshippers 
 called offerings, 135, 136. (2.) The terms oblation, offering, &c., were 
 
ΧΙ 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 applied to the whole Eucharistic service, 137. Instances from the 
 Fathers, 138. Proofs that the idea of the sacrifice of the mass could 
 not have been that of the early Christian apologists, 139—141. (3.) 
 The whole sacramental service called a sacrifice, 143. By the Fathers, 
 from its representing Christ’s sacrifice, 144—146. General expressions 
 limited by the Church of Rome, 147. Summary of senses in which ante- 
 Nicene Fathers use words sacrifice, offering, oblation, &c., 149—151. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE ANCIENT LITURGIES. 
 
 Justin Martyr’s account of the mode of celebration of the Eucharist in his 
 
 day, 152, 153. Form in the apostolic constitutions, 154, 155. The 
 Liturgy of St. James, 156. Exception to Renaudot’s canon for testing 
 the liturgies, 157, 158. Dr. Hickes on interpolations, &c., in liturgies, 
 159, 160. Comparison of the Clementine liturgy with that of St. 
 James, 161. Summary of contents of the former, 162. Additional 
 articles in that of St. James, 163. Brett and Renaudot on ante- 
 Nicene form of ditto, 164, 165. Table of five liturgies (note), 166, 167. 
 Little use made of contents of liturgies by Mr. Wilberforce, 168. 
 What change do the liturgies contemplate? 169, 170. Elements 
 called by their proper names after consecration, 171,172. No adoration 
 of the host found in the ancient liturgies, 173. Boileau’s diffi- 
 culty, 174. Prayer offered in liturgies to Christ as in heaven, 176. 
 Fathers ditto, 177. Popish view adopted in the “ Doctrine of the Holy 
 Eucharist,” 178. Mr. Wilberforce’s attempt to obviate the difficulty 
 of the invocation of the Holy Spirit after consecration, 179. Morton 
 on unwarranted innovations of Rome, 180—185. Bingham’s summary 
 of the Fathers, 186—189. The offering in the liturgies, what ? 189. 
 St. James’s, 190. St. Mark’s, 191. St. Chrysostom’s, 192. St. 
 Basil’s, 193. Sacramentary of Gregory, 194. Codices sacramentorum, 
 195. Summary, 196—198. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE FATHERS UPON THE EFFECTS OF CONSECRATION. 
 
 Examination of Mr. Wilberforce’s patristical authorities, 199. His state- 
 
 ment of his case, 200. Passage from St. Ambrose considered, 201. 
 Bishop Stillingfleet on, 202. Passage from St. Cyril, 203. Ditto from 
 Gregory Nyssen, 203, 204. Bishop Stillingfleet on, 205. Passage from 
 Gaudentius, 206, 207. Mr. Wilberforce’s nine propositions—first, 207 ; 
 second and third, 208; fourth, fifth, and sixth, 209; seventh and 
 eighth, 210; ninth, in what sense is the Christian Church said to be 
 
 offered in the Eucharist ? 211. 
 
CONTENTS. ΧΙ] 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 A CONSIDERATION OF SOME PARTICULAR USAGES IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH 
 RESPECTING THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Difference of relative and inherent holiness, 213. Why the efficacy of the 
 elements is denied, 214. Intercommunion considered, 215. The 
 Christian Agape, 215—217. Intercommunion not confined to inter- 
 change of sacramental elements, 217. Probable effects of reserve— 
 Trajan and Tertullian, 219. Conduct of Gorgonia considered, 221 ; 
 and practice of burying the Eucharist, 221; of burning it, 222; of 
 mixing the wine with ink, 222. Days distinguished for consecrating, 
 223. “ Whole Christ in each particle,” 224. Dr. Covel’s account of 
 the Council of Jerusalem, a.p. 1672, 224 (note). Mr. Wilberforce’s 
 infatuation and confusion, 226. Half-communion, 228. Story of Se- 
 rapion and child, 229—231. Different language of the ancient and 
 Romish Church, 231. The Archdeacon’s dishonesty—(1.) In quoting 
 Augustine, 232 ; and (2.) Overall, Cosin, Hooker, Taylor, 234. (3.) In 
 explaining away declarations and protests of the Church of England, 
 234. (4.) In ignoring all former replies to his authorities, 235. Sum- 
 mary, 236. 
 
 BOOK “lt: 
 
 ee 
 CHAPTER I. 
 OF THE USE OF MATERIAL SYMBOLS IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. 
 
 We cannot understand their operation, 239. Evils of inquisitiveness and 
 ignorance, 240. The effect of symbols not understood, 240. No virtue 
 inherent in them, 240. Instances under the Jewish economy, 241— 
 243 ; in the Christian, 243—245. Use of the Eucharistic symbols 
 analogous, 245. Apostles might connect the eating and drinking in 
 the discourse at Capernaum with the Eucharist when instituted, 246, 
 247. This sacrament more than a commemorative rite, 247, 248. Virtue 
 of the Eucharist not zn, but through the elements, 249. View of the 
 Church of England, 25th Art. 250. Character of sacraments complex, 
 251. Difference between sacraments and ceremonies, 252. God’s part 
 and man’s in the Eucharist, 253. True value of sacramental symbols, 
 254. Bishop Burnet’s statement of different views, 255, 256. Making 
 symbols channels not Popish doctrine, 256. Bishop Ridley’s view, 
 257. Difference between the Common Prayer of 1549 and 1552, 258. 
 Efficiency of symbols taught in Articles, 259. And in catechism, 259. 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVING SPECIAL 
 REFERENCE TO THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 History and words of the institution, 262. Analogical interpretation of 
 “this is my hody,” &c., 262. Oriental and Jewish forms of speech, 
 262, Bishop Williams, on τὄυτὸ ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, 263. Romanists 
 differ in the’r explanation of the same, 264. Not a proposition of 
 identity—Bishop Kidder, 265. The Council of Trent, Bellarmine, and 
 Vasquez, on the reference in τῦυτο, 267. The early Fathers on ditto, 
 268—271. The discourse at Capernaum, 272. Bishop Cleaver’s view, 
 273. Reference to Eucharist being admitted, this discourse helps not 
 transubstantiation, 274. But probably no such reference intended, but 
 language strictly figurative, 275. Opinions of the Fathers, 276—284. 
 General conclusion therefrom, 284. Consideration of 1 Cor. x., 285. 
 Waterland’s summary of opinions, 286. Dr. Pelling, on the words, 
 “partakers of the altar,” 288—291. True view of the passage, 291. 
 Locke’s comment on it, 291. Review of 1 Oor. xi, 20—29, 292. 
 “Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” has no literal significance. 
 293. These words compared with similar phraseology, 294, 295. Old 
 and New Testament consentaneous, 296. Resembling circumstances 
 in the Jewish and Christian passover—(1.) in the things themselves 
 296 ; (2.) in phrases and forms, 297—300. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 TESTIMONIES IN ALL CENTURIES, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH, IN 
 FAVOUR OF THE PROTESTANT VIEW OF THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Weight and cumulation of evidence, 302. ‘Testimony of Theodoret, 302, 
 303. Testimony in the sixth century—of Fulgentius, 304; of Pri- 
 masius, Gaudentius, and Euphraimius, 305. In the seventh century, 
 of Isidore of Seville and Hesychius, 306. In the eighth cen- 
 tury, of Bede and Alcuin, 306, 307. In the ninth century, of Raban 
 Maur, 308 ; of Haymo, 809 ; of Druthmar, 310. The credit of these 
 writers belongs chiefly to the English Church, 311. Of Scotus and 
 Bertram, 312. Providential preservation of Bertram’s treatise, 313 
 (note). Evidence, in the tenth century, 314. Testimony of Alfric— 
 his homily, 315 ; his letters, 315—317. Utterly condemnatory of tran- 
 substantiation, 318. These exhibit the doctrine of the Church at that 
 time, 319. In the eleventh century—Lanfranc and Berengarius, 319. 
 Various forms of recantation prescribed to Berengarius, 320. Absur- 
 dity of whole Christ under each particle, 320—322 (note). Berenga-— 
 rius not solitary in his opposition, 323. In the twelfth century— 
 of Gratian, 323; Johannes Semeca, Zacharius Chrysopolitanus, and 
 Rupertus, 324. The Waldenses and Albigenses, 325. Extract from 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 their “Treatise on Antichrist,” 326; from the “Noble Lesson,” 327. 
 Reasons why testimony scanty in this and following ages, 328. Testi- 
 mony of “ Index of Valdensic errors,” and Conrad of Magdenberg, 328. 
 Of Duns Scotus, 329. Bellarmine’s testimony to Scotus’s doctrine, 330. 
 Cuthbert Tonstall, Bishop of Durham’s, evidence (apud Gilpin), 331. 
 Council of Lateran, a.p, 1215, first established transubstantiation, 332. 
 Evidence in the fourteenth century, 332; of William of Oakham, 332, 
 333 ; of Durandus, 334 ; of Wickliffe, 334. In the fifteenth century— 
 of Waldenses, 335 ; of Petrus de Alliaco, of Biel, of Cajetan, of Suarez, 
 336. Opposition of these to decrees of Lateran, 337. Confession of 
 Vallenses of Piedmont, 338—340. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE HARMONY OF PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 EUCHARIST. 
 
 Suitability of characters raised up for the work of the Reformation, 341. 
 
 Luther only applied the match to the train, 342. The ¢dentity of the 
 antecedent demands for reformation, and those effected in the sixteenth 
 century, 342. Scarcely any essential difference of opinion on the sub- 
 ject of Eucharist among Protestant Churches, 343. 
 
 Extracts from Protestant Confessions. 
 I. From the Latter Confession of Helvetia, . . 3844—50 
 
 II. » Former ; . 3850—55 
 ΠῚ: » Confession of πῆς : ; . . 855—56 
 IV. 2 Ε: Bohemia, : 3 . 3856—61 
 
 Vi is 6 France, . : . . 961-09 
 VI. 5 - England, : ; . 3863—67 
 
 VII. H 55 Scotland, . ; : 367—68 
 a 3 Do. ( Westminster ΠῚ 368—70 
 
 VIII. 3 3 Belgia, . : . . 970--.7 
 IX. ΩΣ pS Augsburg, . : . 979--δβ 
 
 X. ᾿" Ξ Saxony, . : . . 889—97 
 ΧΙ. 3 " Wirtemburg, : . 397-404 
 
 XII. Sueveland, : . 405-409 
 
 Identity of τ τ indicates identity of its origin, 409. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BELIEF OF THE GREEK CHURCH ON THE ARTICLE OF 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 No pure Greek ecclesiastical writer used a word equivalent to transub- 
 
 stantiation, 411. Their strongest language no evidence of such belief 
 (Cabasilas), 413. Mr. Arnaud quotes unfairly, 413. The Greeks do 
 not believe that the words of consecration transubstantiate elements, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 —Mr. Claude’s instances, 414—417. Greeks teach that the wicked 
 do not receive the body and blood of Christ in Eucharist—instances, 
 418—420. Claude’s conclusions thereon, 420. Cabasilas on the thing 
 received in the Lord’s Supper, 421 ; and mode of reception, 422 ; and 
 who receive, 422. Claude’s πῶσ Ὁ 423. Greek Church aes not 
 adore the host, 424. Testimony of Stephen Stylite, 424; of Damascene, 
 425. Damascene on the worship of the Trinity, 426. Romanists ac- 
 knowledge this defect in the worship of the Greeks, 426, 427. Testimony 
 of modern Greeks — of Christopher Angelus, 428; of Metrophanus 
 Critopulas, 428; of Melitius, 429. Declaration of Jeremias, 429. 
 Confession of Gyrillus Lucar, 430. Belief of the Syrian Church of 
 Malabar, 480. Decree of the Council of Diamper, 431. Conclusive 
 evidence of this decree to the ancient faith of the Syrian Church, 432. 
 Conclusion, 423. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 PAGE 
 Book of Ratramn on the Body and Blood of the Lord, . é : vil 
 Paschal Homily of Ailfric, from the reprint of 1623, ‘ τα x 
 Appendix A. On Baptismal Regeneration, : : ς xlix 
 
 Appendix B. Defence of assertion in Catechism, “ in Ne bapuee 
 
 wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and 
 
 an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven,” . : : "Ὲ liv 
 Appendix C. On the nature of a Sacrament, : lviii 
 Appendix D. Extract from Augustine’s Commentary 0 ou the 99th 
 
 Psalm, é ote lix 
 Appendix EH. Extract foe Cae Epis. 63. “Oe. ἘΠ : : lxi 
 Appendix F. Extract from Augustine’s De Civitate Dei, on sacri- 
 
 fices, . : : : : . : : : Ἔν ἢ xix 
 Appendix G. Justin Martyr’s account of mode of celebrating the 
 
 Eucharist in his days, . : ; : xxii 
 Appendix G (continued). The Opa ae Tenney d : lxxiv 
 Appendix H. Extract from Augustine’s Commentary on John vi. Ixxxiii 
 Appendix I. Dr. Claggett’s Paraphrase on John vi. ὃ Ιχχχὶχ 
 
 Appendix Κα. Birkbeck’s summary of Patristical Evidence on ie 
 
 Eucharist, for first five centuries, in reply to Bellarmine’s 
 - Ona Patrum,” : ‘ ; : : . τ  Oxauil 
 
ἘΓΕΓΒΑ TAG 
 ‘ —+— ν os 
 e 41, bottom line, for “Zuingluis,” read “ Zuinglius.” ; 
 » 149, line 30,—and in pp. 159, 165, 224 (note, line ear, “ anti-Nicene,” 
 
 read ante-Nicene. aN 
 964, line 28, for “cases,” read causes. 
 
 304, at foot, insert, see Appendix Κα. 
 499, line 8, for “ ever,” read every. 
 
ων Ν " 
 Nii) hwy, 
 
 say diy ἜΠΕΣΙΝ ν᾽ 
 
 1 pacts Ss ee 
 ae 
 
THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IN DECIDING CONTROVERSIES, 
 AND THE RIGHT USE OF THE FATHERS, 
 
 THE first thing to be settled, in the conducting of a controversy, 
 is the ultimate authority to which the disputants will defer. This 
 the Church of England has done, in her controversy with that 
 of Rome, in a manner at once singularly satisfactory and full. 
 “ Holy Scripture,” she says, “ containeth all things necessary 
 to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be 
 proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should 
 be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite 
 or necessary to salvation.”—(4r¢. vi.) And this statement she 
 cautiously guards against Church authority in these words :— 
 “Tt is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is 
 contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one 
 place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, 
 although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, 
 yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so 
 besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed 
 for necessity of salvation”—(Ar¢. xx.); and against general 
 councils as follows :—‘‘ Things ordained by them as necessary 
 to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be 
 
 declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.’"—(Art. xxi.) 
 B 
 
2 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 After these explicit declarations, not only of the absolute 
 sufficiency and supremacy of Scripture per se, but also of the 
 subjection of churches and councils to its authority, there can 
 be no suspicion that the Church of England recognizes the zpse 
 dixit of any particular Father, or intends her children to bow to 
 the private opinion of any individual of the ancient Church. 
 She who can say of the whole of any age assembled together, 
 “Forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not 
 governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and 
 sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God’— 
 (Art. xxi.), cannot give to one an authority which she denies 
 to the whole, nor recognize in division a strength which she does 
 not allow in combination. 
 
 But we are told that the convocation which imposed sub- 
 scription to the articles, prescribed this rule for the guidance of 
 preachers, viz., “that they were not to propound anything except 
 that which is consistent with the teaching of the Old and New 
 Testament, and that which the Catholic Fathers and ancient 
 Bishops have deduced from its teaching.” Now this rule appears 
 to us not only to be a very good one in itself, but does not 
 seem to be at all at variance with the solemn judgment of the 
 Church, as expressed in her articles above quoted. Nay, the 
 Church might have gone further, and have recommended the 
 study of the ancient Fathers as of great assistance in the eluci- 
 dation and understanding of Scripture, and generally helping in 
 its exegesis. But surely this would no more have been to 
 recognize them as an authority, than would the recommendation 
 of Scott's, or D’Oyly and Mant’s Commentary be an exaltation 
 of these into the place of an unquestioned arbiter. A testimonial 
 for orders required by every bishop from three beneficed clergy- 
 men runs—“ Nor hath he at any time, as far as we know or 
 believe, held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine 
 or discipline of the united Church of England and Ireland.” 
 But surely no one who signs such a document imagines that 
 he, by such phraseology, makes the formularies of the English 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 3 
 
 Church as of equal authority with the written word of God. Yet 
 such a conclusion would be just as natural from these words as 
 that, by the limitation above expressed with regard to the Fathers, 
 they were to be deemed beyond question, as having ‘ 
 in matters of faith.” 
 
 ‘ authority 
 
 In assigning to the early bishops of the Christian Church this 
 subordinate place, the Church of England has only adopted the 
 suggestions of common sense, and placed the Fathers where they 
 have placed themselves. The very idea of a written revelation 
 from heaven must put every other authority into the shade, and 
 the writers of the primitive Church were ever and unanimously 
 anxious not only to defer themselves to the authority of divine 
 revelation, but were very careful to give a catalogue of the books 
 which they considered inspired. It is not to be denied, that 
 sometimes these men use phrases which might seem, when taken 
 abstractedly, to claim for themselves something like inspiration ; 
 but all those expressions are very fairly interpretable in consis- 
 tence with sound doctrine ; for when they say they speak “ by 
 the Spirit,” they only mean that which is meant by the same 
 expression among religious persons in this day. The pious 
 prayer of the minister of God in the pulpit for divine direction, 
 or the assertion by him that he declares “ the counsel of God,” 
 are expressions of exactly the same kind as those to which we 
 have referred in the Fathers. 
 
 To make this apparent, and in vindication of the assertion 
 above, that the Fathers placed themselves in entire subordination 
 to the written records of heaven, two or three passages shall be 
 adduced. ‘These will at once prove the whole point, and fully 
 vindicate the English Church in giving but a qualified sanction 
 to what is found in the writings of the early Fathers. When 
 Augustine, in a contest with Jerome, had some half dozen Greek 
 Fathers alleged against him by the latter, he says : 
 
 ‘“T confess, that I only owe to those books of Scripture which are 
 now called canonical, that reverence and honour, as to believe stedfastly 
 that none of their authors ever committed any error in writing the 
 
4 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 same. And if by chance I there meet with any thing, which seemeth 
 to contradict the truth, I immediately think that either my copy is 
 imperfect, and not so correct as it should be; or else, that the inter- 
 preter did not so well understand the words of the original : or lastly, 
 that I myself have not so rightly understood him. But as for all 
 other writers, however eminent they are, either for sanctity or learning, 
 I read them in such manner as not instantly to conclude that whatever 
 I there find is true, because they have said it; but rather, because they 
 convince me, either out of the said canonical books of Scripture, or else 
 by some probable reason, that what they say is true. Neither do Τ 
 think, brother, that thou thyself art of any other opinion: that is to 
 say, I do not believe that thou expectest that we should read thy books, 
 as we do those of the Prophets or Apostles; of the truth of whose 
 writings, as being exempt from all error, we may not in anywise 
 doubt.”* 
 
 And again, when he had himself brought against Jerome some 
 other writers, he says expressly that he does not quote them as 
 authorities : 
 
 “1 have alleged these,” he says, ‘‘ notwithstanding that, to say the 
 truth, I account the canonical Scriptures only to be the books to 
 which (as I said before) I owe that ingenuous duty, as to be fully 
 persuaded that the authors of them never erred, or deceived the reader 
 in any thing.”} 
 
 And again, after saying we make a distinction between the books 
 
 of later writers, and the excellency of the canonical authority of 
 the Old and New Testament, he proceeds : 
 
 * Ego enim fateor caritati tue solis eis Scripturarum libris, qui jam canonici 
 appellantur, didici hunc timorem, honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem 
 scribendo aliquid errasse firmissimé credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero litteris, 
 quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam mendosum esse codicem, vel 
 interpretem non assequutum esse quid dictum est, vel me minimé intellexisse, non 
 ambigam. Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate, doctrinaque preepolleant, 
 non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi, vel per illos auctores 
 canonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod A vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt. 
 Nec te, mi frater, sentire aliquid aliter existimo : prorsus inquam, non te arbitror sic 
 legi libros tuos velle tanquam Prophetarum vel Apostolorum, de quorum scriptis, quod 
 omni errore careant, dubitare nefarium est.—August. ep. ad Hier. que est 19. t. 2. 
 Jol. 14. ed. Paris. 1579, et enter Op. Hier. 97. t. 2. p. 551. 
 
 + Quanquam, sicut pauld anté dixi, tantummodo Scripturis canonicis hane ingenuam 
 debeam servitutem, qua eas solas ita sequar, ut conscriptores earum nihil in eis omnind 
 errasse, nihil fallaciter posuisse non dubitem.—Zd. ibid. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 5 
 
 * As for the writings of those other authors who have come after 
 them, the number whereof is almost infinite, though coming very far 
 short of this most sacred excellency of the canonical Scriptures, a man 
 may sometimes find in them the very same truth, though it shall not 
 be of equal authority. Therefore if by chance we here meet with such 
 things as seem contrary to the truth, by reason, perhaps, of our not 
 understanding them only, we have our liberty, either in reading or 
 hearing the same, to approve of what we like, and to reject that which 
 we conceive not to be right. So that except all such passages be made 
 good, either by some certain reason, or else by the canonical authority 
 of the Scriptures: and that it be made to appear, that what is asserted 
 either really is, or else at least that it might have been ; he that shall 
 reject or not assent to the same, ought not in any wise to be repre- 
 hended.” * 
 
 And that Augustine was not wrong in attributing to his oppo- 
 nent the same opinion of the absolute superiority and unap- 
 proachableness of the inspired books, is seen by Jerome’s own 
 testimony to the same effect. In the preface to his second 
 Commentary upon Hosea, he says: 
 
 “Then (that is, after the authors of books are once departed this life) 
 we judge of their worth and parts only, not considering at all the 
 dignity of their name: and the reader has regard only to what he reads, 
 and not to the author of the work. So that whether he were a bishop 
 or a layman, a general and a lord, or a common soldier and a servant ; 
 whether he lie in purple and silk, or in the vilest and coarsest rags, he 
 shall be judged, not according to his degree of honour, but according to 
 the merit and worth of his works.’’} 
 
 * In opusculis autem posteriorum, que libris innumerabilibus continentur, sed 
 nullo modo illi sacratissime canonicarum Scripturarum excellentiz cozquantur, etiam 
 in quibuscumque eorum invenitur eadem veritas, longe tamen est impar auctoritas. 
 Itaque in eis, si qua forte propterea dissonare putantur a vero, quia non, ut dicta sunt, 
 intelliguntur, tamen liberum ibi habet lector, auditorve judicium quo vel approbet quod 
 placuerit, vel improbet quod offenderit: et ideo cuncta ejusmodi, nisi vel certa ratione, 
 vel ex illa canonica auctoritate defendantur, ut demonstretur sive omnino ita esse, sive 
 fieri potuisse, quod vel disputatur ibi, vel narratum est, si cui displicuerit, aut credere 
 voluerit, non reprehenditur.— August. Ep. ad Hier. 1. 11, contra. Faust. c. 5. 
 
 For further declarations of the same character, see August. Ep. ad Hier. t. 2. Epist. 
 48, ep. 111, t. 3,1. 1, 8, de Trinit. c. 2, 1. 8, preefat. 1. 5, c. 1, t. 7, 1. 2, contr. crescon. 
 Gram. c. 31, et c. 32, 1. 2, de Bapt. contr. Don. c. 3, 1. 3, de Peccat. mer. et rem c. 7, 
 c. 1, de Nat. et grat. c. 61,1. 4, contr. de ep. Pelag. c. 8, 1. 1, contr. Julian. 6. 2,1. de 
 bon. persever. c. 21. 
 
 + Tune sine nominum dignitate, sola judicantur ingenia; nee considerat, qui 
 
6 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Again, when speaking of the Fathers (as we call them) in general, 
 he says: 
 
 «Tt may be that they have erred out of mere ignorance, or else that 
 they wrote in some other sense than we understand them; or that their 
 writings have been corrupted, through the ignorance of the transcribers ; 
 or else before the appearing of that impudent devil Arius, in the world, 
 they let some things fall from them innocently, and not so warily as 
 they might have done; and such as can hardly escape the cavils of 
 
 yy 
 
 wrangling spirits.’ 
 
 We are not, therefore, at all surprised at the following rule of 
 Jerome, respecting the Fathers, and it is a thoroughly Protestant 
 one: 
 
 “Read Origen, Tertullian, Novatus, Arnobius, Apollinaris, and others 
 of the ecclesiastical writers; but with this caution, that we should make 
 choice of that which is good, but take heed of embracing that which is 
 not so; according to the apostle, who bids us prove all things, but hold 
 fast only that which is good.’’} 
 
 In short, with regard to the very works to which, in these 
 days, some would refer us as to authorities, Jerome himself says: 
 
 “And thus have I briefly delivered to you my opinion; but if any 
 one produce that which is more exact and true, take his exposition 
 rather than mine.”} 
 
 lecturus est, cujus, sed quale sit quod lecturus est, sive sit episcopus, sive sit laicus, 
 imperator et dominus, miles et servus, aut in purpura et serico, aut vilissimo panno 
 jaceat, non honorum diversitate, sed operum merito judicabitur.—Hier. Com. 2, in 
 Oseam, Prefat. 
 
 *« Fieri enim potest, ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensu scripserint, vel a 
 librariis imperitis eorum paulatim scripta corrupta sint; vel certé antequam in Alexan- 
 dria quasi demonium meridianum Arius nasceretur, innocenter quedam, et minus 
 caute loquuti supt, et que non possint perversorum hominum calumniam declinare.-— 
 Hier. 1. 2. Apol. contra. Ruff. 
 
 + Ego Origenem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror, quomodo 
 Tertullianum, Novatum, Arnobium, Apollinarium, et nonnullos ecclesiasticos scriptores, 
 Grecos pariter, et Latinos, ut bona eorum eligamus, vitemusque contraria ; juxta 
 apostolum dicentem, Omnia probate ; quod bonum est tenete.—Id. Ep. 76, ad Tranquil. 
 
 { Si quis autem his sagaciora et veriora repererit, illi magis explanationi prebete 
 consensum.—Hier. Com. 2. in Abac. 
 
 Again: Si quis autem magis verisimilia, et habentia rationem, quam a nobis sunt 
 disserta, repererit, illius magis lector auctoritate ducatur.—Jd. in Sophon. 
 
 And, Hee ut quivimus, ut vires ingenioli nostri ferre potuerunt, loquuti sumus, et 
 Hebreorum et nostrorum varias opiniones breviter perstringentes. Si quis melius, 
 imo verius dixerit; et nos libenter melioribus acquiescimus.— Hier. Com. in Zach. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. & 
 
 Now, surely no sane man would deny that it would be doing 
 a double wrong to force upon these Fathers a position which they 
 refuse, and an authority which they repudiate ;—a wrong, in the 
 first instance, to the supremacy of God's word, and next to the 
 writings of these men who emphatically disclaim any authority 
 for them. He is not the individual to do honor to Augustine, 
 who forces him into an unwilling rivalry with St. Paul, and who 
 compels us to vindicate Jerome’s estimate of his own works, by 
 ransacking them for proofs of their fallibility. The Church of 
 England gives to the ancient writers just that place which reason 
 and themselves claim, and which the supreme authority of the 
 inspired records nowhere disallows. 
 
 If it were necessary, we might shew that it is impossible that 
 the Fathers could be called in to decide the controversies of the 
 present day from the scantiness of the writings of the first three 
 centuries, and from the absence in what we have of any reference 
 to the subjects now in dispute amongst us. It is well known, 
 also, that the writings of the Fathers have been very largely 
 corrupted by interpolations, omissions, and absolute forgeries, so 
 that there is no certainty that what we have in our hands are 
 the writings of those whose names they bear. Furthermore, the 
 difficulties, which are alleged to le in the way of understanding 
 the Sacred Scriptures, lie equally against understanding the 
 writings of the Fathers, — difficulties, I mean, arising from their 
 obsolete languages, different customs, countries, and ages. The 
 Fathers, too, were not always honest men themselves, — they 
 acknowledge to concealment and reservation in stating their own 
 opinions and those of their adversaries, and of using arguments 
 to silence an opponent, which he acknowledged to be valid, but 
 they did not. ‘The Fathers, too, like all other men, often changed 
 their opinions, and recanted in later life what: they considered 
 the errors of their earlier days. We have no certainty, moreover, 
 that in the writings which are extant, we have the views of the 
 ancient Church fairly and fully represented. Fathers wrangled 
 with Fathers, as well as with confessed heretics; and who is to say, 
 
8 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which is to be considered the champion of the Church? It may 
 be that neither of them was, or that each had many followers. 
 Such things happen to-day, and for aught we can see to the 
 contrary, such was likely to be the case in the earlier ages of 
 the Church’s history. Of this, however, there can be no question, 
 many of the Fathers have held very different and very erroneous 
 opinions, and that too on questions of vital importance; and it 
 is not to be wondered at, that, after all the lofty claims made 
 on behalf of the early ecclesiastical writers, and the lowly defer- 
 ence professed to be paid to them, neither Protestant nor Papist 
 receives more of any than he feels convenient, and unhesitatingly 
 repudiates what is not to his liking. Professions are easy, but 
 we really find neither party giving an unqualified adherence to 
 any writer, however much he may be the object of their boast. 
 Those who wish to see more on this subject may well consult 
 “ Daillé on the right use of the Fathers.” It is possible that this 
 learned foreigner depreciates too much the value of ecclesiastical 
 testimony. This, however, is not the danger among ourselves in 
 the present day. The reader may be glad to see the view of the 
 whole matter as it presented itself to the shrewd mind of Bishop 
 Warburton, and thus expressed in his introduction to Julian : 
 
 “The authority of the Fathers had for many ages been esteemed 
 sacred. These men, by taking the Greek philosophers to their assist- 
 ance, in explaining the nature and genius of the Gospel, had unhappily 
 turned religion into an art; and their successors the schoolmen, by 
 framing a body of theology out of them, instead of searching for it in 
 the Scriptures, soon after turned it into a trade. But (as in all affairs 
 where reason does not hold the balance) that which had been extrava- 
 gantly advanced, was, on the turn of the times, as extravagantly 
 undervalued. It may not therefore be amiss to acquaint the English 
 reader, in few words, how this came to pass. 
 
 “When the avarice and ambition of the Romish Clergy had, by 
 working with the superstition and ignorance of the people, erected what 
 they call their hierarchy, and digested an ecclesiastical policy on the 
 ruins of Gospel liberty, for the administration of it, they found nothing 
 of such use for the support of this lordly system as the making the 
 authority of the Fathers sacred and decisive. For having introduced 
 
--- 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 9 
 
 numerous errors and superstitions both in rites and doctrine, which the 
 silence and the declaration of Scripture equally condemned, they were 
 obliged to seal up those living oracles, and open this new warehouse of 
 the dead. And it was no wonder if in that shoal of writers (as a poet 
 of our own calls it) which the great drag-net of time liath inclosed, and 
 brought down to us, under the name of Fathers, there should be some 
 amongst them of a character suited to countenance any kind of folly or 
 extravagance. ‘The decisions of the Fathers, therefore, they thought fit 
 to treat as laws, and to collect them into a kind of code, under the title 
 of the Sentences. 
 
 ‘From this time every thing was tried at the bar of the Fathers; 
 and so unquestioned was their jurisdiction, that when the great defection 
 was made from the Church of Rome back again to the Church of 
 Christ, the reformed, though they shook off the tyranny of the Pope, 
 could not disengage themselves from the unbounded authority of the 
 Fathers ; but carried that prejudice with them, as they did some others 
 of a worse complexion, into the Protestant religion. For in sacred 
 matters, as novelty is suspicious, and antiquity venerable, they thought 
 it for their credit to have the Fathers on their side. They seemed 
 neither to consider antiquity in general as a thing relative, nor Chris- 
 tian antiquity as a thing positive: either of which would have shewn 
 them that the Fathers themselves were modern, compared to that 
 authority on which the Reformation was founded ; and that the Gospel 
 was that true antiquity on which all its followers should repose them- 
 selves. ‘The consequence of which unhappy error was, that, in the long 
 appeal to reason, between Protestants and Papists, both of them going 
 on a common principle, of the decisive authority of the Fathers, enabled 
 the latter to support their credit against all the evidence of common 
 sense and sacred Scripture. 
 
 “At length an excellent writer of the Reformed, observing that the 
 controversy was likely to be endless ; for though the gross corruptions 
 of Popery were certainly later than the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, 
 to which the appeal was usually made, yet the seeds of them being then 
 sown, and beginning to pullulate, it was but too plain there was hold 
 enough for a skilful debater to draw the Fathers to his own side, and 
 make them water the sprouts they had been planting: observing this, 
 I say, he wisely projected to shift the ground, and force the disputants 
 to vary their method, both of attack and defence. Jn order to this he 
 composed a discourse of the True Use of the Fathers; in which, with 
 uncommon learning and strength of argument, he shewed that the 
 Fathers were incompetent deciders of the controversies now on foot; 
 since the points in question were not formed into articles till long after 
 
 Cc 
 
10 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the ages in which they lived. ‘Lhis was bringing the Fathers from the 
 bench to the table; degrading them from the rank of judges into the 
 class of simple evidence; in which, too, they were not to speak, lke 
 Trish evidence, in every cause where they were wanted, but only to such 
 matters as were agreed to be within their knowledge. Had this learned 
 critic stopped here, his book had been free from blame; but at the 
 same time his purpose had in all likelihood proved very ineffectual ; for 
 the obliquity of old prejudices is not to be set straight by reducing it to 
 that line of right which barely restores it to integrity. He went much 
 further : and by shewing, occasionally, that, they were absurd interpre- 
 ters of holy writ; that they were bad reasoners in morals, and very 
 loose evidence in facts; he seemed willing to have his reader infer, that 
 even though they had been masters of the subject, yet these other 
 defects would have rendered them very unqualified deciders.” 
 
 But it is not my object, nor my wont, to depreciate the testi- 
 mony of the early Fathers and martyrs, whose noble defence of 
 the Christian faith, whether by their pens or by their lives, is 
 beyond all praise. To them we owe a debt of gratitude, which 
 we cannot, perhaps, well comprehend, much less repay. We are 
 ever ready to yield deference, when we cannot recognise authority, 
 and are glad to know their pious and learned thoughts, though 
 we may not bow to them as divine. It was the abuse of the 
 Fathers which led to the questioning of even their use. The 
 English Church has, however, wisely crushed the former, while 
 she sets her seal of approbation upon the latter. 
 
 It seems to me that I cannot conclude this branch of my 
 subject better than by producing the opinions of one or two 
 universally - acknowledged sound divines of the Reformed Church. 
 Jeremy Taylor and Richard Hooker are names which will be 
 held in reverence as long as the theology of the Church of 
 England is valued—of neither of whom can it be said that he 
 over-estimated the Bible or undervalued the Fathers. Views such 
 as theirs would keep us at once from yielding too much to other 
 men’s opinions, or having too great confidence in our own. 
 The va media is the way of the Church of England. 
 
 Jeremy Taylor, in his “ Liberty of Prophesying,” says as 
 follows : 
 
μ- 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 1] 
 
 “There are some that think they can determine all questions in the 
 world by two or three sayings of the fathers, or by the consent of so many 
 as they will please to call a concurrent testimony: but this consideration 
 will soon be at an end. For if the fathers, when they are witnesses of 
 tradition, do not always speak truth, as it happened in the case of 
 Papias, and his numerous followers for almost three ages together ; 
 then is their testimony more improbable, when they dispute or write 
 commentaries. 
 
 “The fathers of the first ages spake unitedly concerning divers 
 questions of secret theology, and yet were afterward contradicted by 
 one personage of great reputation, whose credit had so much influence 
 upon the world, as to make the contrary opinion become popular: why 
 then may not we have the same liberty, when so plain an uncertainty 
 is in their persuasions, and so great contrariety in their doctrines ? 
 But this is evident in the case of absolute predestination, which till 
 St. Austin’s time no man preached, but all taught the contrary; and 
 yet the reputation of this one excellent man altered the scene. But if 
 he might dissent from so general a doctrine, why may not we do so too 
 (it being pretended that he is so excellent a precedent to be followed), 
 if we have the same reason? He had no more authority nor dispensa- 
 tion to dissent than any bishop hath now. And therefore, St. Austin 
 hath dealt ingenuously; and as he took this liberty to himself, so he 
 denies it not to others, but indeed forces them to preserve their own 
 liberty. And therefore, when St. Jerome had a great mind to follow 
 the fathers in a point that he fancied, and the best security he had 
 was, ‘ Patiaris me cum talibus errare,’ St. Austin would not endure it, 
 but answered his reason, and neglected the authority.” 
 
 Ἢ * τε * * Ἔ * 
 
 “Tf I should reckon all the particular reasons against the certainty 
 of this topic, it would be more than needs as to this question, and 
 therefore I will abstain from all disparagement of those worthy person- 
 ages, who were excellent lights to their several diocesses and cures, 
 And therefore I will not instance that Clemens Alexandrinus* taught 
 that Christ felt no hunger or thirst, but ate only to make demonstra- 
 tion of the verity of his human nature ; nor that St. Hilary taught that 
 Christ, in his sufferings, had no sorrow; nor that Origen taught the 
 pains of hell not to have an eternal duration; nor that St. Cyprian 
 taught rebaptization; nor that Athenagoras condemned second mar- 
 riages; nor that St. John Damascenus said Christ only prayed in 
 appearance, not really and in truth: I will let them all rest in peace, 
 
 * Strom. 1. 9, et 6. 
 
12 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 and their memories in honour: for if I should inquire into the particular 
 probations of this article, I must do to them as I should be forced to 
 do now; if any man should say, that the writings of the schoolmen 
 were excellent argument and authority to determine men’s persuasions, 
 I must consider their writings, and observe their defaillances, their 
 contradictions, the weakness of their arguments, the misallegations of 
 Scripture, their inconsequent deductions, their false opinions, and all 
 the weaknesses of humanity, and the failings of their persons; which 
 no good man is willing to do, unless he be compelled to it by a pretence 
 that they are infallible; or that they are followed by men even into 
 errors or impiety. And therefore, since there is enough in the former 
 instances to cure any such mispersuasion and prejudice, I will not 
 instance in the innumerable particularities, that might persuade us to 
 keep our liberty entire, or to use it discreetly. For it is not to be 
 denied but that great advantages are to be made by their writings, ‘et 
 probabile est, quod omnibus, quod pluribus, quod sapientibus videtur τ᾿ 
 If one wise man says a thing, it is an argument to me to believe it in 
 its degree of probation, that is, proportionable to such an assent as the 
 authority of a wise man can produce, and when there is nothing against 
 it that is greater; and so in proportion higher and higher, as more 
 wise men (such as the old doctors were) do affirm it. But that which I 
 complain of is, that we look upon wise men that lived long ago, with so 
 much veneration and mistake, that we reverence them, not for having 
 been wise men, but that they lived long since. But when the question 
 is concerning authority, there must be something to build it on; a 
 divine commandment, human sanction, excellency of spirit, and great- 
 ness of understanding, on which things all human authority is regularly 
 built. But now if we had lived in their times (for so we must look 
 upon them now, as they did who without prejudice beheld them), I 
 suppose we should then have beheld them, as we in England look on 
 those prelates who are of great reputation for learning and sanctity: 
 here only is the difference; when persons are living, their authority is 
 depressed by their personal defaillances, and the contrary interests of 
 their contemporaries, which disband when they are dead, and leave 
 their credit entire upon the reputation of those excellent books and 
 monuments of learning and piety which are left behind. But beyond 
 this, why the bishop of Hippo shall have greater authority than the 
 bishop of the Canaries, ‘ceteris paribus,’ I understand not. For did 
 they, that lived (to instance) in St. Austin’s time, believe all that he 
 wrote? If they did, they were much to blame; or else himself was to 
 blame for retracting much of it a little before his death. And if while 
 he lived, his affirmative was no more authority than derives from the 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 13 
 
 credit of one very wise man, against whom also very wise men were 
 opposed, I know not why his authority should prevail farther now; for 
 there is nothing added to the strength of his reason since that time, 
 but only that he hath been in great esteem with posterity. And if that 
 be all, why the opinion of the following ages shall be of more force than 
 the opinion of the first ages, against whom St. Austin, in many things, 
 clearly did oppose himself, I see no reason. Or whether the first ages 
 were against him or no, yet that he is approved by the following ages, 
 is no better argument; for it makes his authority not be innate, but 
 derived from the opinion of others, and so to be ‘precaria,’ and to 
 depend upon others, who if they should change their opinions (and such 
 examples there have been many,) then there were nothing left to urge 
 our consent to him, which when it was at the best was only this, 
 because he had the good fortune to be believed by them that came after, 
 he must be so still: and because it was no argument for the old doctors 
 before him, this will not be very good in his behalf. The same I say 
 of any company of them, I say not so of all of them, it is to no purpose 
 to say it; for there is no question this day in contestation, in the 
 explication of which all the old writers did consent. In the assigna- 
 tion of the canon of Scripture, they never did consent for six hundred 
 years together; and then, by that time, the bishops had agreed 
 indifferently well, and but indifferently, upon that,—they fell out in 
 twenty more: and except it be in the Apostles’ creed, and articles of 
 such nature, there is nothing which may with any colour be called a 
 consent, much less tradition universal.”— Taylor's Lib. of Prop., Sec. 
 vitte 1,2, 3: 
 
 Hooker's testimony, in the middle of an argument to shew 
 the value of Patristical writings, runs thus : 
 
 “1 grant that proof derived from the authority of man’s judgment 
 is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof ; 
 and therefore, although ten thousand general councils would set down 
 one and the same definitive sentence concerning any point of religion 
 whatsoever, yet one demonstrative reason alleged, or one manifest 
 testimony cited from the mouth of God himself to the contrary, could 
 not choose but overweigh them all; inasmuch as for them to have been 
 deceived it is not impossible ; it is, that demonstrative reason or testi- 
 mony divine should deceive. NHowbeit in defect of proof infallible, 
 because the mind doth rather follow probable persuasions than approve 
 the things that have in them no likelihood of truth at all; surely if a 
 question concerning matter of doctrine were proposed, and on the one 
 
14 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 side no kind of proof appearing, there should on the other be alleged 
 and shewed that so a number of the learnedest divines in the world 
 have ever thought; although it did not appear what reason or what 
 Scripture led them to be of that judgment, yet to their very bare judg- 
 ment somewhat a reasonable man would attribute, notwithstanding the 
 common imbecilities which are incident into our nature.” — Hooker's 
 Eccl. Pol., Bk. ii., ch. vii. 5. 
 
 Having thus settled the true use of the Fathers, we must receive 
 them as invaluable witnesses of matters of fact, and living exam- 
 ples of the modes of thought and expression which prevailed in 
 their day in things appertaining to the Christian religion. With- 
 out, therefore, always agreeing with their views, or even acknow- 
 ledging the wisdom or judiciousness of them, we can consider 
 what they propound to us. If we are told that their views were 
 in a particular direction, we may examine their works to satisfy 
 ourselves as to whether the statement is true, without acknow- 
 ledging ourselves bound to accept what they held, nor in adducing 
 proofs to the contrary, should we be acting in opposition to our 
 own principles ; for we should not insist on the adoption by others 
 of what we adduce from the Fathers, because it was to be found 
 in them. It would no doubt be a great satisfaction to find our 
 Church at one with the churches of the earlier ages in faith 
 and practice, and this phase of the “ communion of saints” it is 
 ours thankfully to enjoy. 
 
‘ 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 15 
 
 CHL? THF, 
 
 CONSECRATION, AS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, NOT 
 ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM CONSECRATION WHEN USED IN OTHER 
 CASES. 
 
 Archdeacon Wilberforce opens his book with the satisfactory 
 declaration that “an enquiry into the nature of the Holy Eucha- 
 rist must be founded upon Scripture, and upon that passage 
 of Scripture by which the solemn rite was authorized as well as 
 explained.” And after quoting the few simple words of the Evan- 
 gelists as to the institution, he proceeds to say: 
 
 “Our Lord’s words (this is my body) involve this main truth — 
 that consecration is the essential characteristic of the Holy Eucharist. 
 For our Lord does not speak of bread at large, or wine in general, 
 but of This, ὁ. 6., of that which was consecrated, or set apart. No 
 doubt His words had a further application; their ultimate reference 
 was to ‘the inward part or thing signified,’ which was the real 
 object under consideration; but they had also an indirect relation 
 to ‘the outward and visible sign.’ Now viewing the thing in reference 
 to this last, it was the bread which He had blessed, over which He had 
 given thanks, and which He had broken; and the cup over which He 
 had given thanks; which were the subject-matter of His declaration. 
 The consecration, therefore, by which these elements were separated 
 from all co-ordinate specimens of the same material, is that circum- 
 stance which gives them the peculiar character which His words express. 
 And so we may learn also from the only other passage of Holy Scripture 
 in which this subject is formally treated. When St. Paul explains the 
 nature of the Holy Hucharist to the Corinthians, he refers to the 
 consecration of the elements as its distinguishing characteristic. ‘The 
 cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of 
 Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body 
 
sO aera ce THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of Christ?’ We may infer, therefore, that the elements, as consecrated, 
 ‘-are the subject spoken of: Our Lord’s awful words do not refer to 
 bread and wine at large, but to that which He held in His hands, and 
 '. which He had blessed.” —Doct. H. Euch. pp. 7, 8. 
 
 S. 
 
 Now, in the whole of this extract, although I feel that the idea 
 intended to be expressed by the Archdeacon is wholly beyond 
 and at variance with my own, yet there is but one sentence from 
 which I would dissent. That sentence is, ‘‘ No doubt His words 
 had a further application ; their ultimate reference was to ‘the 
 inward part or thing signified,’ which was the real object under 
 consideration ; but they had also an ¢ndirect relation to ‘ the 
 outward and visible sign.” The rest is all expressive of sound 
 Scriptural, Protestant doctrine, and in unobjectionable phraseo- 
 logy; and it was because it was felt not to go far enough in 
 conveying the erroneous idea of transubstantiation, or whatever 
 else the Archdeacon would call it, — (I shal! use this word, which 
 he does not repudiate, for want of a better),—that he put in that 
 unwarrantable sentence. 
 
 It is hardly to be supposed that any person could be found 
 to assert that, when our blessed Lord said “ this,” as he handed 
 the bread to his disciples, he meant aé/ bread, and not exclu- 
 sively the piece which he then held. I never yet met with any 
 individual who contended for any real or virtual connection 
 between bread as bread (1.6. bread in general) and our Lord's 
 body, between wine as wine (¢.e. wine in general) and his precious 
 blood. No doubt it is the consecration (7.6. the separation of a 
 given portion by prayer to a sacred use) which constitutes the 
 bread and the wine, in a sense, holy, and typical of those saving 
 realities, the names of which they sometimes bear. “‘ The con- 
 secration, by which these elements were separated from all other 
 co-ordinate specimens of the same material, is that circumstance 
 which gives them the peculiar character which our Lord’s words 
 express.” His ‘‘ awful words do not refer to bread and wine at 
 large, but to that which he held in his hands, and which he had 
 blessed.” 
 
 — δώδ,, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. ; pe hy 
 
 In exact accordance with this idea are the quotations from the 
 Fathers, made by the Archdeacon. It is “the food which is’ 
 
 ζ 
 
 sanctified by the word of prayer,” which is “ΠΟ longer common 
 bread and common drink,” but “the flesh and blood of the 
 incarnate Jesus,”* according to the figurative mode of speaking, 
 common amongst orientals and generally adopted by the early 
 Fathers, when they refer to the physical things used in the ordi- 
 nances of religious worship. It is when “the bread from the 
 earth receives the invocation of God,” that it is “no longer com- 
 mon bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly 
 
 and a heavenly.”+ Augustin well says: 
 
 «« Our bread and onr cup is not any one,’ 7.6. any specimen of the 
 food partaken, ‘but it is a mystical one, which is produced by a fixed 
 consecration, and does not come by growth. That which is not pro- 
 duced in this way, though it may be bread and a cup, is a means of 
 bodily refreshment, not a sacrament of religion.’} ‘ Before the blessing 
 of the sacred words another species is named ; after consecration the 
 Body is signified.’ Before consecration it is called a different thing; 
 after consecration it is called Blood.’’$ 
 
 We are free to confess that we have no other idea than that 
 which is so properly expressed in these quotations—viz., that it 
 is the prayer which is offered over the physical elements which 
 gives them their religious significance. Without this they would 
 have remained ‘common ;” by means of this they become in a 
 sense ‘‘ holy.” 
 
 But on what ground can it be asserted that the word-thds refers 
 not to the bread, visible and tangible, which was extended to the 
 disciples, in its primary and direct application, but that it only 
 made an ¢vdirect allusion to it? Nay; with what consistency 
 can such an assertion be made by the Archdeacon, when he him- 
 self, but a moment before, had logically divided the expression 
 “this is my body ” into a subject (this), copula (is), and predi- 
 cate (my body)? “This gives us,” he says, “three topics, 
 
 * Just. Mart. Apol. 1, 66. + Tren iv., 18, 5. 5. Aug. Con. Faus. xx. 13. 
 ἃ 5. Amb. de Myst. ix. 54. 
 D 
 
18 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which must be considered in order;” ‘‘ Our Lord does not speak 
 of bread at large, or wine in general, but of this, 1.6. of that which 
 was consecrated, or set apart.” Yet no sooner are these rational 
 words committed to paper,—no sooner have these Scriptural and 
 Protestant principles been enunciated, than it is added “ No 
 doubt their ultimate reference was to the inward part or thing 
 signified, they had an indirect relation to the ‘ outward and 
 visible sign.’” It is difficult here to tell which most to wonder at, 
 the all but total abandonment of the foregoing logical division of 
 the sentence, or the cool assumption of the whole question in 
 dispute. That no doubt is an instance of the excessive jealousy 
 with which we should read tractarian books. So far from there 
 being vo doubt, there is every doubt, and in fact the fullest 
 demonstration, that the word ¢hzs had no such ultimate referenee, 
 but had a natural and direct application to what our Lord held 
 in his hand. That such is the case has been shewn in some 
 degree by the remarks and quotations just made, and will be, 
 IT hesitate not to say, most fully demonstrated when I come to 
 that part of the subject,—viz , to shew the ¢rwe doctrine of the 
 second Sacrament. Let it, however, be here specially noted, with 
 what perfect coolness an assumption can be made, which, by 
 taking for granted,—yes, as even beyond a doubt,—the whole 
 subject of the controversy, settles it, and without one argument 
 on the side of the tractarians and Papists, against, as I believe, 
 reason, Protestantism, and Scriptural truth. 
 
 But while agreeing with the Scriptural and Catholic principle, 
 that it is the prayer which gives the religious significance to the 
 corporeal emblems in the Eucharisti¢ supper, it cannot be too 
 emphatically reprobated that the prayer used in this case has 
 a different effect, or that the significance is of a deeper or more 
 real nature, than in any other rite of our holy religion. There 
 is not a word in Scripture to lead us to imagine any thing of the 
 sort; nor is the testimony of divines, either ancient or modern 
 (always excepting the advocates of Romanism), in any, the smallest 
 degree, tending in this direction. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 19 
 
 It is, perhaps, not too much to assert that the Bible says 
 nothing whatever as to the consecration of the water in baptism. 
 The expression of the Apostle Paul, “that he might sanctify and 
 cleanse it (the Church), with the washing of water by the word,” 
 (Ziph. v. 26,) is ambiguous; and while the last three words may 
 refer to the prayer of consecration, they may also, as probably 
 they do, refer to the influence of the gospel preached. 
 
 Where, therefore, there is nothing on either side in the pages 
 of inspiration, we may enquire what the early Church thought 
 upon the matter. And herein the testimony of the Fathers is so 
 emphatic and numerous, that the wonder is that any person should 
 have had the temerity to hazard an assertion to the contrary. I 
 give the following extracts from Bingham (with the authorities), 
 in his own words, rather than incorporate them with any sentences 
 of my own, for this reason chiefly—viz., that it may be felt, as 
 Bingham did not write for the purpose of directly controverting 
 any opponent, his testimony is the more valuable and not to be 
 suspected. As far as I have had opportunity, I have considered 
 his authorities for myself, and verified his references. The result 
 of this, on my own mind, is fully to coincide with his conclusions, 
 to adopt the sentiments which he has expressed as my own, and, 
 in direct antagonism to Archdeacon Wilberforce, to assert that 
 the Fathers of the early Christian Church did not believe the 
 effects of consecration in the Eucharist as at all different from 
 those produced by prayers of consecration when used in baptism, 
 or in any other religious rite: 
 
 “Tmmediately after the unction the minister proceeded to consecrate 
 the water, or the bishop, if he were present, consecrated it, while the 
 priests were finishing the unction. For so the author under the name 
 of Dionysius represents it. While the priests, says he,* are finishing 
 the unction, the bishop comes to the mother of adoption, so he calls 
 the font, and by invocation sanctifies the water in it, thrice pouring in 
 some of the holy chrism in a manner representing the sign of the 
 cross. This invocation or consecration of the water by prayer, is 
 
 * Dionys. de Hierarch. Eccle. cap. 2. p. 253. 
 
20 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 mentioned by Tertullian; for he says,* The waters are made the 
 sacrament of sanctification by invocation of God. The Spirit imme- 
 diately descends from heaven, and resting upon them sanctifies them 
 by himself, and they, being so sanctified, imbibe the power of sancti- 
 fying. And Cyprian} declares, That the water must first be cleansed 
 and sanctified by the priest, that it may have power by baptism to 
 wash away the sins of man. And so the whole council of Carthage,{ 
 in the time of Cyprian, says, The water is sanctified by the prayer of 
 the priest to wash away sin. St. Austin often mentions this invocation 
 in his books of baptism. That water$ is not profane and adulterated, 
 over which the name of God is invoked, though the invocation be made 
 by profane and adulterous men. In another place|| he says, This 
 invocation was used both in consecrating the waters of baptism, and 
 the oil for unction, and the Eucharist, and in giving imposition of 
 hands. And the sacraments were valid, though it were a sinner or a 
 murderer that made the prayer. And again, answering the objection 
 of the Cyprianists and Donatists, that a wicked man or a heretic could 
 not sanctify the water, he says, Every error’ in the prayer of con- 
 secration does not destroy the essence of baptism, but only the want of 
 those evangelical words (he means the form of baptizing in the name 
 of the Trinity) instituted by Christ, without which baptism cannot be 
 consecrated. For otherwise, if the water were not consecrated when 
 the minister uses any erroneous words in his prayer, then not only 
 wicked men, but many good brethren, in the Church, did not sanctify 
 the water; for many of their prayers were daily corrected, when they 
 were rehearsed to those that were more learned, and many errors were 
 found in them contrary to the Catholic faith. Yet they that were bap- 
 tized when such prayers were said over the water, were not baptized 
 again. This is a plain evidence, that prayers of consecration were then 
 generally used both among the Catholics and Donatists, though neither 
 the use nor the orthodoxy of them were reckoned to be of absolute 
 necessity to the very.being and essence of baptism, which might consist 
 with great errors in such prayers. 
 
 “ Thirdly, I observe concerning the effects of this consecration, that 
 the very same change was supposed to be wrought by it in the waters 
 of baptism, as by the consecration of bread and wine in the Eucharist. 
 For they supposed not only the presence of the Spirit, but also the 
 mystical presence of Christ’s blood to be here after consecration. Julius 
 
 * Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 4. + Cyprian. Ep. 70. ad Januar. p. 190. 
 + Cone. Carthag. ap. Cypr. p. 233. 8 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 8. cap. 10. 
 || Id. de Bapt. lib. 5. cap. 20. q Aug. de Bapt. lib. 6. cap. 2. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 2] 
 
 Virmicus,* speaking of baptism, bids men here seck for the pure waters, 
 the undefiled fountain, where the blood of Christ, after many spots 
 and defilements, would whiten them by the Holy Ghost. Gregory 
 Nazianzen} and Basil+ say upon this account, That a greater than the 
 temple, a greater than Solomon, a greater than Jonas is here, meaning 
 Christ, by his mystical presence and the power of his blood. St. 
 Austin§ says, Baptism or the baptismal water is red, when once it is 
 consecrated by the blood of Christ; and this was prefigured by the 
 waters of the Red Sea. Prosper|| is bold to say, That in baptism we 
 are dipped in blood; and therefore martyrs are twice dipped in blood, 
 first in the blood of Christ at baptism, and then in their own blood at 
 martyrdom. St. Jeromef uses the same bold metaphor,explaining 
 those words of Isaiah, ‘ Wash ye, make ye clean: Be ye baptized in 
 my blood by the laver of regeneration. And again,** speaking of the 
 Ethiopian eunuch, he says, He was baptized in the blood of Christ, 
 about whom he was reading. After the same manner, Ceesarius says,{+ 
 The soul goes into the living waters, consecrated and made red by the 
 blood of Christ. And Isidoret{ says, What is the red sea, but baptism 
 consecrated in the blood of Christ? Others tell us, that we are hereby 
 made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, and eat his flesh, 
 according to what is said in St. John’s Gospel, ‘ Except ye eat the flesh 
 of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.’ Upon 
 which words Fulgentiuss$ founds the necessity of baptism: Forasmuch 
 as it may be perceived by any considering man, that the flesh of Christ 
 is eaten and his blood drunk in the laver of regeneration. Hence Cyril 
 of Alexandria says,|||| We are partakers of the spiritual Lamb in baptism. 
 And Chrysostom,{/{i That we thereby put on Christ, not only his Divi- 
 nity, nor only his humanity, that is, his flesh, but both together. And 
 Nazianzen,*** That in baptism we are anointed and protected by the 
 precious blood of Christ, as Israel was by the blood upon the door 
 posts in the night. St. Chrysostom }{{} says again, That they are bap- 
 tized, put on a royal garment, a purple dipped in the blood of the 
 Lord. Philo-Carpathius says, The spouse of Christ, his Church, 
 
 * Firmic. de Error. Profan, Relig. e. 28. + Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 657. 
 t Basil. de Bapt. lib. 1. 6. 2. t. 1. p. 558. § Aug. Tract. 11. in Joh. p. 41. 
 || Prosper. de Promissis. lib. 2. cap. 2. J Hieron. in Esai. i. 16. 
 ** Td. in Esai. liii. 7. ++ Cesar. Arelatens. Hom. 6 de Paschat. Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 276. 
 tt Isidor. Hispal. in Exod. xix. 88 Fulgent. de Bapt. A:thiop. cap. 11. p. 611. 
 |||| Cyril. in Exod. xii. lib 2. t. 1. p. 270. 
 44] Chrys. Serm. 27. de Cruce, t. 6. p. 293. *** Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 646. 
 +++ Chrys. Hom. 60. ad Illuminandos, t. 1. p. 796. 
 
22 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 receives in baptism the seal* of Christ, being washed in the fountain 
 of his most holy blood. Optatus,} as we have beard before, says, Christ 
 comes down by the invocation, and joins himself to the waters of baptisin. 
 Nay, Chrysostom,! in one of his bold rhetorical flights, scruples not 
 to tell a man that is baptized, that he immediately embraces his Lord 
 in his arms, that he is united to his body, nay, compounded or con- 
 substantiated with that body which sits above, whither the devil has 
 no access. Some tell us, as Isidore, that the water of baptism is the 
 water§ that flowed out of Christ’s side at his passion: and others, as 
 Laurentius Novariensis,|| that it is water mixed with the sacred blood 
 of the Son of God. Others tell τι, that the water is transmuted or 
 changed in its nature by the Holy Ghost, to a sort of Divine and 
 ineffable power. So Cyril of Alexandria, who frequently uses the 
 word μεταστοιχείωσις, transelementation, both when he speaks of the 
 water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Eucharist, or of any 
 other changes that are wrought in the mysteries of the Christian 
 religion. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory Nyssen have the same 
 observation upon the change that is wrought in the oil, after consecra- 
 tion, which they make to be the same with that of the bread and wine 
 in the Eucharist. Beware, says Cyril,** that you take not this oint- 
 ment to be bare ointment. For as the bread in the Eucharist, after 
 the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is not mere bread, but the body of 
 Christ ; so this holy ointment, after invocation, is not bare or common 
 ointment, but it is a gift of God that makes Christ and the Holy 
 Spirit to be present in the action. In like manner, Gregory Nyssen 
 makes the same change to be in the mystical oil, and in the altar 
 itself, and in the ministers by ordination, and in the waters of baptism, 
 as in the bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration. Do not 
 contemn, says he, the Divine laver, nor despise it as a common thing, 
 because of the uset} of water. For great and wonderful things are 
 wrought by it. This altar, before which we stand, is but common 
 stone in its own nature, differing nothing from other stones, wherewith 
 our walls are built; but after it is consecrated to the service of God, 
 and has received a benediction, is 15 ἃ holy table, an immaculate altar, 
 not to be touched by any but the priests, and that with the greatest 
 reverence. ‘The bread also is at first but common bread, but when 
 
 * Philo. in Cantic. iv. 12. + Optat. lib. 3. p. 62. 
 { Chrys. Hom. 6. in. Colos. p. 1349. § Isidor. de Offic. Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 24. 
 || Laurent. Novar. Hom. 1. de Peenitentia. Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 127. 
 1 Cyril. in Joh. iii. 5. p. 147. ** Cyril. Catech. Myst. 3. ἡ. 3. 
 
 ++ Nyssen de Baptismo Christi, τ, 3. p. 369. 
 
 ——— δνδδννδν να... ἑκα. .2 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 23 
 
 once it is sanctified by the holy mystery, it is made and called the 
 body of Christ. So the mystical oil, and so the wine, though they be 
 things of little value before the benediction, yet, after their sanctifi- 
 cation by the Spirit, they both of them work wonders. The same 
 power of the word makes a priest become honourable and venerable, 
 when he is separated from the community of the vulgar by a new 
 benediction. Fur he who before was only one of the common people, 
 is now immediately made a ruler and president, a teacher of piety, 
 and a minister of the secret mysteries: and all these things he does 
 without any change in his body or shape; for to all outward appear- 
 ance he is the same that he was, but the change 1s in his invisible soul, 
 by an invisible power and grace. Pope Leo* goes one step further, 
 and tells us, that baptism makes a change not only in the water, but 
 in the man that receives it; for thereby Christ receives him, and he 
 receives Christ, and he is not the same after baptism that he was 
 before, but the body of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of 
 him that was crucified. From all which it is easy to observe, that in 
 all these cases, the change which they speak of is not made in the 
 substance of the things, but in the qualities only; the water is not 
 the blood of Christ substantially and really, but only symbolically and 
 mystically ; nor is a man changed into the flesh of Christ thereby 
 any other way, than as he is made a living member of his mystical 
 body, participating of that Spirit whereby he rules and governs his 
 chureh, as the Head of it. So that when the ancients speak of a 
 Divine change or transelementation (for as yet the word transubstan- 
 tiation was not known) in the bread and wine in the Eucharist, they 
 are to be interpreted, as here we do in baptism, of a change in qualities 
 and powers, and not in substance ; since all the words they used to 
 express that change, are equally verified in the waters of baptisin 
 after consecration.”—Bingham on Consec. in Bapt. book xi. 6. 10, s. 1—4. 
 
 Now, after this clear and consistent testimony, what are we to 
 say of the distinction attempted to be made by the Archdeacon ? 
 It is manifest that it has no foundation in Scripture, and has no 
 sanction from the writings of the early Christian Fathers. The 
 standard divines of our own Church, as far as they touch upon 
 the subject, speak the same language as those of primitive times ; 
 so that Mr. Archdeacon Wilberfore is left in solitary dignity, save 
 in so far as support may be drawn for his teaching from heretical 
 
 * Leo, Serm. 14. de Passione, p. 62. 
 
24 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 sources,—such, that is, as regard neither the Bible nor primitive 
 Christianity in their attempt to build up a system of priestcraft, 
 
 its 
 
 which makes those who ought to be “‘ ministers” and our “ ser- 
 vants for Christ's sake,” “lords over God’s heritage,” if not 
 wolves to the flock. 
 
 I cannot here omit to notice, how unsatisfactory any doctrinal 
 conclusion must be which should be drawn from the names and 
 titles given by the Fathers to the elements used in the ordinances 
 of religion. It is manifest that they followed not only where 
 sound reason and judgment led in this matter, but also where the 
 most unlimited fancy invited. It must not be supposed that the 
 Fathers are censurable for this: they spoke in like manner of 
 everything in which they were concerned. It is, however, abso- 
 lutely necessary for us to be able to distinguish between the 
 conclusions of sober and enlightened judgment and the bold 
 flights of oriental imagination. In respecting the former, the 
 Fathers of the English Church in the sixteenth century brought 
 back the Church to the Scriptural model as we now have it; while 
 the divines of the Romish communion, by following the latter, 
 have fallen into such heresies as totally eclipse the sun of 
 righteousness, and virtually excluding Christ and his finished 
 work from His own revealed religion. 
 
 But another proof that the consecration of the Eucharistic 
 bread and wine is a consecration sw? generis, is given by the 
 Archdeacon in the following imaginary distinction between the 
 two sacraments. This distinction he fully sets out as follows : 
 
 «Tt will throw further light upon this subject, if we compare the 
 Holy Eucharist with that, which in many respects possesses a corres- 
 ponding character—the sacrament of baptism. Both of these ordi- 
 nances were instituted by Christ Himself; and both have an immediate 
 connexion with those blessings, which he bestows upon His mystical 
 Body. In both there is an inward grace and an outward sign. In 
 both the union of form and matter is necessary to the completeness of 
 that which is outward and visible. But in baptism the inward part 
 consists only of the benefit bestowed, whereas in the Holy Eucharist, 
 as our catechism reminds us, the thing signified is distinct from the 
 
 0 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 25 
 
 benefit by which it is attended. Baptism, that is, implies two parts 
 only, the outward symbol, and the inward gift ; but the Holy Eucharist 
 implies three—the outward sign, the inward part or thing signified, 
 and the accompanying blessing. In baptism, therefore, the outward 
 sign has no permanent relation to the inward grace, since the rite has 
 no existence save in the act of adnministration ; but in the Holy Kucha- 
 rist the outward sign has something more than a momentary connexion 
 with the thing signified. As respects baptism, therefore, Our Lord 
 used no words which imply that any particular portion of the element 
 employed is invested with a specific character: it was not this water, 
 but the element at large which was sanctified to be a pledge of the 
 “ mystical washing away of sin.” And the Church has always acted 
 upon this principle. It is orderly and decent that the water should 
 be set apart with prayer, and that the ceremony should be performed 
 by Christ’s minister; but the absence of these conditions does not 
 invalidate the act, either according to the belief of the ancient Church, 
 or according to the existing law of the Church of England. For the 
 setting apart of the element confers only a relative holiness; it is not 
 necessary to the validity of the sacrament; the inward grace is asso- 
 ciated with the act, and not with the element; and does not require 
 that the outward part should be brought into an abiding relation with 
 any inward part or thing signified. And for the same reason, the inter- 
 vention of the minister, however desirable, is not essential. A deacon, 
 in the priest’s absence, is as much authorized to baptize as a priest. 
 No doubt it might have pleased God to assign the same limitations in 
 the case of baptism which obtained in regard to the Holy Eucharist ; 
 but such limitations are not expressed in Scripture, nor has the thing 
 been so understood by the Church. ‘The priestly office, indeed, is 
 essential to the validity of baptism, because without it there can exist 
 no living branch of Christ’s Church, into which new members may be 
 engrafted ; but its relation to this sacrament is general, and not specific, 
 because baptism depends upon an act which all Christians may per- 
 form, and not upon any consecration which requires a special commission. 
 
 «‘ Now the reverse of all these things is true of the Holy Eucharist. 
 Here it is not the element at large which is spoken of, but this bread, 
 and this cup. The intervention of the minister is not matter of decent 
 ceremonial ; it is essential to the validity of the ordinance. For valid 
 baptism is that which is ministered to a competent receiver, but a valid 
 Eucharist is that which is received after consecration by an authorized 
 priest. It is obvious, then, that consecration is the essential charac- 
 teristic of this sacrament, since, but for it, the inward part and the 
 
 5 
 
26 THE TRUE DOCTKHINE 
 
 outward part cannot be brought together. And this fact is testified by 
 that law of our Church, which renders the services of the priest indis- 
 pensible in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, as it was testified by 
 the practice and assertions of antiquity.”—Doct. of H. Euch. pp. 183—15. 
 
 Now in this extract there are two things which specially claim 
 our attention. It is asserted—(1.) “That baptism implies zo 
 parts only—the outward symbol and the inward gift; but the 
 Holy Eucharist implies three—the outward sign, the inward part 
 or thing signified, and the accompanying blessing.” (2.) That 
 “it is orderly and decent that the water should be set apart with 
 prayer, and that the ceremony should be performed by Christ’s 
 minister ; but the absence of these conditions does not invalidate 
 the act, either according to the belief of the ancient Church, 
 or according to the existing law of the Church of England ;” 
 but in the Holy Eucharist, “ the intervention of the minister 
 is not matter of decent ceremonial ; it is essential to the validity 
 of the ordinance.” We will proceed to inquire, what foundation 
 there is for these distinctions in Scripture and in the writings of 
 divines, ancient and modern, when, if I mistake not, we shall find 
 that they are purely imaginary; having no authority but that 
 of the Church of Rome, while they are wholly inconsistent with 
 Scripture and the recorded opinions of the first theologians of the 
 early and the later churches. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. PHT 
 
 CHAPTER, {{Τ 
 
 THERE 18 NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SACRAMENTS, 
 BAPTISM AND THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 “ How many parts are there in a sacrament? ‘Two: the 
 outward visible sign and the inward spiritual grace.’ Such is 
 the instruction which the Church of England gives to her 
 children, as consonant with and derived from Scripture. She, 
 at all events, makes no such distinction as that which we have 
 alluded to—v.e., that baptism has two parts and the Eucharist 
 three. But as we are not required by the Church of which we 
 are members, to believe anything but what Scripture warrants, 
 we will turn our attention to the foundation of her teaching, and 
 judge for ourselves whether or not we are furnished with instruc- 
 tion, consistent with the word of God. 
 
 Let me bespeak the reader's steady attention to the following 
 passages. They are a selection of those which mention, 72 com- 
 
 ς 
 
 bination, the ““ outward and visible sign” and “the inward part 
 or thing signified” in baptism. The relation is both apposite 
 and natural :—‘‘I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance ; 
 but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am 
 not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost 
 and with jire;” “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
 straightway out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened 
 unto him, and he saw the Spirtt of God descending like a dove, 
 and lighting upon him.”— (Matt. iii., 11, 16.)* “ He that sent 
 me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom 
 
 * See also Mark i., 8; Luke iii., 16. 
 
28 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the 
 same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost ;” “ Jesus 
 answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born 
 of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God.”—(John i., 83; ii., 5.) ‘For John truly baptized with 
 water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
 days hence ;” “‘ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be bap- 
 tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ;” 
 “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, 
 which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?”—(Acts 1., 5; 
 ii, 88; x.,47.) “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
 one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond 
 or free ; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."— (1 
 Cor. xil., 18.) ‘ Not by works of righteousness which we have 
 done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of 
 regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”*—( Titus ii., 5.) 
 
 Now what, I would ask with confidence, must be the conviction 
 of any candid person on reading these passages ? Is it not that 
 the Holy Spirit is the thing signified by the water, and that, 
 as the water cleanseth the body, so the Holy Spirit sanctifieth the 
 soul? If Scripture be allowed to decide the controversy as to 
 whether or not there is a real inward part or thing signified in 
 baptism, there can be no doubt of the verdict. It is clear, 
 frequent, and unvarying. If any man cannot see this, it appears 
 to me he must be possessed of great mental obtuseness; if he 
 sees, and refuses to acknowledge, or, still worse, to misrepresent 
 it, he must be the subject of great moral obliquity. 
 
 There is another class of passages to which it may be well here 
 to refer, which, teaching the same doctrine under variety, strongly 
 confirm the views stated more directly in those above given :— 
 “ Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that 
 Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter 
 and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, 
 
 * See Appendix A. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 29 
 
 that they might receive the Holy Ghost: For as yet he was fallen 
 upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus. ‘Then laid they their hands on them, and they 
 received the Holy Ghost.” “And it came to pass, that, while 
 Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper 
 coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said 
 unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? 
 And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether 
 there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what 
 then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 
 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repent- 
 ance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him 
 which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When 
 they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
 And when Peul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost 
 came on them.’—(Ac¢és vili., 14—17; xix., 1—6.) 
 
 Now, whatever difficulty there may be in explaining the differ- 
 ence between John’s baptism and Christian baptism, or even that 
 in the former of the above quotations and the ordinary one in the 
 name of the Trinity, there is no question of this, that they were 
 both considered defective in not haying secured to their recipients 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit, whether in his ordinary or extraordi- 
 nary influences. This defect ied in the two divinely-recorded cases 
 to the imposition of hands by the Apostles for the supply of that 
 which was wanting, and in each case the means proved effectual. 
 T need scarcely say, that these are two of the passages upon which 
 is built “the doctrine of laying on of hands,” or confirmation, 
 a rite placed next to that of baptism by St. Paul (Hed. vi., 2), 
 and which he enumerates as among the first ‘‘ principles of the 
 doctrine of Christ.” It was passages such as these which led the 
 ancient Church to consider confirmation as a necessary part of 
 even baptism itself, and caused them to administer it ¢mmediately 
 after the sacramental rite. And that the early Fathers considered 
 the Holy Spirit the thing signified in baptism, and that they 
 administered the rite of confirmation to render the sacrament 
 complete, I will adduce a few passages to shew: 
 
30 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 “ But it will be sufficient to have briefly premised these things, 
 among which is also recognised that first notice of baptism, whereby 
 even at that time it was, by the very posture, fore-signified as a figure 
 of baptism, that the Spirit of God, Which, in the beginning, was borne 
 above the waters, will still abide upon the waters as the baptizer. But 
 an Holy Thing was surely borne above an holy, or that which bore 
 borrowed holiness from that which was borne above it; since every 
 substance lying beneath must needs catch the quality of that which 
 lieth above: specially the bodily that of the spiritual, which, by the 
 subtlety of its own nature, can easily penetrate and sink into it. Thus 
 the nature of water sanctified by the Holy One, itself also received the 
 power of sanctifying.” “ Wherefore all waters, from the ancient privi- 
 lege of their origin, obtain, after prayer to God, the sacrament of 
 sanctification. For the Spirit straightway cometh down from the 
 heavens above, and is over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; 
 and so sanctified they imbibe the power of sanctifying.”* 
 
 «Not that we obtain the Holy Spirit} in the water, but being 
 cleansed in the water, under the Angel, we are prepared for the Holy 
 Spirit. Here also hath a figure gone before. For thus was John 
 aforetime the forerunner of the Lord, ‘preparing His way:’ and so 
 also for the Holy Spirit, about to come upon us, doth the Angel, the 
 witness of Baptism, ‘ make the paths straight,’ by the washing away of 
 sins, which Faith obtaineth, being sealed ‘in the Father, and in the 
 Son, and in the Holy Ghost.’ ”} 
 
 «A symbol of the Spirit is in it, yea a type of the Holy Spirit, 
 who is mingled in water that it may become a propitiation, and is 
 blended with bread that it may become a Sacrifice.” ‘ Lo! Fire and 
 Spirit in that river wherein Thou wert baptized, Fire and Spirit in our 
 baptism.Ӥ 
 
 * Tertul. de Bapt. sec. 4. 
 
 + i.e. not fully; His complete gifts being bestowed through the Anointing c. 7, 
 and imposition of hands as part of Baptism (see Scriptural Views, p. 153, note). For 
 since Tertullian (with all other Fathers) believed Baptism to be the birth “ of water 
 and the Spirit,” those so born could not be without the Spirit, see below, c. 13, and 
 de Anima c. 41, “ re-formed by the second birth of water and the power from above,” 
 de Pudic. c. 6, “whatsoever flesh hath in Christ put off its former defilements, is now 
 wholly another thing ; it cometh up [out of the water] new, born of pure water and 
 the cleansing Spirit.” In like way, Pam. remarks that 5. Cyprian says, Ep. 62 ad 
 Cecil. § 5, “ By Baptism the Holy Spirit is received,’ and yet Ep. 69 ad Januar. 
 ““Whoso has been baptised must also needs be anointed, that having received the 
 Chrism, 1.6. the anointing, he may be the anointed of God, and have within him the 
 grace of God.” This, be it remembered, is tractarian teaching. 
 
 1 Tertul. de Bapt. sec. 6. § S. Ephren’s Hom. Rhy. x. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 91 
 
 ‘‘ And as the element of fire, when it meets with ore from the 
 mine, straightway of earth makes it gold, even so and much more 
 baptism makes those who are washed to be of gold instead of clay, 
 the Spirit at that time falling like fire into our souls, burning up the 
 image of the earthly, and producing the image of the heavenly, fresh 
 coined, bright and glittering, as from the furnace-mould.”* ‘* That the 
 need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this 
 way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the 
 water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though 
 the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says: 
 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which 
 have received the Holy Ghost as well as τὐὸ 31 ““ First then, as I before 
 said, He causeth defilements of our bodies, and afterwards infirmities 
 of different kinds, to be done away by water. Because God, desiring 
 to bring us nearer to faith in baptism, no longer healeth defilements 
 only, but diseases also. or those figures which came nearer [in 
 time] to the reality, both as regarded baptism, and the Passion, and 
 the rest, were plainer than the more ancient; and as the guards near 
 the person of the prince are more splendid than those before, so was 
 it with the types. And an Angel came down and troubled the water, 
 and endued it with a healing power, that the Jews might learn that 
 much more could the Lord of Angels heal the diseases of the soul. 
 Yet as here it was not simply the nature of the water that healed, 
 (for then this would have always taken place), but water joined to the 
 operation of the Angel; so in our case, it is not merely the water that 
 worketh, but when it hath received the grace of the Spirit, then it 
 putteth away all our sins.” 
 
 “Βα why does Christ say, Ye shall be baptized, when in fact there 
 was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of 
 baptism is the Spirit, through whom indeed the water has its opera- 
 tion; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not 
 that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because he had received 
 the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with 
 water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. 
 In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided.’’§ 
 
 “ What then, my brethren? Because now, he who is baptized in 
 Christ and believeth in Christ, doth not speak with tongues of all 
 nations, is he not to be thought to have received the Holy Ghost ? 
 God forbid that our heart should be tempted to this faithlessness. 
 
 * S. Chrysostom on S. John, Hom. x. + Ib. xxv. 1 Ib. xxxvi. 
 § 8. Chrysostom on the Acts, Hom. i. 
 
ae THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 We are sure that every one doth receive: only, how great the vessel 
 of faith that he bringeth to the Fountain, so much doth he fill the 
 same withal.”* 
 
 «What meaneth, Rivers of living water? What is that water ? 
 Let no man ask me; ask the Gospel. But this, saith it, He said of 
 the Spirit, which they should receive that should believe on Him. 
 Consequently, the water of the Sacrament is one thing: another, the 
 water which betokens the Spirit of God. The water of the Sacrament 
 is visible: the water of the Spirit invisible. Z’hat washes the body, 
 and betokens that which is done in the soul. By this Spirit the soul 
 itself is cleansed and fed.” + 
 
 “« He that believeth on Me,’ as the Scripture saith, ‘ out of his 
 belly shall flow rivers of living water.’} And that it might be more 
 manifest that the Lord there speaks not of the cup, but of baptism, the 
 Scripture added, ‘But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that 
 believe on Him should receive.’ For by baptism the Holy Spirit is 
 received, and so they that are baptized and have obtained the Holy 
 Spirit, come to drink of the cup of the Lord.”§ “ How unmeaning 
 too were it, that whereas the second birth, whereby we are born in 
 Christ through the laver of regeneration, is spiritual, some say that 
 map may _be spiritually born among heretics, with whom they deny the 
 Spirit to be. For water alone cannot cleanse sins and sanctify a man, 
 unless it have also the Holy Ghost. Wherefore they must needs con- 
 cede either that the Spirit is there, where they say baptism is; or 
 that that is not baptism, where the Spirit is not, in that baptism cannot 
 be without the Spirit.” 
 
 «And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spake with his Divine 
 voice, saying, ‘ xcept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 caunot enter into the kingdom of God.’ This is the Spirit which from 
 the beginning ‘ moved upon the face of the waters.’ For neither can 
 the Spirit act without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. Ill, 
 therefore, to themselves do those interpret, who say, that by imposition 
 of hands they receive the Holy Ghost, and are so received ; whereas it 
 is manifest that they ought by both Sacraments to be born again in 
 the Catholic Church." 
 
 «For saith St. Basil,** * If there be any grace in the water, it is not 
 from the nature of the water, but from the presence of the Spirit.’ 
 
 * S. Augustine on S. John, Hom. xxxii. + Ib. on 1 Ep. John, Hom. vi. 
 + John vii., 37, 38. 8 S. Cyprian, Ep. Ixiii. c. 5. || Ib. Ixxiv. ec. J. 
 4 5. Cyprian, Con, Car. c. 5. **Basil. de Spiritu S. c. 15. p. 323, v. 2. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 33 
 
 ‘And the water,* saith Cyril of Jerusalem, ‘ purges the body, but it 
 is the Spirit that signs the soul. When, therefore, thou art descending 
 into the water, do not look upon the bare water, but lay hold upon 
 salvation by the working of the Holy Ghost.’+ ‘ But this benefit,’ 
 saith Gregory Nyssen, ‘the water itself doth not afford us, for it is the 
 weakest of all creatures; but the command of God, and the coming of 
 the Holy Ghost, coming mystically to our redemption.’ "— Beveridge 
 on Art. XXVil. 
 
 But there must be an end of quotation. Folios might be filled 
 with similar sentiments out of the writings of the early Fathers. 
 There is no form in which the same doctrine does not appear in 
 them, from the simple assumption of the necessary connection of 
 the water and the Spirit in baptism, down to the most fanciful 
 proofs and puerile arguments for it. Nor is it different in our 
 own Church, among either the theologians of the past or the 
 present. The verata questio of baptism is not as to its signifi- 
 cance, or the reality of its inward and outward parts, but as to 
 their connection, whether xecessary or not. Our Church begins 
 her office by assuring those who bring children to be baptized, 
 that, according to our Lord’s words, “ none can enter into the 
 kingdom of God, except he be regenerate, and born anew of water 
 and of the Holy Ghost,” and exhorts them to pray that those who 
 are brought ‘“‘ may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost.” 
 So in the first prayer she says, ‘“‘ Wash him, and sanctify him with 
 the Holy Ghost ;” and immediately after the use of the water, she 
 thanks God for having ‘ 
 Holy Spirit.”§ What can prove the Church’s opinion on the point, 
 if these quotations are not sufficient ? 
 
 But the Catechism does not put the same questions, or the 
 same number, on baptism as on the Lord’s Supper; and from this 
 
 ‘pleased to regenerate the infant with his 
 
 it is argued, that her belief in the nature and intent of the one 
 
 sacrament is different from what it is in those of the other. But 
 
 it is evident, at a glance, that no exact parallelism is attempted in 
 * Cyril. Hier. Catech. 3. 2. 
 
 + Cyvil. Hier. Catech. 5. { Greg. Nyssen. orat. de Baptismo Christi, vol. 3. p. 369. 
 
 § See Appendix B. 
 F 
 
94 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the questions upon the two sacraments ; for, had there been, the 
 questions put in the one case might have been repeated in the 
 other mutatis mutandis. I shall only further remark, on this 
 part of the subject, that the appointment of the feast of Pentecost 
 as the day for general baptism is another, independent, and Ca- 
 tholic proof of the relation everywhere understood to exist between 
 the ordinance and the Holy Ghost. There are but few that need be 
 told that that day has long borne the name of Whitsunday, from 
 the candidates coming to the font in white garments. Indeed, 
 I know of no principle more rigidly proved or more widely 
 acknowledged than that for which I am contending,—viz., that the 
 inward part or thing signified in baptism is the Holy Spirit.* 
 
 The doctrine of the sacraments, then, both in their nature and 
 in their effects, would appear to be correctly stated as follows, 
 according to Catholic belief : 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 Outward Sign. Water. Inward ae or thing | The Holy Spirit. 
 Subject ..... The body. SILA EMO 6 
 Effects ..... It refreshes and cleanses | Swbject.......... The soul. 
 
 the body. JORGE oto. tated c Sanctifies the soul. 
 Privileges. . . .Τἰ admits to membership in | Privileges......... Gives membership 
 
 the visible church. in the invisible 
 
 church. 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 Outward part..Bread and wine. Inward part or thing \ The body and blood 
 Subject ..... The body. signified....... of Christ. 
 BUGECIS:. στὰ τ “Strengthen and refresh” | Subject «. «αν νον νιον The 506], 
 
 the body. IG ECES: 5 |. ΒΕ Ἢ Strengthen and re- 
 Privileges. . . .Preserve the membership BERNIE {016 
 
 obtained by baptism. ΡΥ LEG ES sees τ Ἐς Preserve the soul 
 
 to life eternal. 
 
 ‘There appears no Scriptural warrant for making the minister 
 of baptism other than the minister of the Lord’s Supper. The 
 commission which was given in the words of institution, “ Go ye 
 and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 
 XXvil., 19), was addressed to the same individuals as ‘“ Do 
 
 * See Appendix C. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 55 
 
 this in remembrance of me.’"— (1 Cor. xi., 24.) The apostles 
 unquestionably were those who, alone, received the commission 
 in either case. Yet it is remarkable that we find no directly- 
 recorded instance of baptism by an apostle. ‘“ Even on occasion 
 of the baptism of nearly three thousand converts at once, re- 
 corded in the second chapter of the Acts, no intimation is given 
 that the apostle who was present officiated; while, on the con- 
 trary, it is highly improbable that the ceremony was performed 
 by any one individual. And in the history of the baptism of 
 Cornelius and his family, it is observable that St. Peter did not 
 himself baptize the new converts, but only gave orders for the 
 performance of the rite. He ‘commanded them to be baptized 
 in the name of the Lord. —(Acts x., 48.)”—Riddle’s Chn. Ant., 
 book iv., 2. 
 
 The apostle Paul seems indeed to speak of baptism as of a rite, 
 the administration of which he generally committed to others, 
 though he refers to one or two cases in which he had officiated 
 himself—(1 Cor. i., 18—17.) And on the whole, we learn from 
 the New Testament,—‘“‘1. That our Lord did not himself 
 baptize, but that he intrusted his apostles and disciples with the 
 administration of this rite. 2. That the apostles, although they 
 administer baptism sometimes, did not however do this always, 
 or regularly, but committed the office to others. 3. It cannot 
 be determined whether other persons, either ministers or laymen, 
 were allowed to baptize without a special commission. 4. Philip 
 the deacon baptized in Samaria men and women, Simon Magus, 
 and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acés Ὑ111., 12, 18, 38), without having 
 received any special commission, so far, at least, as appears in 
 the history. He appears therefore to have received his authority 
 to baptize, at the ordination recorded in Acts vi., 3—7.’— Riddle’s 
 Chn. Ant., book iv., 2. 
 
 As socn as we get from Scripture into uninspired Church history, 
 we find an almost unanimous claim set up for the bishop as the 
 proper minister of baptism. Not that he alone officiated, and on 
 all occasions, in the admission of members into the Church, but 
 
36 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 no other, whether presbyter or deacon, was allowed to administer 
 the rite of baptism without the bishop's express license, which, as 
 it was given at his pleasure, was revoked at the same. 
 
 And as the bishop was considered the authorized minister of 
 baptism, and delegated his power to others, so also the times and 
 the places of administration were appointed by him. “It is 
 remarked, by the author of the Pontifical in the life of Mar- 
 cellus,* that whilst he was bishop of Rome, he appointed five-and- 
 twenty churches, as so many little dioceses, for the convenience 
 of baptizing pagans upon their conversion, and an equal number 
 of presbyters to minister in them. But still all these were subor- 
 dinate to that one bishop, and acted by the authority and commis- 
 sion received from him. So that, as one of the Roman councilst 
 expresses it, ‘ Though both presbyters and deacons, at some 
 solemn times, were allowed to baptize at Rome in the bishop’s 
 presence, yet they were but officials to him, and what they did 
 was reckoned his act and went in his name.’ “Tis peculiarly 
 remarked to this purpose, by one of the bishops present at the 
 Council of Carthage under Cyprian,} ‘That Christ gave the 
 commission to his apostles, and to them alone the power which 
 was given him by his Father; and that bishops were the apostles’ 
 successors in governing the Church with the same power, and 
 granting baptism to believers.’ Hence it became a general and a 
 standing rule in the Church, that presbyters and deacons were to 
 perform no offices} without the authority and consent of their 
 bishop, because the Lord’s people were committed to his trust, 
 and he was to answer for their souls. This was particularly 
 specified in the office of baptism by most of the ancient writers. 
 The rule was as old as Ignatius, who delivers himself after this 
 manner, in relation to this point: ‘It is not lawful either to 
 baptize|| or celebrate the Eucharist without the bishop; but that 
 
 * Pontifical. Vit. Marcelli, ap. Crabbe Cone. tom. 1, p. 204. 
 + Conc. Rom, Can. 7. ap. Coteler. Not. in Constitut. Apost. Lib. 3, ο. 9. 
 { Cone. Carthag. ap. Cypr. n. 79. p. 241. 
 § Canon. Apost. ean. 39. || _Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 8. 
 
 — ὼς 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Sh 
 
 which he allows is well-pleasing to God. He does not say, that 
 no one beside the bishop might administer baptism, but that it 
 was not regularly done without his commission or delegation: he 
 being the chief minister of baptism, as well as of all other offices 
 in the Church. In like manner Tertullian* asserts the bishop’s 
 original right as chief priest, independent of any other ; and then 
 the right of presbyters and deacons to baptize; but this in 
 dependence on their bishop: for they are not to do it without 
 his authority, for the honour of the Church, in the preservation 
 of which peace is preserved."—(Bingham on Lay- Baptism.) 
 From these quotations, it is plain that the ancients considered 
 the sole prerogative of baptizing to reside in the bishop, and to 
 be by him delegated to his presbyters and deacons ; yet we must 
 not suppose that the latter were on terms of perfect equality in 
 this respect in the Church. In fact it would seem that the pres- 
 byter had generally the authority to administer delegated to him, 
 but the deacon only on very extreme occasions. ‘‘ Among those 
 called the apostolical canons there are four that speak of the 
 ministers of baptism, and those mentioned are bishops and 
 presbyters only, no mention is made of deacons. So, likewise, in 
 the constitutions under the name of the apostles, all the inferior 
 clergy, among whom the deacons are comprehended, are for- 
 bidden to minister baptism: ‘We do not permit, say they,+ the 
 rest of the clergy to baptize, as readers, singers, doorkeepers, 
 subdeacons, but only bishops and presbyters, to whom the deacons 
 are to minister. And they that presume to act otherwise, shall 
 bear the judgment of Corah and his company. But in another 
 place the Constitutions speak yet more expressly against deacons 
 baptizing: for they thus distinguish} the offices of presbyter and 
 deacon from each other: ‘A presbyter is to teach, to offer the 
 Eucharist, to baptize, and to give the blessing to the people ; but 
 a deacon is only to minister to the bishop and the presbyters, and 
 not to perform the rest. And again,§ ‘A deacon does not give 
 
 * Του]. de Bapt. cap. 17. + Constit. Apost. Lib. 5. cap. 11. 
 t Constit. Apost. Lib. 3. ¢. 20. § Ibid. Lib. 8. cap. 28. 
 
98 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the blessing, but receive it from the bishop or the presbyter : 
 he does not baptize; he does not offer the Eucharist; but when 
 the bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes it to the people, 
 not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests. Yet, 
 notwithstanding this, ‘tis asserted by the same author,* that a 
 deacon may baptize, if he has a commission and authority from 
 his bishop to do it."—(Bingham on Lay- Baptism.) 
 
 St. Chrysostom gives his opinion as follows :—“<’Tis plain 
 madness to despise so great a power, without which we cannot 
 obtain salvation, or the good things that are promised us. For 
 if no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven, except he be 
 born of water and the Holy Ghost; and he that eateth not the 
 flesh of the Lord, and drinketh not his blood, is deprived of 
 eternal life ; and all these things are performed by no other but 
 those sacred hands, I mean the hands of the priest: how can any 
 one, without these, either escape the fire of hell, or obtain the 
 crown .that is laid up in heaven?”+ Epiphanius says, “ the 
 deacons are not permitted to celebrate any mystery or sacrament 
 in the Church, but only to minister in the celebration.”"{ And 
 St. Hilary is so decidedly of opinion that baptism belongs of right 
 exclusively to the apostolic order, that he thinks it was only the 
 emergency of the occasion which made Philip baptize the eunuch, 
 who could not wait for baptism by an apostle. His words are, 
 “Sacramentum ipsum baptismi adeo impatientis desiderii cupidi- 
 tate preeveniens, ut a diacono ministerium apostolici offici, salutis 
 sue cupidus, exigeret.”"§ Pope Gelasius decreed, “Let not a 
 deacon presume to baptize without the bishop or presbyter, unless 
 they be far absent, and an extreme necessity compel him: in 
 which cases it is sometimes allowed to lay Christians to do it.” || 
 And such continued to be the rule of the Church everywhere ; for 
 we find Isidore of Sevile, who wrote about the year 700, observing, 
 “that the ministry of baptism belongs only to priests ; nor is it 
 
 * Constit. Apost. Lib. 8. cap. 46. + Chrys. de Sacerdot. Lib. 3, ὁ. 5. 
 1 Epiphan. Teer. 79. Collyrid. ἢ. 4. § Hilar. Com. in Psal. 67, p. 242. 
 || Gelas. Ep. 9, ad Epise. Lucan. cap. 9. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 39 
 
 lawful for deacons themselves to perform the mystery without the 
 bishop or a presbyter ; unless in their absence, when the extreme 
 necessity of sickness requires and compels them to do it: im which 
 case it is often permitted to faithful laymen.”* ‘And thus it con- 
 tinued for many ages after in the English Church, as appears 
 from the canons vf the Council of Yorkt held in the year 1195 ; 
 and the Council of London,} in the year 1200; and the canons 
 of St. Edmund, an. 1236, mentioned in ‘ Linwood’s Provincial,’ 
 (lib. 8, tit. 24). In all which deacons are forbidden to baptize, 
 except upon urgent necessity, when the priest cannot, or is absent, 
 or through folly and indiscretion will not, and a child or a sick 
 person is in imminent danger of death."— Bingham on Lay- 
 Baptism. 
 
 Now, in such a general consent of antiquity, that the bishop 
 is the sole authorized depository of baptism, and in the unanimous 
 decision of all Christian Churches, ancient and modern, that at 
 all events this authority is not to be extended beyond the body of 
 the clergy, what are the grounds, I would ask, upon which Mr. 
 Wilberforce lays down his maxim, that the intervention of the 
 minister in baptism is only matter of decent ceremonial? The 
 language of the earlier Fathers is express as to the necessity of 
 the intervention of the divinely-appointed minister in baptism as 
 in the Eucharist. The author of the ‘‘ Apostolical Constitutions ὃ 
 says plainly, that deacons had no right either to baptize or offer ; 
 and Epiphanius|| affirms that they were not entrusted with the 
 sole administration of either sacrament ; and in a passage quoted 
 by the Archdeacon, on page 10 of his ‘ Doctrine of Holy Eucha- 
 rist,” from St. Chrysostom, to prove that “to make the Divine 
 bread, and to minister it, with the view to its being the food of 
 eternal life,"{] was the power, which is said to have been given 
 by Our Lord to His apostles, and which they transmitted to 
 
 * Tsidor. de Offic. Lib. 2, cap. 24. + Cone. Eboracen. c. 5. 
 t Cone. London. ¢, 3. § Book 8, c. 3. || Heer. 79, Collyrid, n. 4. 
 “| Ad vite eterne cibum, coelestem panem perficere ac ministrare—St. Hilar. in 
 Matth, c. xiv. sec. 10, p. 681. 
 
40 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 their successors,’ we find whatever is said of the ministerial 
 commission being necessary for the right administration of the 
 one sacrament declared necessary for the other. The Archdeacon 
 quotes this passage to shew that a specific commission was neces- 
 sary for consecrating the sacred elements in the Eucharist. I 
 now quote it to shew that the same was necessary, in Chrysos- 
 tom's opinion, for the valid administration of baptism :— 
 
 “Do you not know,” asks St. Chrysostom, ‘ what ihe priest is ἢ 
 He is the messenger of the Lord. His statements are not his own. 
 Tf you despise him, it is not he whom you despise, but God, who has 
 ordained him. Does any one ask how it is known that God has 
 ordained him? If you deny this, your own hope is made vain. For 
 if God effects nothing through him, you have neither the laver of baptism, 
 nor do you partake of the mysteries. . . So that you are no Christian.” 
 
 ‘ 
 
 Now, either this passage proves nothing for either sacrament, 
 or it proves something and the same for both. If it proves for 
 the Archdeacon that the intervention of the priest “is not matter 
 of decent ceremonial, but is essential to the validity of the ordi- 
 nance” in the celebration of the Eucharist, it proves the same 
 absolute necessity for his presence in baptism. What is Chrysos- 
 tom’s opinion of the distinctive theory of the quondam Archdeacon 
 of the East Riding ? 
 
 In fine, it appears quite clear that the ancient Church, universally 
 considered the authority to administer baptism lodged solely with 
 the bishop, which might by him be delegated to presbyters un- 
 questionably, but not without urgent necessity to deacons or 
 laymen. While all seem to have agreed on this point, there was 
 a great variety of individual opinions on the cases which daily 
 arose, as to the baptism of such as were not duly authorized to 
 administer it,—viz., of deacons, laymen, deposed clerics, women, 
 and heretics. It is difficult to arrive at any satisfactory conclu- 
 sion as to the decision of the Church in general on these matters ; 
 but, on the whole, it seems that the more common opinion 
 was, that nearly all baptisms, however irregularly performed, if 
 only water and the orthodox formula were used, should be con- 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 4] 
 
 sidered valid ; though there were many, as Cyprian and others, 
 who urged re-baptization in several of these cases. Indeed, so 
 difficult is it to draw any certain conclusion from the remains of 
 the Fathers now in our hands, that the wisest and best men of 
 modern times have not known to which side to incline, even when 
 they thought the early Church the best guide on the subject. 
 The modern Church of Rome goes so far as to say, that even 
 Turk, Jew, or infidel may baptize, if only the true matter and 
 form be observed. The Church of England, immediately after 
 the Reformation, seems to have allowed any one to baptize ; for 
 the office for private baptism in the time of Edward VI. and 
 Elizabeth ran as follows: “ First let them that be present call 
 upon God for his grace, and say the Lord’s Prayer, if the time 
 will suffer: And then one of them shall name the child, and dip 
 him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying these words: 
 ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost.’ ”°—Bingham on Lay-Baptism. 
 
 The indefiniteness of this rubric was the occasion of laymen 
 and women administering the office, and it was one of the great 
 questions of the day, whether or not such baptisms were legal 
 and valid,—some of our divines taking one side in the contro- 
 versy, some the other; most, however, agreeing that, though it 
 ought not to be done in such manner, yet it was valid, and 
 ought not to be repeated when done. The same seems to have 
 been the prevailing opinion of the divines at the Hampton Court 
 conference, in the reign of James I., who with the king at their 
 head, altered the ambiguous rubric above quoted by inserting 
 lawful minister, instead of one of them that be present. It 
 must not be forgotten, however, that some of the best divines of 
 modern days have altogether disallowed lay and unauthorized 
 baptisms, among whom may be named Dr. Forbes, Mr. Lawrence, 
 and Bishop Jeremy Taylor. 
 
 It may not be impertinent to remark, that of the foreign 
 reformed Churches, the Lutheran and Helvetic, following Luther 
 
 and Zuingluis in this matter, agree in general with those who de- 
 G 
 
42 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 clare other than authorized clerical baptism, irregular, but not 
 invalid. On the other hand, the Churches of Holland, France, 
 and some others, following for the most part Calvin and Beza, 
 pronounce all such baptisms invalid, as well as irregular, and 
 re-baptize all who have had the ordinance administered to them 
 in an unauthorized manner. 
 
 Now, it cannot but have been remarked, by every one who has 
 perused the foregoing pages, not only that the universal opinion 
 of the Church, in all ages, has been that to the bishop alone was 
 committed the power of baptizing, which he might delegate to 
 presbyters, but also that exceptional cases could only be excused 
 on the ground of necessity. This necessity was, in the nature of 
 things in the earlier days of the Church, arising everywhere, almost 
 daily. Coupling this with the strictest interpretation of John 
 ii., 5, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” the primitive Church 
 considered that any, even the most irregular baptism, was pre- 
 ferable to none; and hence arose the extreme latitude which was 
 conceded to irregular administration. It would not be easy to 
 arrive at any other decision than that which was anciently come 
 to, if we had to go over the same ground again, and seek for a 
 safe conclusion, ab initio, for ourselves. If baptism be absolutely 
 necessary for salvation, as some imagine, doubtless it is good that 
 it be done most irregularly, rather than that it should not be done 
 
 ” 
 
 at all. ‘‘ Necessity has no law;” and it certainly is better to break 
 the order of the Church than to jeopardize a soul. It may be 
 fairly questioned, though, how far the Church of England recog- 
 nises this alternative. When she says that the sacraments are 
 only “ generally necessary to salvation,” it is to be assumed that 
 they are not so where they cannot be had, and where no impedi- 
 ment is in the mind of the non-receiver. ‘This is manifestly the 
 case with children; and it is not assuming much to consider them 
 safe without baptism, though no right-minded person would leave 
 to doubt such an important matter, when he might have it reduced 
 to moral certainty. We may have hope, even good hope, in the 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 43 
 
 case of unbaptized infants; but it is a great consolation to the 
 parent, who has been bereaved of his or her baptized babe, to be 
 assured that “it is certain, from God's word, that children which 
 are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly 
 saved.” * 
 
 Now, it is evident that such cases of emergency could not arise 
 in the matter of the Lord’s Supper, which, being a communion, 
 did not properly admit of private and individual celebration. 
 When the sacred elements were carried to the absent and the 
 sick, they were considered as participating in the public adminis- 
 tration of the rite. Though, in the New Testament, we have no 
 special intimation as to who was to be the minister of the Eucha- 
 rist, yet we have even there undoubted evidence that the cele- 
 bration was not private, nor even in private houses. (See 1 Cor. xi., 
 20, 22.) Indeed, the absurdity of private celebration is plainly 
 seen in the arguments which have been urged against it in all 
 ages of the Church. Thus: how could the priest say, ‘“ Lift up 
 your hearts?” if there were none to answer, “ We lift them up 
 unto the Lord?” So that two at least, besides the person offici- 
 ating, has always been required to be present to communicate. 
 And as for the place, the Council of Laodicea prohibits any cele- 
 bration in a private house.f 
 
 It was all but impossible, therefore, that, in the observance of 
 the dying command of the Saviour of mankind, ‘‘ when the disci- 
 ples came together to break bread,” that there should not have 
 been some among them whose special duty and office it was to 
 perform the ministerial parts of the ceremony. To imagine the 
 elders of the Church absent at its general meetings and most 
 solemn services, is by no means easy, nor is the thing itself pro- 
 bable. Possibly there never arose in the early Church a case in 
 which necessity for administration by a private person existed,— 
 indeed it could not arise, unless in the extreme of possibilities. 
 What renders such an occurrence still more unlikely, is the fact 
 
 * Rubric after public baptism of infants. + Cone. Laod. c. 58. 
 
44 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 that there seems to have been “ but one common table or altar 
 for the several churches in a district or diocese, where the bishop 
 consecrated the elements, which were sent to the several offi- 
 ciating ministers in other places for distribution.”* 
 
 We must also couple, with this unlikelihood of the defect of 
 the properly-authorized minister, the absence of any positive 
 declaration of Scripture, that the participation of the Eucharistic 
 supper is “necessary to salvation.” We have seen that the 
 strong expression in John iii., 5, which was used by our blessed 
 Lord to Nicodemus, was the ground upon which such a broad 
 margin of exceptions was allowed in the case of baptism; but 
 where is there such an emphatic declaration of the necessity to 
 communicate? If we take into consideration these two circum- 
 stances, I believe we shall have sufficient to account for the 
 absence of decisions in the early Church, in the case of the 
 second sacrament, similar to those which we find respecting the 
 first. The cases were widely different, and that difference fully 
 accounts for the absence of vexed questions on the subject of the 
 Eucharist, as well as for our not finding exceptions similar to 
 those in baptism. 
 
 Yet there are not wanting instances of others than bishops and 
 presbyters administering the Lord’s Supper. It must be remem- 
 bered that prohibitions to the contrary go for nothing, as well as 
 declarations that authority to administer the ordinance was want- 
 ing. Nothing stronger on this head can be delivered than we 
 have already quoted respecting baptism, which was very 776- 
 quently celebrated by deacons and laymen notwithstanding. 
 When, therefore, Ignatiust says, ‘“‘ Let no one perform any 
 ecclesiastical office without the bishop,” and when Tertulliant 
 and Jerome§ say that presbyters have not the power to baptize, 
 it is evident that they mean unless license be granted by the 
 bishop. And as we know that such license was granted almost 
 
 * Rid. Chn. Ant. Bk. iv. ὁ. 3, 5. 4. 
 + Ep. ad Smyrneos ἢ. 8. th De. Bapt. co 1: § Dial contra. Lucifer. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 45 
 
 ‘without limit (and the validity of acts performed without any per- 
 mission, even by persons who had no pretence to the discharge 
 of ecclesiastical functions, was allowed), it is manifest that no 
 conclusion as to the invalidity of the celebration of the Eucharist, 
 if it had taken place, can be drawn from these or similar passages. 
 What was irregular, and even illegal to be done prospectively, 
 was fully recognized after it had taken place. This was the case 
 with baptism: there was nothing in the nature of things why it 
 might not be so with the other sacrament. 
 
 But there is evidence that others than bishops and presbyters, 
 as has been said, actually did consecrate the elements and ad- 
 minister them a/one. St. Cyprian* speaks of a deacon “ offering 
 the cup,” and the Council of Ancyrat forbids deacons under 
 censure ἄρτον ἢ ποτήριον ἄναφερειν ; which, I think, necessarily 
 implies that, when not in disgrace, they might ἀναφέρειν, which 
 is the word mostly used of the act of bishop or presbyter in 
 celebrating the sacred mysteries. It is true that the Council of 
 Arles, which was held in the same year with that of Ancyra, 
 declared themselves but little pleased with deacons thus taking 
 upon them to offer at all, which they acknowledge to have been 
 done to a great extent. ‘“‘ De diaconibus,’ they say, “ guos 
 cognovimus multis locis offerre, placuit minime fiert debere.”t 
 To the same purport is also the decree of the Nicene Council, 
 τοὺς εξονσίαν μὴ ἔχοντας προσφέρειν." Now all these prohibitory 
 decrees only go to shew that the “ offering” by a deacon was not 
 recognized. I do ποῦ think that they can fairly be said to prove 
 more than that, for certainly equally strong passages prove no 
 more in the case of baptism. 
 
 But there is one passage adduced from St. Ambrose, which is 
 perhaps conclusive as to the point, viz., that a deacon might 
 consecrate when he had the authority of his bishop. That Father 
 introduces Laurentius, the deacon, addressing his bishop, Sixtus, 
 when on the road to martyrdom, in these words : 
 
 * De lapsis. +c. 2. t Con. Arelat. I. ο. 15. § Con. Nic. ο. 18. 
 
40 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 ‘Quo sacerdos sancte sine diacono properas? Nunquam sacrificium 
 sine ministro offerre consueveras. Quid in me ergo displicuit pater ?— 
 Cui commisisti Dominici sanguinis consecrationem, cui consummandorum 
 consortium sacramentorum, huic consortium tui sanguinis negas.”* 
 
 Now, here we have not only a distinction made between “the 
 consecration of the Lord’s blood,” and “ the partnership in con- 
 summating the mysteries,” the exercise of which consortium was 
 the usual and recognized duty of the deacon, but Laurentius 
 says distinctly that the right to consecrate had been delegated to 
 him by the bishop. Bingham tells us that Cardinal Baronius 
 was so perplexed with this passage, that he changed consecra- 
 tionem into dispensationem, without any authority whatever ; and it 
 must be confessed that the learned ritualist himself does not agree 
 with the view of the passage which is here insisted upon. It seems 
 to me, however, that the mode which he has adopted of sur- 
 mounting the difficulty, is rather a cutting of the knot than an 
 untyeing of it; for surely it is contrary to all the rules of fair 
 criticism to interpret the more comprehensive term by the less 
 so. Who would ordinarily consider consecrationem included in the 
 consummandorum sacramentorum, t.e., in the distribution of the 
 elements, which was the more usual function of the deacon ? 
 
 If it be asked why we have not more instances of this dele- 
 gation of the full power to administer the Eucharist, on the 
 assumption that it might be delegated, I have given the answer 
 above :—(1.) here was no positive declaration in Scripture that 
 communion was necessary to salvation, and (2.) there were probably 
 no cases of necessity demanding it. But there may have been 
 other considerations tending in the same direction, and Bingham 
 himself gives us this reason for it : 
 
 ‘Because the Holy Hucharist was looked upon as the prime 
 Christian sacrifice, and one of the highest offices of the Christian 
 priesthood: and deacons being generally reckoned no priests, or but in 
 the lowest degree, they were therefore forbidden to offer or consecrate 
 
 * Ambros de Offic. Lib. 1. c. 41. For further information and authorities consult 
 Grotius: “ De ccene administratione ubi pastores non sunt.” 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. AT 
 
 this sacrifice at the altar. This reason is assigned by the author of the 
 Constitutions,* and the author under the name of St. Austin, and 
 several others.”+ 
 
 On the whole, perhaps, the actual state of the case is accu- 
 rately summed up by Riddle as follows: ‘‘The bishop con- 
 secrated, the presbyter administered the bread, and the deacons 
 the wine; or, if a bishop were not present, a presbyter, acting 
 as his representative, consecrated, and the deacons administered 
 both elements. We find that, during the fourth century, deacons 
 sometimes took upon themselves the work of consecration, as 
 well as that of distribution; but this practice was regarded as 
 wholly inconsistent with their office, and was expressly forbidden 
 by several councils.’ 
 
 It is not easy to tel] how far Archdeacon Wilberforce intends 
 to instance the Church of England as favouring his teaching in 
 the extract which forms the groundwork of the refutation in this 
 chapter. It is said to be “ orderly and decent that the water 
 should be set apart with prayer, and that the ceremony should be 
 performed by Christ’s minister; but the absence of these condi- 
 tions does not invalidate the act, either according to the belief of 
 the ancient Church, or according to the existing law of the Church 
 of England.” It is true that the Church of England does not 
 run counter to the opinions of good and wise men, in all previous 
 ages of the Church, by declaring lay-baptism invalid ; and in the 
 administration of baptism to the sick, she does not zmstst upon the 
 consecration of the water for the proper celebration of the rite ; 
 but, on the other hand, she has not officially recognised any 
 baptism but that administered by a properly-authorized minister, 
 and the last alteration of the service was to exclude that of all 
 others. Surely this is going in the opposite direction to the 
 Archdeacon. Nor do I know that the Church has, totidem verbis, 
 prohibited deacons from consecrating the elements in the Lord's 
 Supper. No canon forbids, no article disqualifies, no word in the 
 
 * Constit. Apost. Lib. 8. ο. 28. + Bing. Ant. Bk. 2, ο, 20, s. 8. 
 t Chn. Ant. Bk. 4, c. 3, s. 5. 
 
48 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 ordination service excludes the deacon, as far as I know, from 
 celebrating a/one the Eucharistic feast. For, although no autho- 
 rity is given to the deacon to administer the sacraments, which 
 is expressly given to the priest,—and the word Priest is used 
 throughout the rubrics of the sacramental services,—yet we know 
 that neither of these things excludes the former from the constant 
 administration of baptism ; and, therefore, no argument can be 
 built upon them for exclusion from the latter. I am aware that 
 deacons abstain, perhaps I might say they are excluded practically. 
 TI think, however, that the moderation and judgment of the Church 
 is to be admired in this matter, which, while it does not recognise 
 lay-baptism, does not condemn it, and secures the services of a 
 presbyter in the Holy Supper, without declaring that no circum- 
 stances would authorise its celebration by an inferior officer in the 
 Church. 
 
 We can now find it an easy matter to answer the question 
 which is proposed to us: “‘ Now, since the necessity of consecra- 
 tion is thus (that is, by the distinction made between the two 
 sacraments), attested by the very nature of our ritual, how comes 
 it not to have been put more prominently forward by our 
 divines ?”* We reply, because they did not view this necessity 
 in the same light as those of the Archdeacon’s school. Our 
 divines did not consider the consecration effective of such strange 
 results as are spoken of in the ‘ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist :” 
 they did not think that the pronunciation of a few words by 
 a priest worked such a mighty charm as is imagined by the 
 pupils of the Romish school.t I do not believe that it was any 
 “unwillingness to break altogether with the foreign Protestants,” 
 which silenced our divines on the subject of consecration ; for 
 I find no trace of any holding back of what they believed 
 
 * Doct. ΕἸ. Euch. p. 15. 
 
 + Archbishop Tillotson assures us that the magical power attributed to the pro- 
 nunciation of the three words hoc est corpus gave rise to the vulgar hocus pocus. 
 Such was the reverend idea entertained of this mighty miracle by the multitude to 
 - whom it was taught. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 49 
 
 to be truths, though the enunciation of them might have been 
 unpalatable to others. Take the single question of episco- 
 pacy, and do English divines shrink from propounding and 
 defending it, because it is not in repute with foreign Protestants ? 
 I trow not. But the Archdeacon’s reasons, as well as assertions, 
 are to be received with great caution. He does not scruple to 
 affirm* that in baptism the water “is never spoken of as gaining, 
 in itself, any relation to the sacred object of which it is fitted to 
 remind men.” “The water is never spoken of as changed into 
 blood, either in Scripture 07 ancient authors.” Any one who 
 has read the foregoing extracts from the Fathers (p. 21,) will see 
 how far this assertion is from the fact. If we allow the Arch- 
 deacon’s assumptions, and receive without questioning his asser- 
 ‘tions, he will prove his point, and draw deductions most logical 
 and certain; but I think I have shewn that the grounds upon 
 which all his arguments are built must be carefully examined, 
 and his assurances tested by research; then we shall find that 
 his proof is only a reductio ad absurdum, no evidence of the 
 truth of the conclusion, but a manifestation of the viciousness 
 of the premises. 
 
 I consider myself now fully entitled to declare, that the distinc- 
 tion attempted to be made in the matter of the two sacraments is 
 shewn to be unfounded, and that the proofs professed to be given 
 of the same have altogether failed. The two sacraments run part 
 passu, from the outward sign to the full spiritual blessing ; while 
 the conditions under which, and the persons by whom, they are 
 to be administered, are, as far as they can be, just the same. 
 Exceptional cases prove nothing. With the basis, then, must go 
 the superstructure. As far as the conditions, upon which the 
 wondrous transformations wrought by priestly power are built, are 
 found to be fallacious, so far must the surprising results them- 
 selves fall to the ground. In other words, there is no essential 
 difference between the two sacraments; the minister of each is 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch. p. 89. 
 
50 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the same ; and the prayer of consecration, used in setting apart 
 the outward elements, has the same effect in each case. No 
 magic power is, in either, imparted to the visible symbol, so as to 
 enable it to work as a charm; but, in virtue of divine appointment, 
 where there is no obstacle in the recipient, he not only receives 
 the outward signs or sacraments of the great things indicated, 
 but finds them “ certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of 
 grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work 
 invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen 
 and confirm our faith in Him.”—(Common Prayer, Art. xxv.) 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST οἱ 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CHRIST IS NOT PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST, BY A CORPOREAL PRESENCE, 
 IN ANY MANNER— 1.0, NEITHER NATURALLY NOR SACRAMENTALLY, 
 
 THE change effected by the words of consecration, according 
 to the East Riding and Romish theory, is that the subject (this, 
 the bread) becomes identical with the predicate (my body),—the 
 wine identical with Christ’s blood. It is no apt representation, 
 no sacramental similitude which exists, but the actual identity 
 of the two things; in fact there is but ove thing, for the bread 
 has entirely vanished ; and when ἐλ 8 is said, it is bread no longer 
 than whilst the words “ my body” are being spoken ; for on the 
 instant, they become the latter in all the fulness of reality, what- 
 ever of the seeming of bread may remain. But the Archdeacon 
 shall speak for himself: 
 
 “When Our Lord, then, spoke of His body and blood as bestowed 
 upon His disciples in this sacrament, He must have been understood 
 to imply that He Himself, Godhead, Soul, and Body, was the gift com- 
 municated. His manhood was the medium through which His whole 
 person was dispensed.” ‘For though it is the law of His nature, that 
 His manhood is not everywhere present, as is His Godhead,—since 
 the first does not partake in that attribute of omnipresence which belongs 
 to the last—yet His Godhead is everywhere present with His manhood, 
 and has part in all its actings. Whatsoever was meant, therefore, by 
 the giving the body and the blood of Christ, as by the force of the 
 terms it implied the gift of His manhood, so, by virtue of the Hypo- 
 static Union, it involved that of His Godhead also.”—Doct. ΗΠ. Huch., 
 pp: Ὁ 18: 
 
 And that the early Fathers taught swch a change in the sacra- 
 
52 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 mental elements, and such a communication of Christ in them, is 
 attempted to be shewn by the following quotations : 
 
 “That such was the gift bestowed in the Holy Eucharist, and that 
 Our Lord’s words of Institution were to be taken in their simple and 
 natural sense, was the belief of all ancient writers. ‘The Docetz 
 abstain from the Eucharist,’ says St. Ignatius, ‘because they do not 
 confess it to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered 
 for our sins, which the Father raised up through His mercy.’* ‘ As 
 Jesus Christ, Our Saviour, was made flesh through the word of God, 
 and took flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have been instructed 
 that the food which has been consecrated by His word of prayer. . . 
 is the flesh and blood of that Incarnate Jesus.’+ ‘Our flesh,’ says 
 Tertuilian, ‘is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that our soul, 
 too, may be enriched of God.’ So that the statements of the second 
 century tally exactly with the language of those Liturgic Offices, which 
 exhibit to us the belief of the fourth. ‘ Deliver us from evil, O Lord 
 Jesus Christ. We eat Thy body, which was crucified for us, and drink 
 Thy sacred blood, which was shed for us: may Thy sacred body be 
 made our salvation ; and Thy sacred blood be for the remission of our 
 sins, here and for evermore.’§ And these general declarations respecting 
 the Holy Eucharist are associated by St. Cyprian with the original act 
 of Christ, and with His words of Institution. For He it is who is still 
 the agent in this work, through the intervention of His ministers. And 
 ‘if Jesus Christ, Our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of 
 God the Father, and has offered Himself first as a sacrifice to the 
 Father, and commanded this to be done in commemoration of Him, 
 surely that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates 
 what Christ did; and he then offers in the Church a true and full 
 sacrifice to God the Father, if he begins to offer as he sees that Christ 
 Himself has offered.’|| 
 
 “That which Our Lord affirmed to be present then, by the words of 
 Institution, was His own body and blood. These were the Predicates 
 which He connected with those elements of bread and wine, which He 
 took into His hands and blessed. The nature of the connexion we 
 shall consider presently: that though real it was not carnal—(that is, 
 it is not flesh and blood as they are found on the shambles): as yet we 
 are concerned with the Predicates themselves, that is, with the body 
 
 *« Ad Smyrneos, 6. + Apolog. i. 66. 1 De Resurrec. 8. 
 § Missale Gothicum. Missa Dominicalis, 80. Mabillon, p. 300. (Paris, 1729. 
 || S. Cyprian. ad Cecil. Ep. 63, 14. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 53 
 
 and blood which He bestowed. We have seen that it was that self-same 
 body and blood which He had taken of the blessed Virgin, of her sub- 
 stance, and which so shortly afterwards He offered upon the cross. 
 This it is which forms the link between Him and man’s nature ; it was 
 bound by the unalterable tie of personality to Himself; and as He then 
 gave it Himself to His twelve apostles, so He still communicates it by 
 the ministration of their successors to the faithful, in the Holy Eucha- 
 rist.”—Doct. H. Euch., pp. 78-—80. 
 
 Now nothing can exceed the fulness and distinctness with 
 which the veal presence is here propounded for our acceptance. 
 It will not be my business now to enquire into the sense in which 
 the Church of England declares her belief in the real presence ; 
 that shall be done when we come to investigate the ¢rwe doctrine 
 of the Lord’s Supper from Scripture, according to the opinions of 
 the early Fathers, of our own Church in Saxon times and since 
 the blessed Reformation. I shall confine myself now to the refu- 
 tation of the error which is inculcated in the above extracts—viz., 
 that Christ is corporeally present in, and necessarily received 
 with, the bread and wine in the Eucharist, and in such manner 
 as he is not received in any other rite; and, in doing this, re- 
 course must be had to such modes of demonstration as le open 
 to us. 
 
 It has been already shewn, that no conclusion can be drawn as 
 to the exact doctrinal belief of the Fathers from the names and 
 epithets which they apply to the sacramental emblems; for in 
 this case, it would be as easy to prove that the water of baptism 
 is the blood of Christ, as that the wine of the Eucharist is so. 
 The same may be asserted of the effects ascribed to the use of 
 the elements. It has always been the misfortune of the Romish 
 controversy, that those who wish to prove the Romish theory, 
 take every flowery and figurative expression of the Fathers, as 
 bound down to the most rigid or literal interpretation. There is 
 only one way of meeting this line of argumentation effectually, 
 and that is to shew that it proves too much. If a man will 
 insist upon the literal interpretation of the words, “‘the food 
 which has been consecrated by His word of prayer .. . . is the 
 
54 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus,” then there is nothing 
 for it but to bind him to the same strictness of interpretation, 
 when we read, ‘‘ he was baptized in the blood of the Lamb, whom 
 he read of in the prophet.’* When we find similar, if not the 
 same, language used of other rites as we have in the case of the 
 Eucharist, one of two things must follow; either we must 
 interpret these respecting the Eucharist figuratively, as we do 
 those on other subjects, or we must apply to the latter the strict- 
 ness with which we interpret the former. ‘There is no question 
 as to which reason dictates, and Scripture requires. 
 
 It is also open to us to produce statements of an opposite 
 character to those impugned by us; and, if these be clear, con- 
 sistent, and natural, we then have no choice but to interpret the 
 imaginative, poetic, and figurative, by the more sober and 
 rational. Common sense suggests and ratifies this mode of pro- 
 ceeding, if any. 
 
 It is unnecessary to add a multiplicity of references to what 
 have been given before, to shew that if a change is spoken of in 
 the bread and wine in the Eucharist, a similar change is spoken of 
 in the water of baptism, of the oil in chrism, &c. For instance, 
 Gregory Nyssen,t speaking of the privileges which consecration 
 advances things to, instances first in the water of baptism, and 
 the great and marvellous efficacy thereof; and proceeds to that 
 of an altar, which is at first but a common stone, but after dedi- 
 cation becomes an holy altar, which the priests only touch with 
 veneration : and then adds the instance of the Eucharist,? 
 “which at first is common bread, but, after the mystery has 
 consecrated it, it is called and becomes the body of Christ. So 
 the mystical oil, and so the wine before the benediction, are 
 things of little worth; but after the sanctification of the Spirit, 
 each of them operates excellently.” What is here asserted of the 
 bread and wine, is asserted of the baptismal water, an altar and 
 the chrism. If these are not changed ἐγ their nature, neither are 
 those. 
 
 * St. Hier. in Esa. 45. + Orat. in Bapt. Christi. Ἢ Ibid. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 55 
 
 I shall now at once proceed to shew that the Fathers, when 
 they speak of Christ’s body, speak of it as really absent. St. 
 Ambrose says: 
 
 “ Ascend (speaking to Christ) that we may follow Thee with our 
 minds, whom we cannot see with our eyes. St. Paul has taught us 
 how we should follow Thee, and where we may find Thee. Seek those 
 things that are above, where Christ sits, &c.—Therefore we ought 
 not to seek Thee upon earth, nor in the earth, nor according to the 
 flesh, if we would find Thee.+—Mary could not touch Him, because she 
 sought Him on earth: Stephen touched Him, because he sought Him in 
 heaven. Stephen among the Jews saw Him absent.” 
 
 St. Augustine's testimony of Christ's absence is equally clear. 
 When speaking on the text, “the poor ye have always with you, 
 but me ye have not always.” 
 
 “Ἢ spake this,” says he, ‘“‘concerning the presence of His body: 
 for according to His majesty, according to His providence, according to 
 His unspeakable and invisible grace, that is fulfilled which He said, 
 Behold, I am always with you, &. But according to the flesh which 
 He assumed, according to what was born of the Virgin, &c. (directly 
 contrary to the Trent Catechism and the Archdeacon), ye shall not 
 have me always with you.’} 
 
 And again, he says : 
 
 ““ According to the beautiful presence of His divinity, He is always 
 with the Father; according to His corporal presence He is now above 
 the heavens, at the right hand of the Father (he forgot to add, and in 
 the holy sacrament), but according to the presence of faith, so He is in 
 all Christians.” 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria is very plain, and says: 
 
 ‘Though Christ be absent from the world as to His flesh, yet He is 
 present to those that are in Him, and to the whole universe, by His 
 divine and ineffable nature; neither is He absent from any creature, 
 nor distant from any, but is everywhere present to all, and fills the 
 whole universe.”’§ 
 
 * Com. in Luc. 24. 
 + Tract. 50 in Joannem, in ‘‘ Gibson’s Pres. against Pop. vol. 9;” whence most of 
 
 the following authorities are taken. 
 t Serm. 120 de diversis. § In Joan. 9, 5. 
 
56 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 And again, speaking of the disciples, who thought that His 
 being taken up to heaven would be a great loss to them, he 
 remarks : 
 
 “They ought not only to have respected and looked* to his fleshly 
 presence, but to have understood, that though he was separated from 
 their society according to the flesh, nor could be seen by their bodily 
 eyes, yet that he was present and assistant always by the power of his 
 divinity.” 
 
 To the same point Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, in Africa, a 
 great opposer of the Arians, bears clear testimony : 
 
 “One and the same (Christ),” says he, ‘according to His human 
 substance, was absent from heaven when He was upon earth, and left 
 earth when He ascended up to heaven; but according to His divine and 
 immense substance, neither left heaven when He descended from heaven, 
 nor forsook earth when He ascended into heaven.’+ 
 
 Vigilius, bishop of Tapsus, in the fifth century, delivers his 
 opinion as follows : 
 
 “‘ This was to go to the Father and recede from us, to take from the 
 world the nature that He had taken from us. For see the miracle, see 
 the mystery of both (natures) distinct” (not a word of the mystery of a 
 body being in more places tnan one); ‘‘the Son of God according to 
 His humanity departed from us; according to His divinity He says to 
 us, Behold, I am with you always, &c. Those whom He left and de- 
 parted from by His humanity, He did not leave nor forsake by His 
 divinity.” ‘ When Christ was on earth He was not in heaven; and 
 now because He is in heaven He surely is not on earth, &c. Because 
 the Word is everywhere, but His flesh is not everywhere, it appears 
 plainly, that one and the same Christ is of both natures, and that He 
 is everywhere according to the nature of His divinity, and contained in 
 a place according to the nature of His humanity ” (which would be a 
 bad argument, if His body were in heaven and the Eucharist at the 
 same time). And then he concludes, ‘‘ This is the Catholic faith and 
 confession which the apostles delivered, the martyrs confirmed, and the 
 faithful now keep and preserve.”} 
 
 Leo the Great is equally explicit : 
 ‘“‘Christ,” says he, “ being raised up to heaven in sight of His dis- 
 
 ASIN Gan. Wie te + Ad Trasimund. 1. 2. ο. 17. 1 Contr. Eutych. I, 1. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. ΤῊ} 
 
 ciples, He put an end to His bodily presence.” (So he explains it, 
 that He was to remain at the right hand of His Father till He should 
 come again to judge the quick and the dead).* 
 
 And, lastly, the Venerable Bede testifies : 
 
 “Christ ascending after His resurrection into heaven as a conqueror, 
 left the Church as to His bodily presence, which yet He never left 
 destitute of the security of His divine presence, remaining in the Church 
 always to the end of the world.”} 
 
 Now it is next to impossible to conceive that such language as 
 this, instances of which might be increased indefinitely, could be 
 used by so many persons, and on various occasions, and no hint 
 be ever dropped by any one of them, that there was a sense 
 and manner in which Christ was still present with his Church 
 corporeally,—in all the reality of his human nature, if they had 
 had such belief. Nothing can be sounder than their teaching, it 
 is true, but it is in direct antagonism to that of the Pope and Mr. 
 Wilberforce. But the argument can be pushed much further than 
 this. For it is not alone that the Fathers do not mention any 
 corporeal presence, but rather speak against ; they go beyond this, 
 and argue for its impossibility. Protestant divines have long con- 
 sidered the doctrine of the corporeal presence, as taught by the 
 Church of Rome, and necessitated by transubstantiation, as at 
 variance with the dictates of reason and the deductions of science. 
 We shall find that the Fathers of the primitive Church were, 
 in this matter, as good Protestants as ourselves. 
 
 The objections to the doctrine of transubstantiation, arising 
 from the physical impossibility of Christ’s natural body being in 
 many places at the same moment, are thus sought to be obviated 
 by the Archdeacon : | 
 
 “We have seen that (the predicates) were the self same body 
 and blood which He had taken of the Virgin, of her substance ; 
 and which He so shortly afterwards offered upon the cross.”} 
 To this it is objected, “(1), That such a thing is impossible, 
 
 * Serm. 2. de Ascens. Dom. + Com. in Mare. 15. t Doct. H. Euch. p. 80. 
 I 
 
58 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 and (2), if not naturally impossible, it is yet burthened by such 
 an amount of improbability as no evidence is able to overcome.” 
 
 “Tt is said then, first, that it was impossible that our Lord 
 could impart to His disciples that body and blood which per- 
 tained to Himself ;” but “how can the possibility of such a thing 
 be denied, considering the imperfect state of our knowledge 
 respecting physical substance?” ‘That the glorified body of 
 Christ can possess powers and properties beyond those which 
 other bodies are known to possess, was shewn, says Kahnis, 
 ‘before His resurrection, by His walking on the sea, and after- 
 wards, by its entering through closed doors.”* ‘ Our Lord’s 
 human body is not subject to the laws of material existence, 
 because His body is a glorified body.”+ 
 
 Such are a few of the sentences which the Archdeacon has 
 put together in explanation of what he afterwards calls a mani- 
 Sold, a dynamic presence. Tow it can be, consistently with 
 reason, he does not attempt to shew; but having filled several 
 pages, in the attempt to prove that all the promised blessings of 
 Christ are to be looked for through the res sacramenti, which 
 is identical with what we see, and is really what we eat and 
 drink in the Eucharist, he finds no difficulty at all in winding up 
 with this: “Jf a res sacramenti be admitted, and that res 
 sacramenti the body of Christ, 7¢ is impossible to deny that He 
 is really present. And hence tt must be supposed that such was 
 the truth, which our catechism was designed to inculcate, since it 
 affirms that the inward part, or thing signified, is the body of 
 Christ.’ 
 
 The coolness with which these assumptions are consecutively 
 made, and followed, a few lines afterwards, with the assurance that 
 “This is a truth which neither Calvanists nor Zuinglians can 
 recognise,’ would create some degree of wonder in the support 
 of any other cause than that of Popery. It is surprising, not 
 only that such a man as Robert Isaac Wilberforce can mislead 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch. p. 82. + Ibid. p. 151. + Ibid. p. 142. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 59 
 
 others by swch modes of reasoning, but that he should be himself 
 deceived by them. 
 
 We will now enquire into the opinions of the Fathers, as to 
 the reasonableness of the Archdeacon’s doctrine on manifold or 
 dynamic presence; and it will certainly be some justification to 
 him in propounding it, if we can find any indication, however 
 faint, that such has been the teaching of the Church from the 
 primitive ages. 
 
 In the first place, the Fathers reasonably distinguish between 
 spirit and matter by the different qualities of each, and prove 
 that God is a Spirit, by shewing that He is not subject to the 
 conditions of matter. Thus, Gregory Nazianzen says, “ If God 
 be a body, what kind of body, and how ?—an impalpable and 
 invisible one? That is not the nature of bodies.” “Oh! strange 
 license, to imagine this,’* he exclaims; and equally strange is 
 it, to confound conversely the differing natures of body and spirit, 
 by ascribing to the former all the attributes and conditions of the 
 latter, as is done in the case of our Lord’s body by the figment 
 of transubstantiation. ‘That is not a body,” remarks Gregory 
 Nyssen, ‘‘ which wants colour, figure, solidness, space, weight, 
 and the rest of its attributes.’ But according to the “ Doctrine 
 of the Holy Eucharist,” a body may exist while wanting each 
 and all of these properties. Gregory the Great tells us, when 
 discoursing on the nature of a glorified body, “It will, there- 
 fore, be a subtile body, because it will be incorruptible ; but it 
 will be palpable, because it will not lose the essence of its true 
 nature. { If he had known of the reputed wonders in the EKucha- 
 ristic transformation, how comes it that he made no exception in 
 its favour? The least which we might have expected would be 
 this ; for, as he was discussing the nature of a glorified body, and 
 there was no other than that of Jesus then existing, it would have 
 been but reasonable to state, that the then sole existing type was 
 exempt from the conditions laid down. 
 
 * Orat. 94. + De Opific. Hom. cap. 24. | Moral. Lib. 14, cap, 33. 
 
60 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Now list to what St. Augustine says : 
 
 «There can be no body, either celestial or terrestrial, aéreal or 
 aqueous, that is not less in a part than in the whole; nor can it any 
 ways have another part in the place of this part, but must have one 
 here, another elsewhere, throughout the several distant and divided 
 spaces of place,” &c.* 
 
 We see that Augustine, in this passage, expressly names 
 celestial bodies, which must include Christ’s glorified body; but 
 when speaking of that body individually and directly, he says : 
 
 ‘““We are not to doubt that whole Christ is everywhere present as 
 God, and is in the same temple of God, as an inhabiting Deity, and 
 
 in one certain place of heaven, by reason of the nature of his true 
 body.” 
 
 And again : 
 
 ‘““God is whole in heaven, and whole on earth; not at different 
 times successively, but both together; which no corporeal nature is 
 capable of.’} 
 
 In another place he remarks: 
 
 ‘Man, as to his body, is in a place, and passes from one place to 
 another; and when he comes to another place, he is no longer in that 
 place from whence he came. But God fills all things, and is every- 
 where whole, not confined to places according to spaces. Christ, 
 according to his visible flesh, was on earth ; according to his invisible 
 majesty, in heaven and earth.”} 
 
 And in his book against Faustus, he says: 
 
 «That Christ, according to his corporal presence, cannot be at the 
 same time in the sun, and in the moon, and on the cross.’’§ 
 
 And lastly: 
 
 “Our Lord is above, yet also truth, the Lord, is here: for the body 
 of our Lord, in which He arose, must be in one place; his truth is 
 diffused everywhere.”'| 
 
 Theodoret, when speaking of the Divine essence, says of it, 
 ‘Only the Divinity, as being undetermined, is not confined to 
 
 * Contra Epist. Manichei, cap. 16. + De Civit. Dei. 1. 22. ο. 29. 
 } Tract. 31. in Joan. § Lib. 20. cap. 11. || Tract 80. in Joan, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 61 
 
 place ;"* but speaking elsewhere of Christ's body after the resur- 
 rection, he says, “Still it is a body, having its former circum- 
 scription."t Fulgentius also remarks, “If the body of Christ 
 be a true one, it must be contained in a place.”"{ And again he 
 declares, without any exception, “ Every thing so remains, as it 
 has received of God that it should be, one on this manner, and 
 another on that. For it is not given to bodies to exist after such 
 a manner as is granted unto spirits,” &c.§ 
 
 Now it will be perceived, at a glance, how irreconcileable this 
 language of the Fathers is with that of the Archdeacon. The 
 latter, following the Romish doctors, tells us “ Christ was asserted 
 to communicate Himself, as a whole, in every portion of the 
 sacred elements.” And “the ancient notion was identical with 
 that which was laid down by the Greek Church at the Council 
 of Jerusalem, a.p. 1672. ‘We believe that in every portion, 
 even to the minutest subdivision, of the bread and wine, after 
 they have been changed, are contained not any separate part of 
 the body and blood of the Lord; but the body of Christ is always 
 whole, and one in all its parts; and the Lord Jesus is present in 
 His substance, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, as perfect 
 God, and perfect man.’”—Doct. H. Kuch. p. 70, 71. 
 
 It will thus be seen, that the doctrine which is now propounded 
 for our acceptance in the English Church, after an abeyance of 
 more than three centuries, is opposed both in spirit and letter to 
 the doctrine of the early Church. We might increase the number 
 of our quotations to any extent, but those which are given must 
 prove sufficient, since they contradict the doctrine of Christ's 
 corporeal presence on earth in every shape, by implication, by 
 assumption, and by direct negation. In the opinion of the 
 Fathers, such a doctrine as that of transubstantiation confounds 
 the varying natures of things, and makes reasoning impossible. 
 In fact, our senses are an incumbrance if we must believe ab- 
 surdities. 
 
 *In Gen. qu. 3. + Dial. 2. { Ad. Thrasimund. lib. 2.¢.18. § De Fide. ad Petr. ὁ, ὃ, 
 
62 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 But yet, another cogent proof that the primitive Christians did 
 not imagine the humanity of the Saviour, in any special way, 
 connected with the Eucharistic elements, is this—that whatever 
 language they use with respect to the blessings conveyed by the 
 worthy receiving of the Lord’s Supper, the same they use of the 
 worthy receiving of every other divinely-appointed ordinance. 
 “The gift,” to the devout worshipper, is by them never con- 
 sidered to be different, or differently conveyed, according as a 
 change takes place in the religious service. 7 add it is assumed, 
 according to God's promise, that those who humbly look to Him 
 in the use of prescribed means, shall not fail of the desired 
 end. Jn adi spiritual grace is given, faith increased and 
 strengthened, hope more assured, love warmed ; in short, all the 
 faculties of the soul invigorated, regulated, sanctified. To be 
 the recipient of these blessings is to be a recipient ‘‘ of the body 
 and blood of Christ ;” to share in these spiritual gifts is to be 
 “a partaker of the divine nature.” Neither Scripture nor the 
 Fathers hesitate to declare these blessings, received by every 
 humble and contrite soul, in whatever manner and at whatever 
 time, it approaches the footstool of mercy, though special promises 
 are made and special mercies vouchsafed to the congregation of 
 the faithful, to the saints in communion. 
 
 The first passage which I will bring will be from St. Augustine, 
 who shews that the faithful Jews in the wilderness, in the days of 
 Moses, participated in the same blessings as we are said now to 
 do in the Eucharist. In his Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, 
 he says: 
 
 “See the signs are varied, faith remaining the same. ‘There the 
 rock was Christ; to us, that which is laid on the altar is Christ ; and 
 they drank of the water that flowed from the rock, for a great sacra- 
 ment of the same Christ ; what we drink, the faithful know. If you 
 regard the visible species or nature, it is another thing; if the spiritual 
 or intelligible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink.”* 
 
 * Tract. 45. in Joan. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 63 
 
 And, again : 
 
 ᾿ς The apostle says, that our fathers, not the fathers of unbelievers, 
 not the fathers of the wicked, that did eat and die, but our fathers, the 
 fathers of the faithful, did eat spiritual meat, and therefore the same 
 (aswe). For there were such there, to whom Christ was more tasteful 
 in their heart than manna in their mouth. Whosoever understood 
 Christ in the manna, did eat the same spiritual meat we do. So also 
 the same drink, for the rock was Christ. Therefore they drank the 
 same drink we do, but spiritual drink, that is, drink which was received 
 by faith, not what was swallowed down by the body.’ 
 
 That Christians now may become partakers of the body and 
 blood of Christ, as did the Jews in the wilderness, by other means 
 than Eucharistic celebration in the opinion of the Fathers, is 
 manifest from the following passages : 
 
 “Thus Cyril of Alexandria says, ‘The Gentiles could not have 
 shaken off their blindness, and contemplated the divine and holy light, 
 that is, attained the knowledge of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, 
 unless by holy baptism they had been made partakers of His holy flesh, 
 and washed away the blackness of their sin, and shaked off the devil’s 
 power.’ + 
 
 «And elsewhere, speaking of the eunuch: ‘ He by his question,’ 
 says he, ‘ shewed, that he was partaker of the Spiritual Lamb; for he 
 was presently thought worthy of baptism.’ ’’t 
 
 “ Fulgentius: ‘ Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
 drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Which whosoever can 
 consider, not only according to the mystery of truth (viz. in the sacra- 
 ments), but according to the truth of the mystery, will see that this is 
 done in the laver of holy regeneration.’ ’’§ 
 
 «And again: ‘ Neither need any one in the least doubt, that every 
 believer is then made partaker of Christ’s body and blood, when he is 
 made in baptism a member of Christ’s body.’ ”|| 
 
 « Therefore St. Basil says, ‘That the Lord takes away Christ from 
 those who having put Him on by baptism, by sinning afterwards 
 trample upon His body, and count the blood of the covenant an unholy 
 thing.’ 4] 
 
 * De util peenit. ὁ. 1. + In Joan. 9. 6. + Glaphyr. in Exod. Lib. 2. 
 § De Bapt. Acthiop. in fine. || Ibid. g In Esa. 3. 
 
64 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Neither transubstantiation, nor sacramental mastication of the 
 divine emblems, is necessary to make us all that the Fathers 
 declare us to be, by joining in the celebration of the Holy Eucha- 
 rist. ‘‘ Believe and thou hast eaten,” is the essence of all scrip- 
 tural doctrine. But as there are other ways, besides participating 
 in the Lord’s Supper, by which we may eat the flesh of Christ, 
 and drink his blood,” so not all those who partake of the former 
 are recipients of the latter. And here it cannot be too strongly 
 insisted upon, that this one point, well established, would settle 
 the whole controversy as to the identity of the sacramentum and 
 the ves sacramenti,—t.e., as to the necessary connection between 
 the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ, which they 
 represent. For if the identity, of which we have heard so much, 
 be a fact, there is no possibility but that he who receives the one 
 must receive the other, whatever be his individual character. But 
 if the primative Christians held that only the faithful received the 
 thing signified, it is manifest that they could not have known the 
 “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,” as it has been lately taught ; 
 that, in fact, they were ignorant of the principle of transmutation, 
 and held the views on the Eucharist which we hold to-day. And, 
 as there can be no doubt of the opinions of the Fathers on this 
 head, we need not hesitate for a moment to declare them all good, 
 scriptural Protestants. 
 
 It might have been supposed that the declarations of Scripture, 
 on this point, would have been sufficient to prevent men going 
 astray as to the means of communication between the sinner and 
 the Saviour. Such passages as the following contain a doctrine 
 so entirely opposed to that of Romanism, that it is no wonder the 
 Papists are prohibited from reading the Word of God; and the 
 doctrine propounded by Archdeacon Wilberforce is pure, unadul- 
 terated Popery. ‘That the sacred records should, therefore, be 
 opposed to his teaching, is no more than we might expect to find: 
 that he himself should not be able to see this, must cause us 
 wonder and regret. We will take Scripture first and then proceed 
 to consider the testimony of the Fathers. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 65 
 
 Whether or not Jesus was referring, by anticipation, to the 
 sacrament commemorative of his death, in the discourse with the 
 Capernaites, recorded in the sixth of John, one thing is certain: 
 he spoke of a necessary connection between Himself and those 
 who were to have beneficial interest in Him, as brought about by 
 eating His flesh and drinking His blood. “ Except ye eat the 
 flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in 
 you, (ver. 58). Those who heard this declaration, it appears, 
 did not understand it, or, at all events, were staggered at it. They 
 exclaimed, with surprise and incredulity, “How can this man 
 give us his flesh to eat?” (ver. 52). But earlier, in the same 
 discourse, Jesus had told them that the participation of Him, 
 which He propounded under the terms of “eating His flesh and 
 drinking His blood,” was to be effected, not by the mastication 
 of the teeth, but by an act of the mind. Thus He had said, “T 
 am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, 
 he that believeth on me shall never thirst,” (ver 35); plainly 
 indicating, that such as came to and believed on Him, should have 
 the full effects of participating in Himself—the heavenly food. 
 But he goes still further, and declares that there was no necessity 
 for them to murmur, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it ?” 
 (ver. 60); for He asks, ‘‘ Doth this offend you? It is the spirit 
 that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I 
 speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” Or, in other 
 words, He assures them that it was not His natural flesh and 
 blood that He meant, which, being eaten, could profit nothing ; 
 but that His words were to be understood in a higher and a 
 figurative sense, as predicating the necessity of the soul’s being 
 quickened by the Divine Spirit, as the means of attaining to 
 eternal life. 
 
 But as these explanatory words, which were intended to remove 
 the difficulty of reception for the doctrine taught, were not effec- 
 tual to insure a beneficial reception of it then,—for, “from that ἢ 
 time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with 
 
 Him,” (ver. 66),—so they are not sufficient to prevent misappre- 
 K 
 
66 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 hension now. It would seem that the difficulty of the Capernaites 
 was got over by the explanation, but they did not relish the 
 doctrine itself, when explained, nor the personal remarks which 
 our Lord made upon it. Now, however, the case is vastly changed. 
 “ How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” is satisfactorily 
 (to himself) answered by the Romanizer, without adopting the 
 explanation of the Saviour; and he insists that sacramental com- 
 munion, coupled with a transubstantial change, makes the whole 
 clear and natural. But will the other conditions of the discourse 
 consist with this idea? It appears not. The Church of Rome 
 teaches, as witnessed by Aquinas (whom the Archdeacon delights 
 to call Saint Thomas), that Christ does give His flesh to both 
 bad and good to be eaten. ‘‘ Seeing,” he says, “‘ the body of 
 Christ always remains in the sacrament, till the sacramental species 
 are corrupted, it follows that even wicked men do eat the body of 
 Christ.” And the Archdeacon adds, to the same purpose, “ No 
 less significant is the fact, that the body and blood of Christ were 
 believed to be orally received, even by unworthy communicants.” * 
 And again, “they all believed the outward form to be uniformly 
 accompanied by the inward reality,’t which is only a necessary 
 consequence of the belief that the connection between the outward 
 sign and the inward grace is one of identity. 
 
 But all this is very different from what our Lord discourses in 
 the chapter before us. Not only does He not say that the wicked 
 may eat His flesh and drink His blood, but He states it to be 
 impossible. ‘“ Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and 
 are dead; this is the bread which cometh down from heaven, 
 that a man may eat thereof and not die.”—(John vi., 49, 50.) 
 If the Romish interpretation of this passage be true, the contrast 
 between the effects of the manna and those of the bread which 
 came down from heaven, is entirely lost, and, indeed, untrue. “J 
 am the living bread,” continues the Saviour, “which came down 
 from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever,” 
 
 7 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch. p. 264. i + Ibid. 267. 
 
ad 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 67 
 
 (ver. 51) ; ‘‘ Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath 
 eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day,” (ver. 54) ; 
 *“ As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so 
 he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread 
 which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, 
 and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever’— 
 57, 58.) Now, a more flat contradiction than that which the Po- 
 pish doctrine gives to these passages it is impossible to conceive. 
 Jesus Christ says, that life is the natural and necessary conse- 
 quence of eating His flesh, as necessary as that He Himself 
 should live by the Father. “ He that eateth me, even he shall 
 live by me.” “No,” says the Romanist, avowed or covert, “the 
 wicked may eat, and be lost.” Let us now enquire what is the 
 opinion of the Fathers on this point, “ and if,” as says an 
 old author, “by their plain words, we can understand their 
 sense, they assert that only the faithful, and not the wicked, eat 
 the body of Christ, and drink His blood, in a proper sense. St. 
 Jerome,” says he, “ calls the flesh of Christ the ‘food of be- 
 lievers ;** and Isidore of Seville, that it is the ‘ meat of the saints.’+ 
 And he adds (which makes it their food, and of none else), 
 ‘which, if any one eat, he shall not die eternally.’ They there- 
 fore often call it the bread of life, and life itself. St. Ambrose: 
 “This is the bread of life ; he that eateth life cannot die; for how 
 should he die whose food is 116. The same author continues: 
 «To this none has more admirably and fully spoken than Origen. 
 Who having said a great deal about Christ’s typical and symbolical 
 body (which St. Augustine called before, the visible sacrament), he goes 
 on thus: ‘Many things almost might be said concerning that Word 
 which was made flesh, and the true food, which whosoever eats shall 
 
 surely live for ever, no wicked man being capable of eating it. For if 
 it were possible that a wicked man, continuing such, should eat him 
 
 * In Oseam, c. 8.—Cujus caro cibus credentium est. 
 
 + In Genes. c. 31.—Caro ejus qui est esca Sanctorum. Quam si quis manducayerit, 
 non morietur in eternum. [p. 304. Colon. Agr. 1617.] 
 
 { In Psal. 118. Serm. 18. Hic est panis vite: qui manducat vitam mori non 
 potest ; quomodo enim morietur, cui cibus vita est? [vol. 1. p. 1203. Par. 1686.] 
 
68 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 that was made flesh, seeing He is the Word, and the living bread, it 
 would not have been written, that whosoever eats this bread shall live 
 for ever.’* 
 
 «This is that which Macarius discourses of so largely and piously. 
 Telling us, that as a great rich man, having both servants and sons, 
 ‘gives one sort of meat to the servants, and another to the sons that 
 he begot, who, being heirs to their father, do eat with him.—So,’ says 
 he, ‘ Christ, the true Lord, himself created all, and nourishes the evil 
 and unthankful; but the children begotten by him, who are partakers 
 of His grace, and in whom the Lord is formed; He feeds them with 
 a peculiar refection and food, and meat and drink above and besides 
 other men, and gives himself to them that have conversation with their 
 Father, as the Lord says, He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My 
 blood, abides in me, and I in him, and shall not see death.’ ’’t 
 
 With this St. Jerome agrees, speaking of voluptuous men: 
 “ Not being holy in body and spirit, they neither eat the flesh of 
 Jesus, nor drink His blood ; concerning which He says, He that 
 eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life."} St. 
 Augustine also says, “Of that bread, and from our Lord’s own 
 hand, both Judas and Peter took a part."§ But then he makes 
 the distinction himself, that Judas received only the “bread of 
 the Lord,” when the other disciples received the “bread that was 
 the Lord ;” which is directly contrary to transubstantiation ; for 
 according to that, even such a one as Judas must eat the Lord, 
 
 *In Matth. ὁ. 15, v. 15, [p. 253, Ed. Huet.] Kai ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τοῦ τυπικοῦ 
 καὶ συμβολικοῦ σώματος. Πολλὰ δ᾽ ἂν καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοιτο τοῦ λόγου, 
 ws γέγονε σὰρξ καὶ ἀληθινὴ βρῶσις, ἣν τινα ὃ φάγων πάντως ζήσεται εἰς 
 τὸν αἰῶνα, οὐδενὸς δυναμένου φαύλου ἐσθίειν αὐτήν. Ec γὰρ οἷον τε ἣν 
 ἔτι φαῦλον μένοντα ἐσθίειν τὸν γενόμενον σάρκα λόγον ὄντα καὶ ἄρτον 
 ζῶντα, οὐκ ἂν ἐγέγραπτο ὅτι πᾶς ὁ φάγων τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον ζήσεται εἰς 
 
 ‘ IA 
 TOV αἰῶνα. 
 
 + Homil. 14.---͵αλλὴν τροφὴν δίδωσι τοῖς δούλοις, καὶ ἀλλὴν τοῖς ἰδίοις 
 TEKVOLS— Ἐπειδὴ τὰ τέκνα κληρονομοῦσι τὸν πατέρα, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐσθίουσι 
 --᾿Ιδίων ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ τροφὴν καὶ βρῶσιν καὶ πόσιν, παρὰ τοὺς λοίπους 
 ἀνθρώπους ἐκτρέφει, καὶ δίδωσιν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς, ke. 
 
 1 Inc. 66. Esaiz. Dum non sunt sancti corpore et spiritu, nec comedunt carnem 
 ΠΝ neque bibunt sapguinem ejus, de quo ipse loquituy ; Qui comedit carnem meam 
 et bibit sanguinem meum, habet vitam eternam. [vol. 4. p. 816. Veron. 1735. ] 
 
 § Contra. Donatist. post collat. ὁ. 6, De ipso pane et de ipse Dominica manu, et 
 Judas partem et Petrus accepit. , 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 69 
 
 and no bread, when this Father says, that he ate the bread and 
 no Lord.* 
 
 It is also very observable, that as the Council of Trent and 
 the Archdeacon make eating Christ sacramentally and really to 
 be the same, and spiritual eating to be of another sort, not real, 
 but, one would think, rather imaginary: quite on the contrary, 
 the Fathers distinguish the sacramental eating from the real, and 
 make the spiritual and real eating to be the same; and they will 
 grant that a bad man may eat Christ sacramentally (that is, in 
 sign) but not really ; for so none but the faithful can do it. 
 
 For thus St. Augustine: ‘“ Then will this be, that is, the body 
 and blood of Christ will be life to every one, if that which is 
 visibly taken in the sacrament, be in the truth itself spiritually 
 eaten and spiritually drunk.”} 
 
 Which in another place he expresses by the “ visible sacra- 
 ment,” and the “ virtue of the sacrament.’{| Again most expressly: 
 “ Christ saying, He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blocd, 
 dwelleth in Me, and I in him, shews what it is, not sacramentally 
 but really and in truth, to eat Christ's body and drink His 
 blood.Ӥ And therefore in the same chapter, speaking of wicked 
 men, he says, ‘‘ Neither can they be said to eat the body of Christ, 
 since they are not to be accounted Christ's members.”|| 
 
 St. Augustine again distinguishes the sacramentum ret from 
 the res sacramenti. Thus: “ The sacrament of this thing—is 
 prepared on the Lord’s table, and received from the Lord’s table, 
 
 * Tract. ὅθ. in Joan. Evang. Illi manducabant Panem Dominum: ille Panem 
 Domiui contra Dominum ; illi vitam, ille poenam. 
 
 + Serm. 2. de Verb, Apost. Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, Vita unicuique erit corpus 
 et sanguis Christi, si, quod in Sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate 
 Spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur. 
 
 t Tract. 26. in Joan. Quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad 
 visibile Sacramentum. 
 
 ὃ De Civit. Dei. 1.21. 6. 25. Ipse dicens, qui manducat carnem meam et bibit 
 sanguinem meum in me manet et ego in eo, ostendit quid sit, non Sacramento tenus, 
 sed revera Corpus Christi manducare et sanguinem ejus bibere. 
 
 || Ibid. Neque enim isti dicendi sunt manducare Corpus Christi, quoniam nec in 
 membris computandi sunt Christi. 
 
70 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 to some to life, and to others to destruction. But the thing itself, 
 of which it is a sacrament, is for life to every one that partakes 
 of it, and to none for destruction.”* For as St. Chrysostem 
 phrases it, ‘‘ He that receives this bread, will be above dying.’} 
 I will conclude this chapter with two remarkable places of St. 
 
 Augustine : 
 
 “The first is cited by Prosper, who has gathered St. Augustine’s 
 sentences: ‘ He receives the food of life, and drinks the cup of eternity, 
 who abides in Christ, and in whom Christ inhabits. For he that 
 disagrees with Christ, neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood ; 
 although he takes indifferently every day the sacrament of so great a 
 thing to the condemnation of his presumption.’| The other place is 
 upon the sixth chapter of St. John: ‘Christ,’ says he, ‘ expounded 
 the manner of His assignment and gift, how He gave His flesh to eat, 
 saying, He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in 
 Me, and Tin him. The sign that he eateth and drinketh is this, if he 
 abides in Christ and Christ in him, if he dwells in Him and is inha- 
 bited by Him, if he cleaves to Him so as not to be forsaken by Him.’§ 
 
 «And he concludes with this exhortation: ‘ Let all that has been 
 said, beloved, prevail thus far with us, that we may not eat Christ’s 
 flesh and blo in sacrament (or sign) only, but may eat and drink as 
 far as to the participation of the Spirit, that we may remain as mem- 
 bers in our Lord’s body, that we may be enlivened by His Spirit,’ ”|| &c. 
 
 * Tract. 26. in Joan. Hujus rei Sacramentum—in Dominica Mensa preparatur, 
 et de Dominica Mensa sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam; quibusdam ad exitium. Res 
 vero ipsa cujus et Sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque 
 ejus particeps fuerit. 
 
 + Catena in Joh. 6,49. Ταύτης μέν τοι τῆς τροφῆς μεταλαβὼν, ἀνώτερος 
 ἔσται τοῦ θανάτου. 
 
 11ὰν. Sentent. ex August. sententia (mihi) 341. vel. 339. Escam vite accipit et 
 zternitatis poculum bibit, qui in Christo manet, et cujus Christus habitator est. Nam 
 qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec sanguinem bibit; etiamsi 
 tante rei Sacramentum ad judicium sue presumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat. 
 [p. 956. par. I711.] 
 
 § Tract. 27. in Joan. in initio. Exposuit [Christus] modum attributionis hujus et 
 doni sui, quomodo daret carnem suam manducare, dicens, Qui manducat carnem 
 meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in illo. Signum quia manducat 
 et bibet, hoc est, si manet et manetur, si habitat et inhabitatur, si heret ut non 
 deseratur. 
 
 || Ibid. prope finem. Hoe ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, dilectissimi, ut carnem 
 Christi et sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento, quod et multi mali ; 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 71 
 
 Such is a fair specimen of the opinions of the Fathers on the 
 subject of our 29th Article, which says, “The wicked, and such 
 as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly 
 press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the sacrament 
 of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers 
 of Christ; but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink 
 the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.” Such language would 
 be impossible in the mouth of any man believing in transubstan- 
 tiation, or the identity of which the Archdeacon speaks. What 
 the advocates of Romish doctrine declare to be received in the 
 Lord’s Supper by the wicked, is flatly and directly contradicted 
 and declared impossible, by the Fathers of the primitive Church, 
 as by those of our own. Scripture, reason, and the voice of Ca- 
 tholic antiquity, are all on the side of the reformed churches of 
 the present day. It is deeply humiliating to our pride, as well 
 as distressing to our feelings, that men of repute among us,—for 
 position, learning, and moral worth,—should be so sadly deluded 
 as to throw off at once this, as well as other important truths, with 
 all their sanctions. ‘“ The gift,” as conveyed in the elements, is 
 a favourite phrase of Mr. Wilberforce ; but it is difficult to ima- 
 gine what idea he can have of “the gift” in the case of the 
 wicked. He has forsaken the pure and sound teaching of the 
 Bible, the Fathers, and the Reformation, for the obscene and 
 blasphemous rubbish of an apostate church and a shameless 
 priesthood. In leu of such views as those, which I have given 
 above, the following, from Romish divines, must be the Arch- 
 deacon’s choice. Thus, when speculating on the reception of the 
 whole Christ,—body, blood, soul, and divinity,—by the wicked, 
 Dom. Soto, who was.one of the learned doctors of the Council of 
 Trent, says, “ We must undoubtedly hold, that the body of Christ 
 
 sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus et bibamus, ut in Domini corpore 
 tanquam membra maneamnus, et ejus spiritu vegetemur, &c. 
 
 See Patrick’s ‘‘ A Full View of the Doctrizes and Practices of the Ancient Church, 
 relating to the Eucharist, &c.,” apud. Gibson’s Preservative against Popery. [Ref. 
 Soc. Ed. vol. ix. 1848. ] 
 
72 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 descends into the stomach, though a wicked man takes it,”* which 
 Aquinas confirms: “ Seeing the body of Christ always remains in 
 the sacrament till the sacramental species are corrupted, it follows 
 that even wicked men do eat the body of Christ ;”+ and he adds, 
 “The body of Christ remains in this sacrament, so long as the 
 sacramental species remain. When they cease to be, the body of 
 Christ ceases to be underthem.”{ And what are the consequences 
 of this monstrous doctrine? Horrible in the extreme. Dom. 
 Soto tells us, “ We ought undoubtedly to hold, that Christ's body 
 descends into the stomach. Since digestion is made in the sto- 
 mach, there the species cease to be, and so also Christ's body, and 
 therefore will not descend into the draught ;"§ and, in case diges- 
 tion is imperfect, he says, “If, by reason of any disease, the 
 species should descend (into the draught he means), the body 
 also itself would descend and be sent forth. For shame ought 
 not to be a reason for denying the truth.”|| To all which the 
 canonized St. Antoninus agrees, quoting Paludanus (professor of 
 theology at Louvaine) as an authority. ‘‘ Therefore,” says he, 
 “the body and blood of Christ remain so long in the belly and 
 stomach, or vomit, or anywhere else, as the species remain, just 
 as the converted substance (viz., bread and wine) would have 
 remained. And if the species are vomited up whole, or go forth 
 (downward), there is truly the body of Christ.’ 
 
 * In 4. dist. 12. qu. 1. art. 3.—Est indubié tenendum quod corpus (se. Christi) 
 descendit in stomachum, etiamsi ab iniquo sumatur. 
 
 + Part. 8. quest. 80. art. 8. conclus. Cum corpus Christi in Sacramento semper 
 permaneat, dones species Sacramentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi 
 corpus manducare consequitur. 
 
 + In 3. part. quest. 76. art. 6. ad 8. Corpus Christi remanet in hoc Sacramento, 
 quousque species sacramentales manent. Quibus cessantibus desinit, esse corpus 
 Christi sub eis. 
 
 8 In 4. dist. dist. 12. qu. 1. art. 3. Est indubié tenendum, quod corpus (se. 
 Christi) descendit in stomachum.—Cum digestio fiat in stomacho, illic desinunt esse 
 species atque adeo corpus, quare non descendit in ventrem. 
 
 || Ibid. Sed si ob aliquem morbum species descenderent, consequenter et ipsum 
 corpus descenderet et emitteretur. Pudor enim non debet esse in causa negandi veri- 
 tatem. 
 
 4 Part. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. sect. 3. Igitur corpus Christi et sanguis tamdiu manet in 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 73 
 
 It is hard to decide which predominates in these quotations, 
 daring blasphemy or degraded filth. That the sons of the illus- 
 trious William Wilberforce should have abandoned their father’s 
 faith for such prurient obscenities, is not only a blot upon their 
 “perilous inheritance” of a great name, but a disgrace to the age 
 in which we live. 
 
 I cannot conclude this chapter without noticing the fact, 
 that no more emphatic condemnation of the opinion, that the 
 wicked eat the body of Christ, in the sacrament, is needed, than 
 is acknowledged in the “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,” and 
 partly in notice of the passages which have been here quoted. 
 *‘ Origen’s addiction to the Platonic philosophy would naturally 
 lead him to undervalue any facts opposed to its spiritualizing 
 tendency; so that he is a peculiarly unsafe witness respecting the 
 Holy Eucharist. This circumstance destroys his authority, when 
 he seems, though but uncertainly, to indicate, in opposition to 
 the common judgment of antiquity, that none but devout re- 
 ceivers partake of the real body of Christ.”* “Τὴ the sequel, 
 Origen speaks of our Lord’s body as the true food which no bad 
 man is able to eat.’+ Nor does the quotation against Celsus, 
 “We eat the bread, which is made a certain sacred body by 
 prayer, and which sanctifies those who with good intent use 10,1 
 militate against, but rather strongly confirm, this view, notwith- 
 standing the Archdeacon’s comment upon it; for had Origen had 
 the idea that it was Christ’s rea/ body, he could not have said a 
 certain sacred body, while he strictly confines the true reception 
 to those who use it “‘ with good intent.” 
 
 And of St. Augustine it is remarked, “‘ when he says, indeed, 
 that Judas eat ‘the bread of the Lord,’ while the other disciples 
 ‘eat the Lord who was bread,’§ he was only expressing the truth, 
 that a personal relation to our Lord, who gives His body for our 
 ventre et stomacho, vel vomitu, et quocunque alibi, quamdiu species manent, sicut sub- 
 stantia conversa mansisset. Et si species incorruptee evomuntur, vel egrediuntur, est 
 ibi vere corpus Christi. 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch. p. 248. + Orig. Com. in Matth. 
 
 t Cont. Celsum. viii. 33, vol. i. p. 766. § In Joan. lix. 1, p. 663. 
 L 
 
74 THE TRUE DOCTKINE 
 
 food in this sacrament, is not dependent on the mere partaking 
 of that food, but is reserved for its devout participants. And the 
 same may have been his purpose, when he says that the sacra- 
 mentum is given ‘to some to life, to others to destruction,’ but 
 that ‘the thing itself, of which it is the sacramentum, is given 
 to every man to life, who is a partaker of 10. He could not 
 mean to deny that the inward part is present by virtue of con- 
 secration, and that all communicants receive it, because he says, 
 in express words, that the body and blood of Christ are received 
 even by those who do not profit by them.’ 
 
 The remark about personal relation, &c., is simply “explaining 
 away. If the bread had been the Lord in Mr. Wilberforce’s 
 sense, Judas must have eaten Him as well as the rest; and as for 
 “could not mean to deny,” he does 
 deny it, most emphatically and often. Nor is this any contradic- 
 
 what we are told Augustine 
 
 tion to what is quoted from his epistle ; for it is well known that 
 the sacramental emblems commonly received the name of that 
 which they represented.t I quite agree with the sentiment, “we 
 are justified in explaining St. Augustine's lax and general asser- 
 tions by his more systematic statements.” 
 
 * Tn Joan. xxvi. 15, p. 500. + Epis. 140, sec. 68. 
 1 Epist. 23. Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non haberent, 
 quarum sacramenta sunt, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac antem similitudine 
 plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, 
 
 ~2 
 Cr 
 
 CG: By A PALE ΒΥ. 
 
 THE ANCIENT FATHERS DID NOT WORSHIP CHRIST “ΙΝ THE ELEMENTS,” 
 NOR DID THEY CONSIDER THESE, NOR CHRIST IN THEM, A PROPITI- 
 ATORY OFFERING FOR THE SINS OF THE LIVING AND THE DEAD. 
 
 Tue Archdeacon proposes two tests by which to judge of the 
 opinion of the primitive Church, as to the real—z.e. corporeal— 
 presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are the paying it 
 divine honors by the highest act of adoration, and by attributing 
 to its celebration the full virtue of a propitiatory sacrifice. That 
 there may be no mistake, he shall state his own case, after which 
 we will consider his proofs, and enquire of the Fathers for our- 
 selves their opinion of his doctrine. 
 
 “First,” then, says the Archdeacon, “ the plainest proof which men 
 can give that they suppose Christ to be really present in the Holy 
 Encharist, is to render Him divine honour. So much seems to be 
 allowed both by those who admit the real presence and by those who 
 reject it. Luther, as being of the former number, retained the eleva- 
 tion of the host when he drew up a service for Wittenberg.* Calvin+ 
 rests his assertion that our Lord ought not to be worshipped in the Holy 
 Eucharist, on the ground of His absence; and affirms distinctly, that 
 if our Lord were really present there, He ought to be adored. Bishop 
 Andrewes{ employs the same argument: but since he admits the real 
 presence, he draws a contrary conclusion. ‘‘ Christus ipse sacramenti 
 res, in et cum sacramento; extra et sine sacramento, ubi ubi est, ador- 
 andus est.” On this principle it was that the posture of kneeling for 
 the reception of the elements was so warmly objected to by the Zuinglo- 
 Calvinistic party. And its retention by the Church of England, in 
 
 * Hospinian, vol. ii. 19. + Calvin adv. Heshus, works, viii. 727. 
 { Andrewes’ Resp. ad Bellarminum, viii. p. 266. 
 
76 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 opposition to the repeated demands of the Puritans at home, as well as 
 to the example of foreign Protestants, is a fact of great moment, by 
 which she is allied to the ancient faith. This fact is not neutralized by 
 
 the somewhat ambiguous rubric which was affixed to the communion office 
 ὧν 1662.” 
 
 Now, here we have an instance of the very great caution which 
 should be exercised before we either give or withhold our assent to 
 a proposition. That of the Archdeacon above—viz., “the plainest 
 proof which men can give that they suppose Christ to be really 
 present in the Holy Eucharist, is to render Him divine honour” 
 —is one to which no man, rightly instructed in Christian truth, 
 would object; for who would not say, with Bishop Andrewes, 
 ** Christ must be adored wherever He is, whether in the sacrament 
 or out of it?” That Luther and Calvin should say the same is, 
 therefore, not to be wondered at. But what use does the Archdeacon 
 make of this concession on the part of those divines? Why, that 
 as we must worship Christ wherever He is, we may and ought to 
 worship Him in the guise and within the bounds of the sacra- 
 mental elements. Does it follow, then, because the Deity is every- 
 where, and should everywhere be worshipped, that, therefore, we 
 may circumscribe Him within any definite locality and given 
 shape ? It certainly is a perfect non sequitur that, because theo- 
 logy allows the Deity to be everywhere, and in all things, therefore 
 we may fix Him where we please as to place, matter, and form. 
 
 But it may be replied, “it is not the Deity, as such, that is 
 thus circumscribed, but the Deity in conjunction with the 
 humanity of Jesus; nor do we circumscribe Him, He is pleased 
 to do this Himself.” But surely it is of the very essence of 
 idolatry to worship the Deity under a form, or as confined to a 
 given place. The mind can conceive the Supreme Being present 
 in all His perfections everywhere, and able and willing to hear 
 the petitions of His creatures, and to relieve their wants; but if 
 from this any one should begin to limit, and to say that because 
 God was in His house, that, therefore, he was specially in the 
 chancel and on the communion table, and in the bread upon it, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 77 
 
 and that under this form and in that place we should worship Him 
 —I ask, would not this be idolatry? If not, I have no definite 
 idea of what idolatry is; for even the ignorant heathen must be 
 very debased indeed before they can imagine the very stone or 
 wood before their eyes, which they see and feel to be lifeless and 
 lumpish, to be the very Deity of their adoration. Perhaps they 
 have no definite idea at all: but that it is against the will of 
 heaven to worship in such a manner, with whatever feelings, the 
 second commandment clearly shews, and they who presume thus 
 to approach the Most High, must not be surprised if they meet 
 with His frown instead of a smile. “1 the Lord, thy God, am a 
 jealous God,” is a fearful sanction to the prohibition of worship- 
 ping even the true God under any guise whatever. 
 
 And what is it but that which I have described to worship 
 Christ in that bread? This theory of sacramental substitution 
 provides a sensible object for adoration, of which the word of 
 God gives no example, but which it most emphatically prohibits. 
 Nor am I misrepresenting the Archdeacon. For although, in 
 reply to the question, ‘“‘ Whether is our Lord present in this 
 ordinance under a definite form, and in any particular place ?” 
 he says, “We have no reason, therefore, to suppose that form 
 and outline belong to it; because these are the conditions through 
 which things become an object to the senses of men.’ ἢ 
 
 ‘«« And yet,” he continues, as if he hardly knew his own mind on the 
 subject, ‘‘there is one way in which our Lord’s body may be said to 
 be present with form and place in the Holy Eucharist. For there 
 is a connexion between the sacramentum and res sacramenti, and form 
 and place belong to the first, though they do not belong to the second. 
 So that though the res sacramenti, in itself, has neither place nor form, 
 yet it has them in a manner through the sacramentum, with which it 
 is united. Christ’s body, therefore, may be said to have a form in 
 this sacrament, namely, the form of the elements, and to occupy that 
 place, through which the elements extend.” + 
 
 The devout worshipper, therefore, according to the “ Doctrine 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch., p. 140. + Ibid. p. 141. 
 
78 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of the Holy Eucharist,” must adore his God as of the shape and 
 size of the wafer or bread by which he communicates. That 
 is declared to be really, and in the strictest sense of the term, 
 his God. He sees, handles, worships, and eats an entire Christ— 
 body, blood, soul, and divinity! The heathen are innocent after 
 such Christianity as this ! 
 
 But the Archdeacon brings proofs to establish his theory,—7.e., 
 the Popish doctrine which he advocates,—from both the Church of 
 England and the primitive times. From the former he brings 
 two proofs, which immediately follow. ‘‘ Our Lord's ‘ blessed body 
 and blood’ are communicated, as the first Book of Homilies ex- 
 presses it, ‘under the form of bread and wine,” which he would 
 have us take in Ais sense, that Christ's real body is given; the 
 other, that the Church of England has retained the posture of 
 kneeling in the reception of the sacred elements, on the prin- 
 ciple that they are to be adored. ‘This fact,” says Mr. Wilber- 
 force, “15 not neutralized by the somewhat ambiguous rubric,* 
 which was affixed to the Communion office in 1662.” 
 
 “This rubric,” he continues, ‘only affirms that Christ’s natural 
 body and blood are in heaven, and not here, and that no adoration is 
 intended, ‘either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily 
 received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and 
 blood.’ The rubric certainly does not go on to state, as it might have 
 done, that though Christ’s body and blood are not naturally present, 
 except in heaven, yet that their supernatural presence is bestowed in 
 the Holy Eucharist ; and that though no adoration be due to the bread 
 and wine, or to any such corporal presence as the senses can take 
 cognizance of, yet that Christ’s body and blood, really present under 
 the forms of bread and wine, as the inward part or res sacramenti, are 
 entitled to, and receive adoration. Yet since the words which denied 
 these truths have been omitted (in the last version of the Prayer- 
 book), while the practice of kneeling for the reception of the elements 
 continues to be enforced, there is nothing in this rubric which excludes 
 the ancient belief, that Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist, by 
 reason of the presence of His body and blood; and that the presence 
 
 * Rubric after Communion Service in Prayer-book. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 79 
 
 of His body and blood is witnessed by the adoration to which they 
 are entitled.” * 
 
 Now, with regard to what is implied in each of the foregoing 
 quotations,—viz., that the Church of England and the Archdeacon 
 think alike,—it seems that very little indeed need be said to shew 
 the fallacy and falseness of it. The Church asserts over and 
 over again, that Christ's natural body is not in the sacrament, 
 and therefore she could not mean to say that itis given under 
 the form of bread; that is, according to the idea of Popish doc- 
 trine propounded for our acceptance, the real body of Christ is 
 given in the shape and size of the consecrated element, which is 
 the only sense of the paragraph. Did not Mr. R. I. Wilberforce 
 know that the word form in his use, and that of the Homily, had 
 a very different meaning? Either his honesty or his judgment 
 is compromised. 
 
 With regard to the special pleading on the rubric, I have ex- 
 pressed myself strongly in my ‘‘ Appeal to the Archbishop of York,” 
 on the subject of this book ; nor can I qualify what I there wrote 
 in the slightest degree. The sense of the rubric is too clear to be 
 disguised—too full to be explained away. But it is attempted 
 nevertheless. Let us enquire how. The rubric states that 
 Christ's ‘‘ natural body” is in heaven, and therefore cannot be 
 onearth. ‘The rubric does not go on to say, as it might have 
 done,” remarks the Archdeacon, “ that though Christ’s body and 
 blood are not naturally present, except in heaven, yet that their 
 supernatural presence is bestowed in the Eucharist.” It will be 
 perceived that the rubric speaks of the thing, Christ’s “zatural 
 body;” the Archdeacon speaks of a mode of presence, “ naturally 
 present,” “supernatural presence.” Can any one suppose that 
 a skilful logician, and one who had taken high honors at Oxford, 
 could confound these two such very different things, not being 
 able to distinguish between the thing itself and what is predicated 
 of it? The rubric says, Christ's natural body is not in the 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch. pp. 258, 9. 
 
80 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 sacrament, that it is and could be nowhere but in heaven; it 
 might have gone on to state, says the Archdeacon, that ἐξ ἐδ 
 there, though not naturally, yet supernaturally. The Church 
 of England denies αὐ presence; the Archdeacon assumes one 
 mode thereof. Which is at fault, his honesty or his judg- 
 ment? ‘There is nothing,” he says, “in this rubric, which 
 excludes the ancient belief that Christ is present in the Holy 
 Eucharist, by reason of the presence of His body and blood; 
 and that the presence of His body and blood is witnessed by the 
 adoration to which they are entitled.”* Alas! Alas! 
 
 * The same sort of attempt is made once and again elsewhere, to avert the edge of 
 the Church of England’s Articles from the doctrines of the Church of Rome. “ Tran- 
 substantiation,” says our 28th Article (or the change of the substance of bread and 
 wine) “ in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to 
 the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given 
 occasion to many superstitions. ‘There is one ancient writer alone,’ says Mr. 
 Wilberforce, “ whose words at all sanction the error of the Capernaites, and he would 
 be scarcely important enough to deserve attention, did he not exhibit exactly that 
 carnal view of the Holy Eucharist, which is censured in the Articles of the Church 
 of England. This is Anastatius Sinaita, who wrote against the Gaianite, a sect of 
 Eutychians, who denied that our Lord’s human body had ever been corruptible.” And 
 after a long quotation from this man’s writings, whose erroneous views never extended 
 beyond himself, it is added, ‘“‘ This passage not only refers to our Lord’s body, as 
 though it still retained the same conditions which had belonged to it before the resur- 
 rection; but it also loses sight of the essential cliaracteristic of a sacrament, by 
 supposing that its inward part can be an object to the senses of men. So that it 
 involves the very supposition which is censured in the 28th Article; such “change of 
 the substance of bread and wine” as “ overthroweth the nature of a sacrament.” So 
 that the divines of the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, actually 
 inserted this paragraph in the 28th Article on purpose to condemn an error which no 
 one but this Anastatius Sinaita ever believed! But how came the Reformers to 
 apply the word “'Transubstantiation,” the word peculiarly applied to the doctrine of 
 the Romish Church, and invented for the purpose, to the obscure doctrine of the 
 patriarch of Antiochia? They must have wanted something to do, and took an odd 
 way to do it, first, to look for this Sinaita, and, then, when they had found him, to con- 
 demn his opinions under the very name of the Popish! What shall we be told next ἢ 
 
 But this is not all; “The opinion here (in the article, that is) objected to must 
 be something which runs counter to the sacramental principle, that is, to the idea that 
 an inward part and an outward part are coupled together; the last an object to the senses, 
 the former to the mind. Such a notion would have been rejected by Aquinas and the 
 other schoolmen, although the different meaning which they attach to the word sub- 
 stance, produces a verbal contradiction between them and the Church of England. The 
 word substance, in the 28th Article, seems intended to express that which is material 
 in the consecrated elements ; the sacramentum namely, or outward and visible sign. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 81 
 
 Equally unfortunate appear to me those quotations which are 
 brought from the Fathers. Itis not to be denied, indeed, that 
 they do, one and all, use occasionally very strong, unguarded, and 
 perhaps even censurable language, with respect to the sacred ele- 
 ments in the Holy Supper. Before, however, we either give 
 ourselves up to their guidance, or blame their expressions, let us 
 enquire what was their probable meaning. This will keep us 
 from too much facility in agreeing with, and too much haste in 
 repudiating them. 
 
 And first, we must learn to distinguish between the worship due 
 
 But the meaning of the word substance, as understood by the schoolmen, was wholly 
 different. The Aristotelian philosophy, on which their expressions were moulded, 
 divided all objects into the accidental part, which was an object to the senses, and the 
 substantial, which was an object only to the mind. By substance, therefore, in the 
 Holy Eucharist, they understood not the sacramentum, but the res sacramenti. This 
 more subtle sense of the word substance, which had become familiar in theology, was 
 employed by the Council of Trent, when it declared its mind in opposition to the 
 Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, So that when the Church of England denies 
 that the substance of bread and wine is changed in the Holy Eucharist, she refers to 
 the sacramentum, or that which is an object to the senses. But when the Church of 
 Rome speaks of change of substance, there is no reason why she may not be under- 
 stood to refer to the res sacramenti, or that which is not an object to the senses. If 
 the question were understood in this way, the contradiction would be verbal rather 
 than real; in language and not in thought. The carnal or Capernaite notion is that 
 which the words of the Article. really censure; for to exclude the idea of a sacra- 
 mentum, or external part, would overthrow the very nature of a sacrament.” Now, 
 would any man believe that the divines of the Church of England meant not only to 
 condemn an opinion of which no one had ever heard, but that they used the word 
 substance for accident, because they knew no better, and this too at a time when the 
 “more subtle sense of the word substance had become familiar in theology ?” But “in 
 this more subtle sense the word was employed by the Council of Trent, when it declared 
 its mind in opposition to the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation.’” Thus we have the 
 maxim exemplified —“ one good turn deserves another ;’”’ for it seems that at the time 
 of the Reformation, the English divines never thought of censuring the doctrines of 
 the Church of Rome, nor the Council of Trent those of the reformed Church of 
 England! This is certainly reading the ecclesiastical history of that period in a new 
 and amiable light. But what is the meaning of the following? ‘ When the Church 
 of Rome speaks of change of substance, there is no reason why she may not be 
 understood to refer to the res sacramenti, or that which is not an object of the senses.” 
 The res sacramenti is the body and blood of Christ. In asserting the change of sub- 
 stance in the elements against the Lutherans, how could the word refer to the res sacra- 
 menti into which it was about to be transubstantiated ? Either the Archdeacon did not 
 know what he wrote, or I do not understand what I read. As to which is at fault, I 
 must leave others to judge. 
 M 
 
82 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 to Christ, as God, present 7 the sacrament, and that to His body 
 and blood, &c., as locally confined to the elements, ‘Christ is 
 to be worshipped,” as Bishop Andrewes says, “ wherever He is, 
 whether in the sacrament or out of it;” and it would be a very 
 strange thing indeed, if we did not find constant and forcible 
 exhortations to the worship of the Saviour, in works professedly 
 treating of the most solemn rite of His holy religion. Where 
 should men worship, or be exhorted to it, if not on the Sabbath, 
 in the sanctuary and before the very altar itself? But whom 
 and what do we worship? Not the elements, but Christ present 
 in His Church, at the preaching of His word, in the congregation 
 of His people, in His holy ordinances, And that this is the 
 object to which the worship under such circumstances was given, 
 is apparent enough from the language which the Fathers use, for 
 they do not hesitate to use the same with regard to baptism, &c., 
 which they use respecting the Eucharist. Thus 5t. Ambrose tells 
 us, we should worship Christ in the mysteries both of baptism 
 and the Lord’s Supper;* and Gregory Nazianzen says of his 
 sister Gorgonia, who went to the Church at night with whatever 
 her hand had treasured up of the honored body and blood,} that she 
 threw herself before the altar in faith, calling upon Him, who was 
 honored upon the altar.} St. Chrysostom speaks in like manner 
 as Ambrose of those who fell down before their king like captives, 
 in baptism, and cast themselves upon their knees before Him.§ 
 Did they worship Him as corporeally present in the water? He 
 also says that the king bowed his body because of God speaking 
 in His gospel. Did he imagine Him corporeally present in the 
 roll of the book? But as there can be no doubt of the meaning 
 of the Fathers when they speak thus of the worship given zm, not 
 to the Eucharist, it is needless to pursue this subject further. 
 * De Spiritu Sancto. 1. 3, c. 12. 
 
 + Orat. 11. de Gorgon. Ed πού τι τῶν ἀντιτύπων τοῦ τιμίου σώματος καὶ 
 αἵματος ἢ χεὶρ ἐθησαύρισεν. 
 
 t Ibid. Τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ προσπίπτει μετὰ τῆς πίστεως, καὶ τὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτιῷ 
 τημιύμενον ἀνακαλουμενη. 
 
 § Chrys. in illud. Simile est regnum ccelorum, &c. 
 
OF THE* HOLY EUCHARIST. 83 
 
 Secondly, the Fathers frequently urged that the flesh and 
 blood of Christ, by which life and immortality were secured to 
 the world, and which are ever united indissolubly with Deity, 
 were fit objects of divine worship, without at all referring to the 
 Eucharistic service. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem says, that though, 
 without the Deity, to pay them divine honors, would be to bow 
 down to man and worship a creature, yet since the Godhead is in 
 conjunction with the human nature, it is a fit object of worship ; 
 and as we place all our trust in it, so we ought to worship it as 
 no doubt the angels do in heaven; and specially, he says, when 
 it is brought to our minds and thoughts by that which is ap- 
 pointed by Christ himself to be the figure and memoriad of it in 
 the blessed sacrament, and in baptism especially, when we put on 
 Christ, and have his death and rising again represented to us, 
 and have such great benefits of his death and incarnation 
 bestowed upon us.* St. Ambrose says, in like manner, we ought, 
 in the mysteries, to adore the flesh of Christ, . . . which 
 we may truly call our Saviour.t The following is a good instance 
 of how fancifully the Fathers argue sometimes, and I give the 
 passage the rather because I find it quoted to prove the adoration : 
 
 «St. Ambrose and St. Augustine,} his scholar after him, supposing 
 that there was a great difficulty in that passage of the Psalms, ‘ Worship 
 his footstool,’ for so it is in the Latin,§ without the preposition αὐ his 
 footstool, they laboured to reconcile this with that command of wor- 
 shipping and serving God alone; and to give an account how the 
 earth, which was God’s footstool, could be worshipped; and the way 
 they take was this, to make Christ’s flesh, which he took of the earth, 
 to be meant by that earth which was God’s footstool; and this, say 
 they, we ought to worship; the apostles did so whilst he was upon 
 earth, and we do so now, whilst he is in heaven. We worship the 
 flesh of Christ, which was crucified for us, and by the benefit of which 
 we hope for pardon and salvation, we worship that, though it be now in 
 heaven ; we worship it in the solemn offices of our religion,|| that flesh 
 
 * In actis Con. Eph. + Ut supra. + August. Enar. in Ps. 98, 
 ἃ Adorata scabellum pedem ejus. 
 || Ipsam carnem nobis manducaudam ad salutem dedit (nemo autem illam carnem 
 manducat, nisi prius adorayerit). Ib. [p. 1621.) 
 
δά THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which he gave to be eaten by us for our salvation, that we worship, 
 ‘for none eats that flesh, but he first worships.’ ” 
 
 St. Jerome tells us that some persons undertook a pilgrimage 
 \ to the Holy Land, to worship Christ in the haunts rendered sacred 
 ἢ by his presence. Did they expect to find Him corporeally there ? 
 By no means; but they supposed, and rightly, that a more vivid 
 impression would be made on their minds as to the important 
 events of Jesus life, if they saw the place where they happened. 
 So the broken bread and outpoured wine bring more vividly to our 
 minds the broken body and shed blood, and quicken devotion in 
 the ratio of our individual realization of these momentous trans- 
 actions. Jerome, moreover, says of himself, that he worshipped 
 Christ in the grave, and Paula in the manger, just as we say we 
 worship Him on the Cross, or in His house, not meaning, for one 
 moment, that there is any corporeal union of the object of our 
 devotion and the things and places with which we connect it. 
 Thirdly, the ambiguity of language has also, in this instance, 
 as in a thousand others, tended to bring the whole matter into 
 confusion. The term which is sometimes used to express divine 
 worship is also used to express the deference which an inferior 
 pays to his superior among men. The verb προσκυνεῖν, and the 
 adjective πρόσκυνητος, express nothing more than the respectful 
 prostration of the body, and determines nothing of the object to 
 which it is done, nor, indeed, of the feeling of the doer. Many 
 of the places of the Fathers, then, which are brought to prove 
 adoration, prove no such thing. Respect is intended, undoubtedly, 
 whenever these words are used, but the amownt of respect is per- 
 fectly indefinite, as far as the words go. We must look to other 
 circumstances to decide that. St. Augustine says that a singular 
 veneration is due to the Kucharist-—Hucharistie deberi singularem 
 venerationem ;* but then he says the same of baptism— Baptis- 
 mum, ubicunque est, veneramur.t Origen, too, puts the matter 
 in a very strong light when he says, ‘Ye that are wont to be 
 
 * Epis. 118. c¢. 3. + Ibid. 146. 
 
--- 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 85 
 
 present at the divine mysteries, know how, when ye receive the 
 body of Christ, ye keep it with all caution and veneration, that no 
 part of the consecrated gift be let fall; for ye think, and that 
 rightly, that ye should be guilty of a fault, if any of it should be 
 let fall through your negligence.”* And then he afterwards adds, 
 “ But if ye use such care, and that very deservedly, about keep- 
 ing His body, how do ye think it to be a less fault to neglect the 
 word of God, than to neglect His body?” Boileau quotes the 
 former half of this passage to prove the adoration of the host: 
 will the latter portion prove the same for a copy of the Bible ? 
 
 In short, though the Fathers constantly urge upon their hearers 
 and readers deep humility and reverential conduct, in all ap- 
 proaches to the Deity in sacred worship, and especially in the case 
 of a communicant, yet it is easy to see that they do no more 
 than we should do now, and are very far indeed from encouraging 
 them to adore the consecrated “bread and wine,” which they still 
 so designate. Indeed, so far is this from being the case, that we 
 find the second Nicene Council urging the simple form of the 
 Eucharist as an argument against idolatry. They say, “that to 
 prevent idolatry, Christ appointed an excellent image and repre- 
 sentation of Himself in the sacrament, without any manner of 
 human shape, even the plain and simple substance of bread.”} It 
 would, indeed, have been a strange argument against idolatry to 
 have quoted this sacrament, if it had been worshipped itself. It 
 would have been ducus a non lucendo with a vengeance, 
 
 Having now come to a fair understanding with the Fathers as to 
 their meaning, let us turn to the consideration of the texts which 
 have been brought from them to prove the adoration of Christ's 
 body and blood zw the elements. I have said I think them wn/or- 
 tunate. The reader shall judge whether this is not a very mild 
 word to use of them under the circumstances. 
 
 * Hom. 13. apud Boileau De Euch. Ador. 
 + Concil. Sept. Const. [Concil. 11. Nicen.] Act. 6. Τὴν εἰκόνα ὕλην ἐξαί- 
 ρετον, ἤγουν ἄρτου οὐσίαν, προσέταξε προσφέρεσθαι, μὴ σχηματίζουσαν 
 ἀνθρώπου μορφὴν, ἵνα μὴ εἰδωλολατρεία παρεισαχθῆ. 
 
86 } THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 The Archdeacon begins his reference to antiquity in a tone of 
 great confidence. ‘‘ That such was the opinion (viz., that the 
 presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, is witnessed 
 by the adoration to which they are entitled) of the ancient Church 
 is testified by its writers of all schools and sentiments.”* “ Anasta- 
 tius Sinaita speaks of a direct act of elevation in his day.”+ Now, 
 certainly, if this testimony were beyond suspicion, it would be a 
 very strange fact that we should find the first mention of the 
 elevation of the host for worship at the very end of the sixth 
 century, for Sinaita died in 599. Can we for one moment sup- 
 pose, that the adoration of the elements had been regularly 
 practised for nearly 600 years, and no notice taken of their eleva- 
 tion by any writer for that space of time, though we have works 
 in abundance, during that era, which treat upon the subject of the 
 celebration in all, even its most minute particulars? Yet the 
 Archdeacon seems to deem this notice a very early one, from the 
 apparent satisfaction with which he quotes it. I think its lateness 
 a strong presumption against the thing to which it refers, if not 
 absolutely fatal to its claims. 
 
 But I have said all this on the assumption, that the testimony 
 is beyond suspicion for its authenticity: but what is the fact ? 
 There is strong presumption that Anastatius never wrote the 
 book quoted at all. Indeed, it would not, perhaps, be too much 
 to say, that one quarter of all the ecclesiastical remains of anti- 
 guily is suspicious, if not absolutely fictitious. The treatise 
 from which the Archdeacon has made his quotation, is not 
 generally considered to be genuine, I believe, even by Roman 
 Catholic writers themselves.: Jeremy Collier says of our author, 
 “He has writ a great many tracts, but the critics are not all 
 agreed about their being genuine, as De S Trinitate, De 
 Divina Incarnatione, &c. There are other pieces go under his 
 name, which I shall omit to mention (and among them this, 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch. 259. 
 + Post sacrificii illius incruenti consecrationem, Panem vite in altum elevat, ipsum 
 que omnibus ostendit—De Sacia Synaxi. Bib. Pat. Max. ix. 940. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 8&7 
 
 De Sacra Synaxi), because of the uncertainty of their author. 
 [See “ Bellarmine, Possevin.”]* If we were sure of the source 
 of the testimony, it is too late to be worth much; as it is, it is 
 perfectly valueless. 
 
 Our attention js next directed to a quotation from Cyril of 
 Jerusalem. He is concluding his fifth lecture on the ‘“ Mys- 
 teries,’ and is just at the point of distribution of the elements ; 
 the whole passage is as follows: 
 
 «« After this ye hear the chanter, with a sacred melody inviting you 
 to the communion of the holy mysteries, and saying, ‘ O taste and see 
 that the Lord is good.’ Trust not the decision to thy bodily palate ; 
 no, but to faith unfaltering; for when we taste we are bidden to taste, 
 not bread and wine, but the sign (ἀντιτύπου σιύματου) of the body and 
 blood of Christ. 
 
 “ Approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy 
 fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which 
 is on the eve of receiving the king. And having hallowed thy palm, 
 receive the body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Then after thou 
 hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy 
 Body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what 
 thou losest, is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. 
 For tell me, if any one give thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all 
 precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and 
 suffering loss? How much more cautiously then wilt thou observe 
 that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold 
 and precious stones ? 
 
 «Then after having partaken of the body of Christ, approach also to 
 the cup of His blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending 
 and saying in the way of worship and reverence, τρόπι προσκυνήσεως καὶ 
 σεβάσματος, Amen, be thou hallowed by partaking also of the blood of 
 Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touching it with 
 thine hands, hallow} both thine eyes and brow and the other senses. 
 
 * Biog. Dic. under the name. 
 
 + It may be well here to explain, that the ancients entertained an idea that the 
 sacred elemerts had a charm to protect or heal the several parts of the body touched 
 by them. Hence the expression of Cyril above. In the case before mentioned (p. 82) 
 by Nazianzen, of his sister Gorgonia, he tells us that she moistened the preserved 
 elements with tears, and anointed her whole body therewith for the cure of a distressing 
 malady, and, wonderful to relate, she was cured accordingly. 
 
88 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted 
 thee worthy of so great mysteries.’’* 
 
 This is an interesting passage (notwithstanding its superstitious 
 tone), from the particular description which it contains of the 
 mode of administering the Holy Communion in the middle of the 
 fourth century. I have therefore given it entire, and also with the 
 further object that the reader may judge for himself whether or 
 not it is likely that Cyril is instructing his people to worship,t in 
 the strictest sense, the sacred elements. Let it be first remarked, 
 that he does not scruple to call these elements, after consecration, 
 types ;{ and secondly, if adoration were meant, there was the same 
 reason for giving this to the bread as to the wine. But respect 
 being all that was meant to be paid to the sacrament, the same 7s 
 enjoined by Cyril to the two elements alike. Every scholar 
 Knows that the words τρόπιν προσκυνήσεως καὶ σεβάσματος fairly 
 express no more than this. 
 
 We come now to consider the passages adduced from Chrysos- 
 tom to the same point. I suppose that not even the Archdeacon 
 would deny that the first which he has quoted is figurative, when 
 he speaks of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as a “ fearful 
 and wondrous sight.” And the same must be confessed of the 
 next, as no one can understand it Uterally. ‘‘ For if we come 
 with faith, we shall assuredly see Him lying in the manger. And 
 there will lie the body of the Lord; not wrapped -as then in 
 swaddling clothes, but on every side clothed with the Holy Ghost. 
 
 * Cyril. Hier. 5 Myst. Cat. 23, ss. 20—22. 
 
 + It is very trite to remark, that we use the word worship, in the same manner as 
 did the Greeks, προσκυνξὶν. “With my body I thee worship,” in the Marriage 
 service; ‘the Worshipful the Mayor,” or “ the Worshipful the Mercers’ Company,” 
 are familiar instances. And thus the word is constantly used without the slightest idea 
 of religious adoration. 
 
 | In the fourth lecture Cyril uses the same expression for the same thing. ‘ For in 
 the figure ἐν τύπῳ, of bread, is given to thee His body; and in the figure ἐν τύπῳ, 
 of wine, His blood.” And, in the third, he used the same word of the water in baptism. 
 “Ye were made Christ’s by receiving the emblem, αντέτυπον, of the Holy Ghost ; and 
 of the oil in “the unction, the emblem, αντίτυπον, of that wherewith Christ was 
 anointed, and this is the Holy Ghost.” What was Cyril’s opinion of a res sacramenti 
 in baptism ? 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 89 
 
 The initiated understand what I say.”"* It is not easy to see the 
 object of quoting such highly-figurative and flowery passages as 
 these; for surely it is not to be supposed, by any one, that they 
 ean be taken as proofs that the elements should be adored. Yet 
 for what else are they brought ? 
 
 But the Archdeacon remarks generally on this Father (p, 259) : 
 
 “‘ He states in various ways, that our Lord, as present in the elements, 
 is entitled to the same reverence which was paid Him when He was 
 visibly manifest in the flesh. He speaks of the Energumeni+ as intro- 
 duced into Church to pay bodily reverence to Christ, by ‘ bowing the 
 head’ when His presence is bestowed in the Holy Eucharist, because 
 they may not join in the Church’s words of prayer. And again, he 
 describes them as brought in like prisoners, and placed as criminals 
 would be at the time the judge was going to take his place, ‘ when 
 Christ is about, as it were, to seat Himself on a lofty tribunal, and to 
 appear in the mysteries themselves.’| He speaks of augels as ‘ trem- 
 bling at the Church’s sacrifice,’ and as ‘ministering at that table.’§ 
 And he describes them as seen in a vision standing round the altar, 
 with eyes fixed on the ground, like soldiers before their king.” 
 
 The latter part of this extract, respecting the angels, we shall 
 pass over without comment ; for the double reason that the picture 
 which Chrysostom has drawn has, and had no existence, save in 
 his excited imagination ; and if every word he says of the angels 
 were strictly true 7 fact, it would not prove the point for which 
 they are introduced to testify,—viz., that the elements of the 
 Eucharist should be adored. 
 
 But what of the Energumeni? “They are introduced into 
 Church to pay bodily reverence to Christ, by bowing the head 
 when His presence is bestowed in the Kucharist, because they 
 may not join in the Church's words of prayer.” “But,” says 
 Bingham (answering Durantus, who brings forward this case of 
 the Energumeni, from whom probably the Archdeacon borrowed 
 it), “ Chrysostom unluckily spoils his argument; for at that time, 
 
 * Hom. de B. Philogon. iii. vol. i. p. 498. . 
 + Hom. de Incomprehens. Dei Nat. iii. 7, vol. i. p. 470. t Ib. iv. 4. 
 § Hom. iii. in Ep. ad Ephes. 4, 5. || De Sacerdotio, vi. 4. 
 
 4“ De Ritibus, lib. 2. cap. 40. n. 5. 
 N 
 
90 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 he says, the Eucharist was not consecrated; so that if they 
 worshipped the host, it must have been an unconsecrated host, 
 which, according to Durantus himself, would be plain idolatry.”* 
 But it is not so with the Archdeacon, who is harder to manage 
 than Durantus ; and he gets over the difficulty as follows : 
 
 “Bingham objects that the reverence thus paid would be to the 
 elements before they were consecrated. For the Knergumeni were 
 ordered by the Apos. Cons. viii. 7, to go out before consecration. But 
 there are two passages in St. Chrysostom. When he speaks (p. 477) 
 of the Energumeni as taking their place like criminals when the judge 
 is about to mount the tribunal, because Christ is about to appear in the 
 mysteries, he expresses the reverence which is due even to the antici- 
 pated mystery: but at p. 470, he speaks of their postures of reverence at 
 the moment of the sacrifice itself. And the entire exclusion of the 
 Energumeni was not the universal rule, as is shown by Concil. Araus. i. 
 Canon 14, Concil. Arelat. ii. Canon. 39, Cassian Collat. vii. 30. St. 
 Chrysostom’s words are founded obviously on this last custom. The 
 Apost. Constit. also introduce a second prayer for the Energumeni 
 after the Obiation. viii. 12.” 
 
 Now let us examine the reasoning of these two extracts. The 
 first says, ‘‘ The Energumeni are introduced to pay bodily rever- 
 ence, when the presence is bestowed.” This is proved to be 
 incorrect, and then they shew “ the reverence, which is due even to 
 the anticipated mystery ;" so that they cannot acknowledge 
 idolatry to enable the Archdeacon to prove his point. Then, 
 again, ‘“‘ they are introduced into Church” beforehand, “ because 
 they may not join in the Church’s words of prayer ;’ but when 
 this begets a difficulty, it is easy to prove the contrary, and “ the 
 entire exclusion of the Energumeni was zo¢ the universal rule. 
 St. Chrysostom’s words are founded, obviously, on this last 
 custom.” Thus we see these poor Energumeni introduced “ bow- 
 ing the head,” to prove their adoration of the consecrated elements 
 in the ancient Church. It is shewn that they did this before the 
 prayer of consecration had been offered. Then they break the first 
 or second commandment, or both, by anticipation, because they 
 
 * Bingham’s Ant. b. 15. ο. 5. 5. 5. + Doct. H. Euch. 260. note. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 9] 
 
 are excluded from “the Church’s words of prayer.’ And again, 
 they are allowed to remain through the whole service (so that 
 their idolatry was quite gratuitous), of which one proof is that 
 “the Apostolic Constitutions also introduce a second prayer for 
 the Energumeni, after the Oblation viii. 12.” How this proves 
 them present I do not see, for the absent may be remembered in 
 our devotions; and on looking into this liturgy, in Brett, I find 
 mentioned in the same prayer, with the Energumeni, “all the 
 saints, from the beginning of the world ; the patriarchs, prophets, 
 apostles, martyrs; those in slavery, in banishment, in prison; 
 &e., &c.” If the mention of those “under possession,” proves 
 them present, those which I have enumerated must have been 
 present too! It certainly does seem as if the poor Archdeacon 
 had been given up to the leading of some strange fatality. 
 
 If such scraps of quotation, and such puerile deductions as 
 those above, are to establish doctrines of the utmost importance, 
 it is evident that there must be at once an end of all certainty as 
 to the truth. Anything that the most heated imagination or dis- 
 tempered fancy might conceive, might be established not only by 
 scraps from the Fathers, but by reference to the Scriptures them- 
 selves. Will any one say why the water of baptism ought not to 
 be adored, on the authority of such passages as the following, if 
 that of the Eucharistic elements must be on those which have 
 been given? St. Ambrose says, in an apostrophe to the water of 
 baptism, “O water which hast washed the earth sprinkled with 
 human blood, that the figure of sacrament should precede! O 
 water, which hast had this honour to be the sacrament of Jesus 
 Christ! Establish the adoration of this symbol of our spiritual 
 regeneration. * And St. Chrysostom, in a passage already referred 
 to, when addressing the candidates for baptism: ‘‘ When you 
 come, says he, “ into the closet of the Holy Spirit, when you 
 shall run into the marriage chamber of grace, when you shall 
 be near unto that terrible and also desirable pool, prostrate your- 
 
 * St. Ambrose, tom. 3. in Lue. lib. 10. ο, 22, apud L’Arroque, p. 566. 
 
92 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 selves as captives before your king, cast yourselves altogether on 
 
 _your knees; and lifting up your hands unto heaven, where the 
 king of us all is sitting on His royal throne ; and lifting up your 
 eyes unto that Eye which never slumbers, use these words unto 
 that lover of mankind, &c.”* When excited apostrophes such as 
 these might be adduced to any extent (and they are acknowledged 
 to prove nothing for adoration, when used in reference to baptism, 
 to the oil of chrism, to the reading of the Scriptures, to hearing 
 the word preached, &c.), on what principle of common sense can 
 similar phrases be made to prove the adoration when used of the 
 other sacrament? ΑΒ I have said, if such passages are to be 
 quoted as proofs of doctrine, there is no safety for truth. 
 
 “ But it is not only in St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril,” says our 
 author, “but among the opponents of the Eutychians, who in 
 expression were most removed from that which has been called 
 the Eastern School, that we find direct statements that our Lord’s 
 body, as present in the Holy Eucharist, is a fit object of wor- 
 ship.” Then follows a passage from Theodoret, which I will give 
 with its context: 
 
 “The mystical symbols,” saith he, ‘do not change their own nature 
 after consecration ; but they remain in their former substance, in their 
 first figure, and in their first shape; they are visible and palpable, 
 such as they were before; but it is conceived by the understanding, 
 that they are what they have been made, and they are believed, and 
 venerated, προσκυνεῖται, as being what they are believed to be.”} 
 
 Having given but the latter half of this passage, the Arch- 
 deacon remarks upon it: “‘Theodoret speaks as though the 
 elements themselves might partake of that worship which is due 
 to the res sacramenti, which they contain. But this cannot have 
 been his intention.” JI quite agree with this remark ; and as the 
 Father assures us that the elements are not in any manner changed 
 by the prayer which has been offered over them, it is manifest 
 that he cannot intend more by προσκυνεῖται, than that respect, 
 
 * Dialog. 2. p. 85. 
 + St. Chrys. In illud simile est regnum ceelor, patrifamil. t. 6. p. 550, apud L’Arroque. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 93 
 
 which all right-minded men pay to such secular things as are 
 separated to the worship of Almighty God. This is quite in keep- 
 ing with what the same Father elsewhere declares—viz., that “‘ our 
 Saviour hath honored the visible symbols, with calling them by 
 the name of His body and blood; not by changing their nature, 
 but by adding grace to nature.’* Τὺ would be well if Mr. 
 Wilberforce were as sound in this matter as Theodoret. 
 
 But we continue. The next remark which we meet is, “ And 
 the same thing (¢.e., that the sacrament at large is an object of 
 worship) is obvious from the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, where, 
 after the consecrated elements have been the object of various 
 acts of reverence, the priest says, “Look down, O Lord, from 
 heaven upon those who have bowed their heads unto Thee, for 
 they have not bowed them to flesh and blood, but to Thee, the 
 fearful God.” I have looked through St. Chrysostom’s liturgy, 
 as given in Brett, and can find no more special “acts of rever- 
 ence” given to the elements after consecration than before it. 
 There have been, it is true, some genuflections and crossings, 
 both before and after, but I find no prayer addressed to the 
 elements, nor to Christ, assumed to be in them. Nor do I think 
 that any one reading the prayer, from which the above quotation 
 is given, would ever imagine the bowing referred to, to have been 
 made to the elements. Indeed, no such impression, I am bold 
 to say, would be conveyed by perusing the liturgy itself. The 
 prayer runs thus in Brett: 
 
 “We give thanks to thee, O invisible King, who of thine infinite 
 power hast created all things, and of the multitude of thy mercy hast 
 brought all things out of nothing into being. Look down from heaven, 
 O Lord, upon those who have bowed down their heads to Thee ; for 
 they have not bowed down to flesh and blood ; but to Thee a terrible 
 God. Dispense, therefore, O Lord, these mysteries lying before Thee, 
 
 to all of us for good, and according to the several necessities of each 
 of us. Be present with all who travel by land,” &c. 
 
 If this prayer had been addressed to the sacrament, it would 
 
 * Dialog. 1. 
 
94 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 have proved all that it has been adduced to prove. Unfor- 
 tunately for the Archdeacon’s theory, it is addressed, as all good 
 prayers are, to God “in heaven.” It was ¢here that Jesus taught 
 us to address “ Our Father.” 
 
 The next quotation which we have is from Leontius, but who 
 or what he was is not yet settled. Some say he was a lawyer, 
 some that he was a priest of Cunstantinople; and the paternity 
 of the book whence the Archdeaccn has quoted, is as doubtful as 
 the identity of the individual to whom it is ascribed. “There 
 are also attributed to him three books against the Eutychians and 
 Nestorians, &c.,” is all that Collier can say for the genuineness of 
 this work. The passage, however, is unobjectionable in itself, 
 for it is directed against the Nestorian heresy, which “ denied 
 that God, the Word, and the Man, Christ Jesus, were personally 
 united.” The writer asks to whose body and blood the Eucha- 
 ristic supper has reference ; or, in the phraseology of the time, 
 “Whose body and blood do they suppose that they partake of in 
 the communion ?” It cannot be those of the Word, he reasons, 
 for the Eutychians deny that He has become incarnate; and if 
 they say those of the Man, Christ Jesus, then “they profess them- 
 selves man-worshippers.” This reasoning is perfectly logical and 
 conclusive on the point to which it was applied ; but how it can 
 prove the adoration of the host (to prove which it is brought), is 
 more than I can perceive. 
 
 To the views from Ambrose and Augustine, as given in their 
 Commentary on the 98th Psalm,* I have above referred. St. 
 Ambrose says, ‘“ by the footstool we understand earth, but by earth 
 the flesh of Christ, which even at this day we adore in the 
 mysteries, and which the apostles adored in our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; for Christ is not divided, but one: nor when He is adored 
 as the Son of God, is He denied as born of the Virgin.”+ But 
 if we are to understand Ambrose, when he says, “ which we adore 
 
 * The 99th in our Bibles. 
 + Ambrose de Spiritu Sancto iii. xi. 79, apud Wilberforce. 
 
 SS 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 95 
 
 in the mysteries,” that the elements of the Eucharist were wor- 
 shipped, we have no choice but to insist upon the adoration of 
 the water in baptism. He makes no distinction, neither indeed 
 should we. Protestants do adore Christ, present in all His 
 ordinances, without distinction, as also did Ambrose. 
 
 It is evident that the object of this Father is to prove that 
 Christ is worshipped as God-Man ; not on one occasion and in 
 one ordinance, but on αὐ occasions. This adoration of the com- 
 plex nature in cne, he imagines, proves his point—viz., that God’s 
 footstool is earth, and earth the body of Christ. 
 
 St. Augustine's expression, nemo autem illam carnem mandu- 
 cat, nist prius adoraverit, inventum est guemadmodum adoretur 
 tale scabellum pedum domini, et non solum non peccemus ado- 
 rando, sed peccemus non adorando, is quoted by Mr. Wilberforce 
 as though the passage applied, and was intended to apply, to 
 the eating and adoring of Christ in the Eucharist. My own 
 strong impression is, that it has no reference to that ordinance, 
 but is a truthful application of the language of our Lord in the 
 sixth of John, which is largely referred to, and quoted by Augus- 
 tine in his remarks on this subject. The words above given, the 
 object of which is to prove that the flesh of Jesus, which He took 
 of the Virgin, is to be worshipped, appear to me to have this 
 signification. “Since then, He (Jesus) walked here in very 
 flesh, and gave that flesh to be eaten (as he has said, John vi., 
 26—58) for our salvation, and seeing no one eats it but he who 
 has worshipped (¢.e., the sincerely devout), we have found out in 
 what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, 
 and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in 
 not worshipping.” I can myself see no reference at all to the 
 BKucharist, in the whole passage (which I have added in an ap- 
 pendix* for general consideration), at all events till we arrive at the 
 last words, and these, it will be seen, are as thoroughly damnatory of 
 the carnal or corporeal presence as anything that could be written.} 
 
 * Appendix ἢ. + Augustine on Ps. xcix. sec. 9. Lib. of the Fathers, Oxon, 
 
96 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Whatever may be the language of these early Fathers of the 
 Church, it is evident that it is not what it ought to have been, 
 had they entertained the Popish doctrine of the actual and un- 
 conditional adoration of the elements. A few doubtful and 
 hesitating passages are more calculated to mislead than guide, 
 and I may now say that I have reviewed all which are given in 
 the “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” to prove the point. The 
 reference to the language of the apostolical constitutions made 
 by the Archdeacon is apologetical, as that of a “period when the 
 Church was not yet established,” and simply “sanctioning” his 
 view of things. But what sanction for adoration can be derived 
 from the exhortation to the deacon to “minister the body of 
 the Lord with fear,” and that to the people to ‘receive the body 
 of the Lord and His precious blood, in an orderly manner, with 
 fear and reverence, as 7f they approached the body of the king ?”* 
 These quotations prove nothing. What individual Christian, or 
 body of Christians, ever failed to inculcate reception of the 
 elements in a similar manner? The true state of the case is 
 indeed acknowledged by Mr. Wilberforce himself, on the following 
 page of his book. ‘Thus early,” says he, “did those habits 
 prevail to which later writers gave more exact expression, by 
 which the presence of our Lord’s body in the Holy Eucharist 
 was clearly recognized. For the reverence which was shewn to 
 the inward part or res sacramenti, in this ordinance, 15 not refer- 
 rible to any express command :f it was the instinctive expression 
 
 * Apos. Cons. bk. ii. 57. 
 
 + The Archdeacon has the following note, in further confirmation of his acknowledg- 
 ment of the doctrine of “development” in the matter of the adoration of the host. 
 “The practice of reservation, and the worship due to Christ, as present ‘under the 
 form of bread and wine,’ were not part of our Lord’s original appointment (as the 
 28th article ohserves), but were deductions from the truths revealed respecting this 
 sacrament, into which the Church was guided by the Holy Ghost. Bishop Overall 
 censures certain ‘zealots,’ who ‘morem ecclesiz nostre sacramentum Corporis et 
 Sanguinis Christi de geniculis accipiendi oppugnant, aut eum saltem co/ere et custodire 
 recusant.’”” As usual with the Archdeacon, the latter part of his note he intends to 
 contradict the former; for does he not mean, by italicising colere and custodire, which 
 is called “the custom of our Church,” to give them the sense of worship and reserve ? 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 97 
 
 of those feelings which the Christian mind naturally entertained 
 upon the revelation of its Lord's presence.” 
 
 Having thus examined the quotations from the Fathers, alleged 
 by the Archdeacon as proving the adoration of the host in the 
 ancient Church, as well as having enquired into the meaning of 
 the primitive Christians, when they speak of adoring Christ in 
 the mysteries, worshipping Christ's flesh, &c., I shall conclude the 
 consideration of the worship of the elements, or of Christ in the 
 elements, by a brief statement of several particulars which, taken 
 together, prove to a demonstration that the worship of the 
 Eucharist was unknown in the early Church. I am indebted to 
 Bingham for the summary; but I have satisfied myself, by par- 
 ticular examination, that it is strictly correct, and as nearly as 
 possible in the words of the authors themselves : 
 
 Mr. Aubertin* has demonstrated out of St. Austin’s works these 
 several propositions, which are all point blank contrary to the 
 adoration of Christ as corporeally present in the Eucharist. 
 1, That bread and wine are not properly and substantially the 
 body and blood of Christ, but only sacramentally and figuratively. 
 
 If not, what does he mean by it? Ihave not access to the letters referred to; but 
 from the extract, I understand the bishop to mean “to venerate,” and “to be careful 
 of” the sacred elements. I may also here further remark, that this is not the only 
 case in which the said ‘“‘development” is called in to give its friendly assistance. 
 With regard to the use of the terms sacramentum, res sacramenti, and virtus sacra 
 
 menti, it is said St. Augustine called the outward part sacramentum, the inward part 
 res or virtus sacramenti. ‘‘ The last two expressions, which he used somewhat vaquely, 
 were more accurately discriminated by later writers.” ‘‘He does not distinguish 
 between the res sacrumenti and the virtus sacramenti; whereas, it would be more 
 consistent to identify the first with the inward part or thing signified, and the second 
 with its effect upon the devout soul.” No doubt it would be more consistent with the 
 Archdeacon’s theory; but, as St. Augustine had no such theory, he did not adopt the 
 Archdeacon’s course. ‘St. Augustine formed the mind of the western Church. 
 His followers at once adopted and matured his views; the virtus was more perfectly 
 discriminated from the res sacramenti; the first was understood to be the effect at- 
 tending the Holy Eucharist, the second the reality to which that effect was to be 
 attributed: and thus it was upon his system that the chief writers of the west, Bede 
 among the principal, based their phraseology.”—(Doct. H. Euch., pp. 101, 191, 251.) 
 All which means, that Augustine’s followers more and more developed his views (how 
 could they know them better than himself?) till they became what Trent left them, and 
 he East Riding took them up. 
 
 * Albertin. de Euchar. p. 602, &e. 
 
98 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 2. That Christ is not substantially and corporeally present in the 
 Eucharist, but corporeally present only in heaven. 38. That true 
 bread remains and is eaten in the Eucharist. 4. That the 
 manducation of Christ in the Eucharist is not oral, but spiritual. 
 5. That the wicked do not eat or drink the proper body and 
 blood of Christ in the Eucharist. 6. That the same body cannot 
 be in different places at one and the same time; and that this 
 is particularly asserted of the body of Christ. 7. That a body 
 must necessarily occupy some place and space, and be extended 
 by parts, with longitude, latitude, and profundity. 8. That 
 accidents cannot subsist without a subject. All which directly 
 overthrow the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and 
 consequently show, that the adoration which was given to Christ 
 in the Eucharist, was not to His corporeal presence, but His 
 spiritual presence, or to His body as absent in heaven. 
 
 On the other hand, there are most certain demonstrations, that 
 there could be no such thing as host worship in the ancient 
 Church, not only taken from their not believing transubstantiation 
 and the corporeal presence, but from many other topics solidly 
 deduced and substantially proved by two learned writers, Mr. 
 Daille* and Dr. Whitby,t in two excellent discourses upon this 
 very subject, to which I will commend the reader, contenting 
 myself to mention the heads of the principal arguments, which 
 they have more fully drawn out and proved. Mr. Daillé ranks 
 his arguments under two heads; some general ones against the 
 worship of the Eucharist, saints, relics, images, and crosses; and 
 others more particularly levelled against the worship of the 
 Eucharist. Among those of the first kind he urges this as very 
 remarkable, that in all the ancient relations of miracles, there is 
 never any mention made of miracles being wrought by the 
 Eucharist, as is now so common in later ages, especially in the 
 book called the School of the Eucharist, which is a collection of 
 
 * Dalle. de Objecto Cultus Religiosi, cont. Latinos, lib. 1 et 2. 
 + Whitby, Idolatry of Host Worship. Lond. 1679 8νο. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 99 
 
 legends under the name of miracles wrought by the host upon 
 sundry occasions. 2. He urges another general argument from 
 the silence of all such writers of the Church as speak of tradi- 
 tions, that the worship of the Eucharist is never once named 
 among them. 3. That among the heathen objections and calum- 
 nies which they raised against them, such as their worshipping 
 the sun, and an ass’s head, and the genitals of their priests, and a 
 crucified and dead man, they never objected to them the worship 
 of bread and wine, which yet had been very obvious and natural, 
 and invidious enough to have accused them of, had there then 
 been any such plausible ground for an accusation, as there has 
 been in later ages. 4. The Christians used to object to the 
 heathens, that they worshipped things that were dumb and void 
 of life; things that must be carried upon men’s shoulders, and if 
 they fell, could not rise again; things that must be guarded by 
 men, to secure them from thieves; things that might be carried 
 captive, and were not able to preserve and deliver themselves ; 
 things that might be Jaid to pawn, as the Eucharist has been by 
 some princes in later ages; things that are exposed to fire and 
 weather, and rust, and moth, and corruption, and other injuries 
 of nature; things that might be devoured by mice and other 
 animals, and might be gnawed and dunged upon by the most 
 contemptible creatures. All which objections might easily have 
 been retorted by the heathen upon the Christians, had they then 
 worshipped the Eucharist, which is liable to all the same 
 reproaches. 
 
 These are general arguments against host worship, together 
 with the rest of that idolatrous worship which now so abounds in 
 the Church of Rome. But there are a great many more special 
 arguments urged in particular against the host worship by that 
 learned man. As, 1. From the silence of all ancient writers 
 about it. 2. From their using no elevation of the host for wor- 
 ship for many ages (as Bingham has showed himself out of 
 Bona). 8. The ancients knew nothing of ringing a bell, to give 
 notice of the time of adoration to the people. 4. There are no 
 
100 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 histories of beasts miraculously worshipping the Eucharist, which 
 sort of fictions are so common in later ages. 5. The ancients — 
 never carried the Eucharist to the sick or absent with any pomp 
 or signs of worship; never exposed it to public view in times of 
 solemn rejoicing or sorrow; never adored or invoked its assistance 
 in distress, or upon any great undertaking: which are now such 
 common practices in the Roman Church. 6. The ancients never 
 enjoined persons newly baptized and penitents to fall down before 
 the Eucharist and worship it, as is now commonly done in the 
 Roman Church. 7. The ancients never allowed non-communi- 
 cants to stay and worship the Eucharist, as the practice now is; 
 which yet had been very proper, had they believed the Eucharist 
 to be their God. But they used it only for communion, not for 
 adoration. 8. The ancients never used to carry the Eucharist 
 publicly in processions, to be adored by all the people; which is 
 a novel practice in the judgment of Krantzius* and Cassander. 
 9. The ancients lighted no lamps nor candles by day to the 
 Eucharist, nor burned incense before it, as is now the practice. 
 10. They made no little images of the Eucharist, to be kissed and 
 worshipped as the images of Christ. 11. They had no peculiar 
 festival appropriated to its more solemn worship. ‘This is of no 
 longer date than Pope Urban IV., who first instituted it, anno 
 1264, and it is peculiar only to the Roman Church. 12. The 
 ancient liturgies have no forms of prayers, doxologies, or praises 
 to the Eucharist, as are in the Roman Missal. 13. The adora- 
 tion of the Eucharist was never objected by the heathens to the 
 primitive Christians; nor were they reproached, as the Romanists 
 have been since, as eaters of their God. It is a noted saying of 
 Averroes, an Arabian philosopher and physician, translator and 
 commentator on Aristotle, “Quando quidem comedunt Christiani 
 quod colunt, sit anima mea cum philosophis,” since Christians eat 
 what they worship, let my soul rather have her portion among the 
 philosophers. This learned philosopher lived about the year 1150, 
 
 * Krantz. Metropol. lib. 11. cap. 89. Cassander. Consultat. seet. de Circumgestat. 
 - 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 101 
 
 when the host worship began to be practised, which gave him this 
 prejudice to the Christian religion. 14. The Christians objected 
 such things to the heathens, as they never would have objected, 
 had they themselves worshipped the host; as that it was an 
 impious thing to eat what they worshipped, and worship what 
 they eat and sacrified. Which objections might easily have been 
 retorted upon them. 15. The Christians were accused by the 
 heathens of eating infants’ blood in their solemn mysteries, but 
 never any mention is made of eating the blood of Christ, either 
 in the objection or answer to it. The ground of the story arose 
 from the practice of the Carpocratians and other heretics, and not 
 from the Christians eating the blood of Christ. 16. Lastly, the 
 Christians never urged the adoration of the Eucharist in their 
 disputes with the Ebionites and Docete, which yet would have 
 been very proper to confute their errors, who denied the reality of 
 the flesh of Christ. 
 
 To these arguments of Mr. Daillé, Dr. Whitby, with many of 
 the same, has added these further: 1. That the Scriptures and 
 Fathers deride the heathen deities, and say, that we may know 
 they are no gods, because they have no use of their outward 
 senses. 2. Because they are made gods by consecration, and by 
 the will of the artificer, part of that matter which is consecrated 
 into a god being exposed to common uses. 3. Because they were 
 imprisoned in their images, or shut up in obscure habitations. 
 4, Because they clothed their gods in costly raiments. 5. Be- 
 cause they might be metamorphosed or changed from one shape 
 to another.—All which might have been retorted upon the Chris- 
 tians, had they worshipped the Eucharist, without any possibility 
 of evasion. Soto and Paludanus own that the whole Eucharist, 
 substance as species, may be vomited up again, or voided at the 
 draught; which, to affirm of the real body of Christ, the ancients 
 would have accounted the greatest blasphemy. For these and 
 the like reasons we may safely conclude, that there was no such 
 practice among the ancients, as giving divine honour to the host 
 upon presumption of its being the real body of Christ, though 
 
102 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 they treated it, as the sacred symbol and antitype of his body, 
 with all imaginable respect and veneration. To deduce these 
 arguments at their full length would fill a volume; and, there- 
 fore, it is sufficient here to have hinted the heads of them in this 
 summary account, referring the reader to those two learned 
 authors, who have proved everything, they say, for fuller satis- 
 faction. 
 
 It might have been supposed that, with proofs such as these, 
 which have been elaborated with all the rigidity of mathematical 
 deduction and all the elegance of finished scholarship, no one, 
 with any pretensions to learning and research, could have passed 
 from Protestantism to Popery by bridging for himself or others 
 the “ great gulph” between. Such, however, we find not to be 
 the case. The fact, that since the introduction of the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation in the twelfth century, the case has been 
 altered in many of the above particulars, both on the side of its 
 advocates, by many, minute, and special instructions arising out 
 of the doctrine—and on the side of its opponents in withstanding 
 and confuting it, ought to make any man exceedingly cautious 
 how he receive the doctrine, if it did not lead him at once 
 peremptorily to reject it. Nor can it be pleaded that there is not 
 enough of ecclesiastical remains on this subject. I have alluded 
 to what Albertine has done from the writings of Augustine alone, 
 but the documents of later date are neither few nor unimportant. 
 If the adoration of the host had been known to even the medieval 
 Church, we could not possibly be ignorant of it. For it is well 
 remarked by L’Arroque,—“If we descend yet lower than St. 
 Austin, we may inform ourselves of what hath been practised in 
 the Church, since his death, upon the subject of the adoration 
 of the sacrament ; for we have, in the works of St. Ambrose, two 
 treatises touching the same matter, made in the behalf of those 
 newly initiated—of which the latter, entituled ‘Of the Sacra- 
 ments, 15. more ample than the other. We have that of ‘ Eccle- 
 siastical Offices,’ composed by St. Isidore, archbishop of Sevile ; 
 the ‘Book of Sacraments’ of Gregory the First; that made by 
 
—_— 
 - 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 108 
 
 Maximius, abbot of Constantinople, expounding very mystically 
 all the action of the sacrament. German, patriarch of the same 
 place, also employed himself upon the same subject; and hath at 
 large all that long history of ceremonies practised in an age which 
 had already departed very much from the simplicity of the primi- 
 tive times. The book, called ‘The Roman Order, doth also 
 examine all the particulars of the public service practised in the 
 Church of Rome. We have, in the ninth century, the treatise 
 of Rabanus, archbishop of Mayans, of the institution of clerks ; 
 that of ‘ Ecclesiastical Offices’ of Amalarius Fortunatus ; that of 
 Walfridus Strabo, almost under the same title; that of Florus, 
 under the name of ‘ Explication of the Mass.’ In fine, we have 
 several other treatises of the manner and order that ought to be 
 observed in the celebration of the mass, or of the Eucharist, which 
 Hugh Mainard, a learned Benedictine, hath caused to be printed 
 with the books of sacraments of Gregory the Great; as that he 
 took from the manuscript of Ratold, abbot of Corby, about the 
 year 986. Another from the library of Du Tillet, and which he 
 saith is the Roman order of year 1032; and a third of the priory 
 of Saluse, in Normandy, of the prebends of the order of St. Austin, 
 about the year 1079. But in all this we do not find one word of 
 the adoration of the sacrament, no more than the interpreters and 
 commentators of the history of the institution of it, which are not 
 a few.” 
 
 Tf, in spite of evidence such as this, positive and negative, men 
 will, in their determination, αὐ all hazards, to establish priestly 
 authority and a sacrificial character in the New Testament minis- 
 try, rush on, blindfold, into error, it is little to be wondered at if 
 God at length send them “ strong delusion, that they should 
 believe a lie.” 
 
 The next point to which our attention must be directed, is the 
 assertion “that the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice as well as ἃ 
 
 ¢ 
 
 sacrament, and that peculiar “ importance has uniformly been 
 ascribed to the Eucharistic sacrifice by the Church.” The im- 
 
 portance of this sacrifice, we are told, arises from this,—viz., that 
 
104 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 it is the purpose of the Almighty “to gather together in one all 
 things in Christ,” through whom alone, as one great High Priest, 
 we have access into the Holiest by that “new and living way 
 which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, 
 His flesh ; through which, having entered, we shall become 
 ** fellow-citizens with the saints,” and of “ the household of God.” 
 It is then added : 
 
 “So that the acceptance which Christ’ has purchased by His death, 
 is rendered available through all those acts of public service, whereby 
 He puts men into relation with God; and of these acts the Holy 
 Eucharist is the chief—because it is the crown of public worship; the 
 bond, whereby men are attached to Christ; the focus, in which all 
 Church ordinances culminate. 
 
 “ But allowing that the Eucharistic service is important, because 
 admitted to be the chief act of Christian worship, yet why is it called 
 the Christian sacrifice ? Ifthe term is only applied in a general and 
 metaphorical manner, every act of worship may be styled a sacrifice. 
 If it be used with more reality and exactness, how does its employment 
 consist with those statements of Scripture, which exclude all true sacri- 
 fices, except the offering of Christ ? Now, what is meant in Scripture 
 by an offering or sacrifice ? In a strict sense it is something brought 
 before God, and presented to Him with a view of obtaining His favour. 
 This is the etymological sense of the word offering ; and sacrifice, which 
 is often used as its equivalent, involves, in common, the further idea of 
 the slaughter of that which is ‘offered. Now, in this full sense, there 
 is no other sacrifice or offering which can be brought before God, 
 except that body* of Jesus Christ our Lord, with which He paid the 
 price of our salvation. ‘This true victim complied with every condition 
 by which a sacrifice is characterized, that it might be presented before 
 God as the perpetual ground of man’s acceptance. ‘Christ is not 
 entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures 
 of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of 
 God for us.” For it was not only in the moment of His death that 
 our Lord’s body was the sacrifice for man: the shedding of His blood 
 was the consecration of the victim; but the victim itself was set apart 
 as the undying propitiation for sinners. So isit described by St. John, 
 
 * “Manus sacerdotum nostrorum vacuze essent, si non illas veneranda illa, et 
 sancta oblatio vivifici corporis et sanguinis impleret.”—Guliel. Paris. De Sacr. Euch. 
 cap. v. p. 427. 
 
— 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 105 
 
 who beheld a ‘Lamb as it had been slain,’ in the heavenly courts : 
 so is it explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we read that 
 Christ has ‘ offered one perpetual sacrifice for sins.’* 
 
 “Tf the Holy Eucharist, therefore, is to be called in any peculiar 
 manner the Christian Sacrifice, it can only be by reference to that one 
 perfect propitiation upon the cross, by virtue of which we have in 
 heaven an abiding sacrifice. And hence it is, that the Holy Eucharist 
 is discriminated from all other acts of common worship. For it is by 
 this service only that the real intercession which is transacted in the 
 Church’s higher courts, is identified with the worship of its earthly 
 members. If it were the sacramentum only, or external sign, which 
 was presented before God in this service, it could have no greater value 
 than pertains to the corruptible productions of this lower world: but 
 since it is also the res sacramenti, or thing signified, it is that very 
 sacrifice which our Lord has rendered perfect by the taking it into 
 Godhead, and available by offering it upon the cross. And again, if 
 this oblation were presented merely by an earthly priest, we might 
 doubt whether his own sins did not impede his actions, but it is the 
 peculiarity of this service, that those who minister it here below are 
 only representatives of Him by whom it is truly offered: He speaks 
 through their voice; they act by His power: so that the Church’s 
 offering finds a fitting minister in that Great High Priest, who sacri- 
 fices in heaven. The Holy Eucharist, therefore, is fitly called the 
 Christian Sacrifice, not only because it is the chief rite of common 
 worship, but because it is the peculiar act, wherein the effectual inter- 
 cession which is exercised in heaven by the Church’s head, reaches 
 down to this lower sphere of our earthly service. It is no repetition 
 of the sacrifice of the cross, nor any substitution of another victim, 
 ‘for although once for all offered, that sacrifice, be it remembered, is 
 ever-living and continuous—made to be continuous by the resurrection 
 of our Lord.’} When those who have been admitted to the fruition of the 
 Divine presence fall down before Him that sitteth upon the throne, it is 
 still ‘the Lamb that was slain,’ to whose virtue they ascribed their accept- 
 ance; and ‘to Him His Church on earth in the Eucharistic service, 
 in like manner, continually cries, “Ὁ Lord God, Lamb of God, Son 
 
 * Hebrews x., 12. θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. Hebrews ix., 12, and x., 10, 26, have 
 been alleged, singularly enough, to be unfavourable to the doctrine of the Eucharistic 
 sacrifice. Their object, however, is to assert, against the Jews, that there can be no 
 real sacrifice except that of Christ; so that they accord entirely with the assertion, 
 that the sacrifice which is perpetually preseuted upon the altar, is identical with 
 that which was once offered upon the cross.—( Wilberforce. ) 
 
 + A Pastoral Letter, by Henry, Bishop of Exeter, 1551, p. 54. 
 Ε 
 
106 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world.” Not that 
 tookest away, but still takest; “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi.”* 
 ‘Let us weigh well,’ says St. Gregory, ‘how valuable to us is this 
 sacrifice, whereby the passion of the only-begotten Son is perpetually 
 imitated for our acquittal. For what faithful man can doubt that, at 
 the very moment when it is offered, at the priest’s voice the heavens 
 are opened—that the angelic choirs are attendant on that mystery of 
 Jesus Christ—that things above and things below, things in heaven 
 and things on earth, are united, and that the visible is identified with 
 the invisible?’+ Such is the principle upon which the Holy Eucharist 
 is called a sacrifice.”} 
 
 There can now be no doubt as to the nature of the sacrifice 
 spoken of in the Archdeacon’s book. It may not be quite useless 
 to remark, that though the Bishop of Exeter is quoted as giving 
 sanction to the proposed view of the perpetuation of the juge 
 sacrificium, yet nothing can be further asunder than that of the 
 bishop and the Archdeacon. The one shews that the great 
 antitypical sacrifice of the cross is continuous in its effects, 
 because He who offered it ‘‘ ever liveth to make intercession for 
 us;” ‘that sacrifice is ever-living and continuous—made to be 
 continuous by the resurrection of our Lord ;” the other says, 
 “Tt is by this service (¢.e., the Holy Eucharist) that the real 
 intercession, which is transacted in the Church's higher courts, 15 
 identified with the worship of its earthly members.” The former 
 makes its perpetual validity depend upon the presence of Christ 
 at the right hand of the F ather; the latter upon his presence in, 
 and identity with, the Eucharistic bread and wine. Surely there 
 it little agreement between such views as these. 
 
 But, to pass over all else for the present, I will at once betake 
 myself to the consideration of those passages of Scripture which 
 the Archdeacon has brought in support of his theory. The case 
 of Melchisedec is the first adduced. David, as St. Paul reminds 
 us, had prophesied in the Psalms, of Christ: ‘‘ The Lord hath 
 sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest for ever, after the 
 
 * A Pastoral Letter, by Henry, Bishop of Exeter, 1851, p. 54. 
 + Gregorii Magni Dialog. Lib. iy. ὁ. 58. t Doct. H. Euch., pp. 8300—3803. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 107 
 
 order of Melchisedec.”* When we turn back to the casual 
 account which is given of this mysterious personage in Genesis, 
 we find it comprised in few words: “ And Melchisedec king of 
 Salem, brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of 
 the Most High God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be 
 Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth : 
 And blessed be the Most High God, which hath delivered thine 
 enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of 81]. Ὁ 
 
 Now, in the reference which the apostle makes to this man’s 
 history, it is to be remarked, that it is to that peculiar feature of 
 it which had been previously noticed by the psalmist; for even 
 if we think that there is something of type in Melchisedec’s being 
 king of Righteousness and king of Peace; in his being without 
 assignable parentage or age, without recorded limits in his priest- 
 hood as to either its beginning or end (in all which particulars 
 he was a priest sud generis, for both the pedigree and the age of 
 the Jewish priesthood were rigidly fixed), yet the one point, to 
 which the apostle ever recurs, is, ‘‘ Thou art a priest for ever, 
 after the order of Melchisedec.” ‘‘ His priesthood is not lke 
 that of Aaron, figurative, successive, and transient, but real and 
 effectual, fixed and incommunicable, eternal and unchangeable, 
 according to that pattern of it exhibited to Abraham, before the 
 law, in the person of Melchizedec.”{ But what use does the 
 Archdeacon make of this patriarchial type of the Saviour? It 
 
 ¢ 
 
 is remarked, indeed, necessarily, that He is “consecrated for 
 evermore” to “an unchangeable priesthood,” but the chief point 
 of assumed resemblance is one which the apostle notices not. 
 “He brought forth bread and wine,” says our author, “and he 
 was the priest of the Most High God.” ‘ And we know, when 
 our Lord was consecrated to the like office: in that momentous 
 night when the last passover marked the close of the ancient 
 dispensation. Then did the true Melchisedec bring forth bread 
 
 and wine: but we may not suppose that these were the realities 
 
 * Ps, ox. 4. + Gen. xiv., 18—20. | Horne’s Com. Ps. ex. 4. 
 
108 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which He offered: they were but the sacramentum or external 
 sign—the real offering was the thing signified. He had Himself 
 predicted the nature of the sacrifice: ‘the bread that I will give 
 is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world’ And, 
 therefore, when the moment was come, at which the course of 
 Aaron was to give place to the course of Melchisedec, ‘ He took 
 bread and gave thanks, and brake it and gave unto them, saying, 
 This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance 
 of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is 
 the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you. It was 
 thus that our Lord initiated that priesthood of Melchisedec, which 
 His apostles were ordained to perpetuate; for ‘as often as ye eat 
 this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till 
 He come.’ ”* 
 
 Now, if this idea of the Archdeacon’s be the true one, and the 
 point of resemblance between the Melchisedec of the Old and 
 of the New Testament be in the similarity of their offering, how 
 comes it that the apostle takes no notice of it? Surely it is 
 not to be imagined that the men and times of inspiration were 
 to be allowed to pass away uninformed, and that some interpre- 
 tation more significant, as well as more real, was to be discovered 
 in the after ages of the Church. 
 
 But see what difficulties have to be got over before the pro- 
 posed theory can be true. It must first of all be proved that the 
 bringing forth of bread and wine, on the part of Melchisedec, was 
 a priestly and sacrificial act. Now, let us ask, on what ground 
 is this assumption made? There is no authority for it in the 
 volume whence the account is taken; nay, there is much of pro- 
 bability against it. Is it not much more likely that the bread 
 and wine were produced, primarily, as a refreshment for Abraham 
 and his weary men, even if we may suppose somewhat of a 
 religious character given to the transaction by a part, or the 
 whole, being dedicated to God? Indeed, the connection sought to 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch., pp. 304, 305. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 109 
 
 be established between the bringing forth bread and wine, and his 
 being a priest of the Most High God, is, in my opinion, perfectly 
 imaginary. If a for had conjoined the two sentences of the verse 
 instead of an and, there would have been good ground for 
 making such a deduction. As it is, however, there is none but 
 that which arises from the arbitrary division of the verses in our 
 version, which, in this case, as in many others, appears to injure 
 the sense rather than aid it. Would not this clause, ‘“‘ He was a 
 priest of the Most High God,” connect much more naturally 
 with the following verse; nay, does not the sense even require 
 it? That Melchisedec should have “blessed Abraham of the 
 Most High God,” because he was “a priest of the Most High 
 God,’ recommends itself at once to our judgment, while it 
 explains nothing of the bringing forth of refreshments for the 
 weary, whatever of piety and devotional gratitude might mingle 
 with the act, because performed towards those who worshipped 
 the same Jehovah. 
 
 This, with respect to the case of the Melchisedec of the Old Tes- 
 
 tament. Let us now consider that of the Melchisedec of the New. ©” 
 
 I shall not here go into the question of the nature of sacri- 
 fice in general, nor of that of the Jewish economy in particular. 
 Such as wish to see what can be said, and we// said on this subject, 
 may consult Archbishop Magee’s invaluable work on the atone- 
 ment. It is sufficient for my purpose here to remark, that the 
 strict idea of a propitiatory, vicarious sacrifice, is only γιέ 
 realized in the case of Jesus Christ. The Jewish sacrifices, and, 
 indeed, all from the beginning, as the author above-named clearly 
 shews, “appear to have been but preparation of this one great 
 sacrifice,” and “ the entire rite to have been ordained of God, as 
 a type of that One Sacririce in which all others were to have 
 their consummation.” 
 
 The appointment of animal sacrifices was in itself a standing 
 lesson, that death was the consequence of sin; and that a deliverer 
 would be provided at some then future epoch, according to the 
 original threat in the first place and promise in the other. It 
 
110 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 would seem that, in offering an animal, according to some pre- 
 vious divinely-regulated model, the oblation of Abel was accepted, 
 while that of Cain, his offering being of the fruits of the ground, 
 was rejected.* The same rule seems to hold, through not only 
 the patriarchal times, and in the establishment of the Passover, 
 but is still more fully developed in the Levitical sacrifices, a 
 curiously-elaborated system of sanguineous types and prophetic 
 expiation. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have 
 given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your 
 souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.’+ 
 The life of a religious Jew was one continuous round of ceremonial 
 purification and expiatory bloodshedding ; and that it continued 
 so to the days in which the altar was finally overthrown, is evident 
 from the Epistle to the Hebrews everywhere, of which the fol- 
 lowing passage will suffice for an example : 
 
 “Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 
 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according 
 to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and 
 scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 
 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath injoined unto 
 you. Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, and 
 all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law 
 purged with blood ; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”t 
 
 Now, it would appear self-evident that the great antitype of 
 this elaborate system, must have his distinctive features recognised 
 by suffering the same things as did the types themselves. It 
 would be to use words without meaning to talk of type and anti- 
 type, where there was no resemblance, or where such resemblance 
 was only casual and evanescent. That the sacred writers deemed 
 the keeping to be bold, full, and permanent, is evident from their 
 language. ‘Thus, in the 40th Psalm, David, speaking prophetically 
 of the person and office of Christ, urges the point of His incarna- 
 tion, for the purpose of standing in the stead of the Jewish sacri- 
 fices in the suffering of death; and the same is strongly and 
 
 * Gen. iy., 3—d. + Levit. xvii,, 11. } Heb. ix., 18—22. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. io 
 
 emphatically insisted upon, by St. Paul, in his notice of that psalm : 
 ‘* Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and 
 offering thou wouldest not, but a dody hast thou prepared me: in 
 burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 
 Then said I, Lo, J come (in the volume of the book it is written 
 of me,) to do Thy will, O God. Above when He said, Sacrifice 
 and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest 
 not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law ; 
 then said He, Lo, J come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh 
 away the first, that He may establish the second.’* It is very 
 remarkable here, how often the apostle repeats, and how strongly 
 he insists upon, the substitution of Christ's body for those of the 
 animals referred to, till the latter are removed entirely, the former 
 established in perpetuity. Nor is it in this passage alone, in which 
 the same strong contrast, or, perhaps, I might better say, compa- 
 rison, is made. Nay, it is even carried out into other particulars 
 by the same apostle, in which latter, if the resemblance is strict, 
 it ought to be so, also, in the former. In the beginning of the 
 ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, he had made mention 
 of certain parts of the construction and furniture of the Temple, 
 and of the ceremonies attending some of its more solemn services ; 
 upon which he remarks: “ The Holy Ghost this signifying, that 
 the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while 
 as the first tabernacle was yet standing; which was a figure for 
 the time then present. . . . But Christ being come an high priest 
 of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, 
 not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building ; neither 
 by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He 
 entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal 
 redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and 
 the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
 purifying of the flesh : how much more shall the blood of Christ, 
 who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to 
 
 * Heb. x., 5—9. 
 
112 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living 
 God)? 
 
 Now, it seems impossible to read these passages, and not see 
 that the great point of resemblance between the sacrificial types 
 and the real sacrifice was in that, in which, indeed, all true idea 
 of a sacrifice consists,—viz., in the evident and true immolation 
 of the body of the victim. Words can really no longer be called 
 “the signs of our ideas,” if such be not the true state of the 
 relationship between the Jewish offerings and that which anni- 
 hilated them all, by fulfilling them on the cross of Calvary. 
 
 Now, compare with this the view of Christ's sacrifice, which 4s 
 presented to us in the ‘‘ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.” Ac- 
 cording to its system, “the Holy Eucharist is analogous to the 
 sin-offering ;” “the Holy Eucharist is said to be analogous to the 
 greater sin-offering, &c. ;” “the sacrifice of Christ, in the Holy 
 Eucharist, is an antitype of the Jewish sacrifices ;” “the Holy 
 Eucharist differs from the legal sacrifices, because they were 
 shadows while z¢ is a reality;” “the thing offered in the Holy 
 Eucharist is the body of Christ ;’ and ‘to offer the sacrifice of 
 the Holy Eucharist is the especial function with which the apostles 
 and their successors have been intrusted by Christ.’+ 
 
 Now, in this system, it does not seem too much to say, that the 
 real sacrifice on the cross on Calvary is forgotten, and the true 
 antitype of the ancient sacrificial types entirely pushed out of 
 sight. Instead of Christ having, “by one offering, perfected for 
 ever them that are sanctified,” “it is by this service ov/y that the 
 real intercession, which is transacted in the Church's higher 
 courts, is identified with the worship of its earthly members.’t 
 St. Paul says of Christ, that it was not necessary “that he should 
 offer himself often, as the high priest entered into the holy place 
 every year with the blood of others; for then must he often have 
 suffered since the foundation of the world; but now, omce in tine 
 end of the world, hath He appeared to put away sin by the 
 
 * Heb. ix., 8, 9, 11—14. + See Doct. H. Euch. contents, p. xviii. { Ib. p. 302. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 15 
 
 sacrifice of himself.” But, says Mr. Wilberforce (speaking, of 
 course, of the Eucharist), ‘‘ thus is that sacrifice effected, which 
 was predicted as the service of the Gentile Church: ‘in every 
 place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering ;’” 
 and pages* are written to prove that “the rule of the primi- 
 tive Church, shortly before the division of Kast and West, was a 
 daily Eucharist, celebrated by the clergy.” 
 
 There is one more point, in connection with this comparison 
 of Christ with Melchisedec, which I will briefly notice. The 
 apostle says, with reference to the king of Salem, that, in the 
 tenure of his priestly office, he was “ without beginning of days 
 or end of life,”"—7.e., he, unlike the Jewish priests, had enjoyed a 
 priesthood unlimited by age in either direction. No time is 
 mentioned at which he assumed it; no age fixed at which it had 
 to be laid down; so that in this respect, he, being “ made like 
 unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually.”t It is, 
 therefore, in vain that we make any enquiry as to the daée of the 
 appointment of Jesus to His priestly office ; for as Melchisedec’s 
 exercise of the priesthood commenced as soon as nature allowed, 
 and only ended when nature could discharge it no longer; so 
 Christ, being “ the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,”} 
 had His office assigned in the eternal counsels from eternity past, 
 and will continue to hold it, perhaps, for the eternity to come. 
 * Known unto God are all His works from the beginning ;” and it 
 is in vain to enquire as to the time when, with respect to Him, 
 with whom “a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years 
 as one day.” 
 
 But that which, with regard to the Deity, may be without 
 limits, may not be so with regard to man; and, therefore, ‘‘ the 
 Lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” was slain on 
 Calvary “in the fulness of time.” So was it, also, with respect 
 to the public appointment of the Saviour to His destined office. 
 He is specially called ‘“ the Christ,’—7.e., the anointed of God,— 
 
 * Doct. H. Euch., pp. 392—399. + Heb. viii. 3. t Rey. xiii., 8. 
 Q 
 
114 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 in virtue of His being set apart, by the unction from on high, to 
 His holy office. But when was He thus separated? At what 
 period of His earthly sojourn did our Lord receive this visible 
 sanction from His Father ? 
 
 Now, every one of the four Evangelists begins the history of 
 our Lord’s ministerial career with His baptism in the Jordan; and 
 the Baptist tells us that the descent of the Spirit, on that occasion, 
 was the divine sanction to the ministerial character of Christ, and 
 the ground of his own public recognition of Him in his preaching. 
 * And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from 
 heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And 1 knew Him 
 not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said 
 unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and 
 remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy 
 Ghost. AndT saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.’* 
 
 When John says, as he does often in this place, “1 knew Him 
 not,” it cannot be supposed that he means that he did not know 
 His person, for he was His kinsman. It seems rather that he 
 did not know Him in His anointed character—as Him who was 
 to baptize with the Holy Ghost. He means that, before this 
 public and divine recognition of Jesus in His official and priestly 
 character, he had not known Him init. This has been the uni- 
 versal understanding of the passage in ancient and in recent times. 
 In fact, there seems no room for any difference of opinion upon 
 this point, for all divines consider that Jesus began His minis- 
 terial career at the age of thirty, and that the descent of the Holy 
 Ghost at His baptism, was, as it were, His public call and qualifi- 
 cation to the office, as was the outpouring of the Spirit on the day 
 of Pentecost the same for the apostles. 
 
 All these considerations, however, appear to weigh nothing 
 with Mr. Wilberforce, in the scale against his preconceived 
 opinions. The Scriptures are too often made to bend to a man’s 
 favorite sentiments, rather than the sentiments made to yield to 
 
 * John i, 32—4, 
 
--:»Ῥ- 
 " 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. NS) 
 
 the Supreme authority. And such, we fear, was the case in the 
 imstance before us. The assumed sacrifice of bread and wine, on 
 the part of Melchisedec, found a parallel in an equally assumed 
 sacrifice of the same character by his great antitype, and the 
 title of the Son of God to His priestly dignity, as well as en- 
 trance upon its discharge, is made to depend upon His celebration 
 of this mystical oblation. The proper types in the thousand 
 sacrifices under the law, are all ignored for the figment of a dis- 
 tempered imagination ; and the sacrifice of the cross itself, which 
 astonished angels and convulsed nature, is absolutely nothing in 
 comparison of the wafer offermg! I ask, are not these things 
 true, when we are told, “ Now we learn from Holy Scripture what 
 was the nature of Melchisedec’s sacrifice. He ‘brought forth 
 bread and wine, and he was the priest of the Most High God.’ 
 And we know when our Lord was consecrated to the like office ; 
 in that momentous night when the last Passover marked the close 
 of the ancient dispensation. It was thus that our Lord initiated 
 that priesthood of Melchisedec, which His apostles were ordained 
 to perpetuate Ὁ ἢ 
 
 Such, then, are the views of Mr. Wilberforce, and such those 
 of St. Paul, as to the characteristics of the two Melchisedecs, 
 and of the sacrificial work which had to be accomplished by the 
 latter, in fulfilment of the old ritual. The point of the assumed 
 sacrifice in Genesis, which is everything with the Archdeacon, is 
 
 _ taken no notice of at all by the apostle ; while the blessing there 
 
 mentioned, and the for ever of the psalmist, both of which are 
 specially remarked upon by St. Paul, are comparatively insignifi- 
 cant in the theory of Mr. Wilberforce, save in so far as they may 
 be enlisted in the cause of the sacrifice. How entirely the two 
 stand asunder at first, in the comparison of official characteristics, 
 is not more remarkable than the decided clashing and contra- 
 diction which, in the instance of our Lord’s discharge of His 
 antitypical functions, the apostle has to endure at the hands of 
 
 * Doct. H. Kuch. pp. 504, 5. 
 
116 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the Archdeacon. It is hard to tell whether we should write 
 more in sorrow or in anger in such a case ; for while blindness, 
 even judicial, should secure compassion, it is not easy to recog- 
 nise the claims of the gentler feeling, where the evidences of 
 wilfulness appear undoubted and many.* 
 
 The next point which claims our attention is the explanation 
 which is’ given of Heb. xiii., 10: “We have an altar, whereof 
 they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” As I have 
 said above, I shall not go into the general question of sacrifice, 
 nor even follow the Archdeacon into his theory (which may be 
 tolerably correct for aught I know) of the similarity of, or dis- 
 tinctions between, the various kinds prescribed by the Mosaic 
 ritual. What I am concerned with is his explanation of the 
 above quoted verse; and though it were necessary for him to 
 state and demonstrate his theory as a support for his interpre- 
 tation, yet, if that interpretation can be shewn, independently, to 
 be a fallacious one, it is not necessary for me to concern myself 
 with his foundation ; the substratum may be taken for what it is 
 worth, independently of the superstructure sought to be based 
 upon it. 
 
 The whole passage, of which the above verse forms a patt, is 
 as follows: “Be not carried about with divers and strange 
 doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established 
 with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that 
 have been occupied therein. We have an altar, whereof they have 
 no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of 
 those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the 
 high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore 
 Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, 
 suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto Him 
 without the camp bearing His reproach.”+ Now, it is evident that, 
 the reference in the eleventh verse, to the bodies of beasts burned 
 without the camp, is to those sacrifices in the old law, wherein the 
 
 * See Appendix E. - + Heb. xiii. 9—13. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 117 
 
 flesh of the animal sacrificed was not allowed to be partaken of by 
 the officiating priest, but required to be consumed with fire. There 
 are two or three different cases. First, there is the sin-offering 
 of ignorance, (Levit. iv.) In two cases of sins of this character 
 requiring atonement,—viz., when committed, either by the priest 
 himself or by the congregation at large, a bullock was the 
 required offering; of which it is said, after full directions to 
 the officiating priest as to the discharge of his duties, “the 
 whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean 
 place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood 
 with fire.’* And, although some relaxation of the burning 
 without the camp took place in some instances, yet the rule as 
 to non-participation was never dispensed with: “And no sin- 
 offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle 
 of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall 
 be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.’ 
 
 Secondly, we have the case of the red heifer, the ashes of which 
 were the chief ingredient in ‘“ the water of purification.” She was 
 also to be wholly consumed and not eaten, ‘‘ And ye shall give 
 her unto Eleazar, the priest, that he may bring her forth without 
 the camp, and one shall slay her before his face, . . . . and one 
 shall burn the heifer in his sight.”{ St. Paul refers to this 
 directly elsewhere, when he is shewing the superiority of the 
 sacrifice of Calvary to all the Jewish: “ For if the blood of bulls 
 and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the 
 blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself 
 without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to 
 serve the living God ?Ӥ 
 
 But, probably, it was to the sacrifice on the great day of atone- 
 ment that the apostle particularly referred in the passage under 
 consideration ; for as this was a day of special humiliation for all 
 the tribes “for ever,” in which every one was required “ to afflict 
 
 * Levit. iv., 12. + Ibid. vi., 30. + Num. xix., 3, 5. § Heb. ix., 13, 14. 
 
118 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 his soul,” so was it the day upon which the great expiation was 
 made, and thus felt to be a “‘ sabbath of rest.’ And the same 
 directions are given as to the disposal of the victim, after the 
 performance of the prescribed rites, as in the cases before named : 
 “ And the bullock for the sin-offering, and the goat for the sin- 
 offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the 
 holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they 
 shall burn in the fire their skins and their flesh.”* 
 
 Now, here we have the great sacrifice to which Jesus Christ 
 was the exact antitype ; and it was perfectly natural, in an 
 epistle whose ‘‘ whole tenor shews that it was addressed to those 
 who were just excluded from the home, which had hitherto been 
 provided for them by their natural ritual; and were thus com- 
 pelled either to abandon Christ, or to go forth unto Him without 
 the camp, bearing His reproach :'"—it was perfectly natural, I say, 
 that it should be shewn that the great Christian sacrifice, in the 
 blessing which it bestowed, did not, at all events, fall below that 
 of its type in tbe abrogated system. ‘And here, therefore, we find 
 a special enumeration of the particulars of Jewish service, and a 
 proof that all of them had their accomplishment in the Christian 
 covenant. And we find them summed up by reference to that 
 new (not communion, but perfect) sacrifice, which was to com- 
 pensate for exclusion from the continual sacrifices of the ancient 
 temple.’+ For, as the sin-offering on the great day of atonement 
 was, as it were, the completion of the year’s round of services, 
 and that which supplied all their deficiencies and obliterated 
 their imperfections,—so the great sacrifice of Calvary is the 
 perfection of that great Jewish atonement, by transferring the 
 scene from earth to heaven, and per se rendering those who trust 
 to it certainly accepted before God. Turn we now to the passage, 
 to consider its exact significance. 
 
 And first let me say, that I think, with Mr. Wilberforce, that the 
 common interpretation which makes the passage mean, “ We 
 
 * Levit. xvi. 27. + Doct. H. Euch., p. 308. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 119 
 
 (Christians) have an altar (sacrifice), whereof they have no right 
 to eat who serve the tabernacle (the Jewish priests; some say the 
 Jewish people), is worse than no interpretation at all; for it makes 
 the apostle declare, what is not true,—that the Jews had no right 
 to eat of the Christian sacrifice, or in other words, had no right 
 to participate in Christ. Surely there is no truth in this. I 
 know it is always further explained by the remark, “ that is, while 
 they continue to serve the tabernacle ;” but this is so evident 
 a truism, that it emasculates the whole passage. Indeed, the 
 entire explanation to which I have referred is beset with diffi- 
 culties ; for it not only gives an untrue or a jejune import to the 
 words, but it also interposes the sentence, where it has no connec- 
 tion, with either what goes before or follows after it. In fine, [ 
 believe that no one who has thus sought the meaning of the place, 
 has ever felt satisfied that what he made of it was good sense, 
 sound theology, or apposite reasoning. At least I have never seen 
 one who, in thus interpreting, has not necessarily sacrificed one 
 of these, and felt dissatisfied himself with his own interpretation. 
 
 The Archdeacon, however, did not belong to that school of 
 divines, which so understood the passage; but to those rather 
 who apply it to the Eucharistic celebration, though with certainly 
 no better success than their neighbours. Indeed, the difference 
 of the two interpretations is more apparent than real, and every 
 objection urged against the one will le against the other. I 
 freely confess, that, up to a very recent period, I had no idea of 
 what the real meaning of the passage could be. What I now 
 firmly believe to be its true solution, was mentioned to me by a 
 valued clerical brother, some short time since; but I do not now 
 know to whom the Church is indebted for what must be considered 
 one of the most satisfactory solutions of a difficulty which theology 
 has received in these latter days. 
 
 The solution, then, of which I speak, is arrived at by recollecting 
 who are the parties concerned in this epistle. It is written by 
 Paul, a Jew by nation and by birth, and, for a long time, in 
 religion also. It is written ¢o his “ kinsmen according to the 
 
120 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 flesh,” to the Jewish people: to the converts, for their instruction, 
 assurance, and comfort; to the opponents, for their information, 
 conviction, and conversion. The epistle is addressed confessedly 
 to the former, not to the latter class, though it must be also allowed 
 that the explanations, exhortations, and assurances are those 
 generally of a “ Hebrew of the Hebrews” “to Israelites, to whom 
 appertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and 
 the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; 
 whose were the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came.” There could, therefore, be no impropriety in the 
 apostle, under such circumstances, addressing himself to those 
 to whom he was writing, as one of themselves, and identifying 
 himself with them in national peculiarities. Indeed, instances 
 of this might be expected rather than not ; and it is on this prin- 
 ciple that the solution of which I have spoken is applied to this 
 passage. It will be found that this makes every difficulty vanish, 
 removes all incongruity, abruptness, and obscurity, and makes the 
 whole simple, clear, and appropriate. The passage seems probably 
 to have been written in consequence of the agitation of that 
 oft-mooted question respecting eating of sacrifices, (1 Cor. viii.) 
 Explained on the principle to which I have referred, the whole 
 passage will stand thus : 
 
 “ Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines; for 
 itis a good thing that the heart be established with grace, not 
 with meats, which have not profited those that have been occupied 
 therein (those who have eaten). (Indeed, so far from eating 
 being important,) we* (Jewish people) have an altar (a sacrifice) 
 whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle (whereof 
 the priests themselves are not allowed to eat, which would never 
 be, if eating were an essential part of the service). For (instance) 
 the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanc- 
 tuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp (and 
 
 * The nominative is not emphatic. It is not expressed in the Greek. Ἔχομεν 
 
 Ul bor na ~ ~ 
 θυσιαστήριον, ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ τῇ σκηνῆ λατρεύοντες. 
 μ᾿ t t 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 121 
 
 therefore could not be eaten, though this did not prevent the 
 blessing being received by the faithful worshipper). Wherefore 
 Jesus, also, that He might sanctify the people by (the sprinkling of) 
 His own blood (and not by His flesh being carnally partaken of), 
 suffered without the gate (as the sin-offering was always consumed 
 there). Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him, without the camp, 
 bearing His reproach ;” an exhortation absolutely needful for the 
 then times, and used, probably, in reference to the fact, that they 
 who went out with the bullock and goat had to bear the stigma 
 of uncleanness for a time. ‘And he that burneth them shall 
 wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterwards he 
 shall come into the camp. ἢ 
 
 Here, then, by one of the most simple and natural methods, 
 without changing a letter of the text, or altering even a 
 point, we have a passage, which has baffled the genius of the 
 learned for centuries, made clear and consistent. To allay the 
 scruples of Jewish objectors, the case of their own former ritual 
 is quoted against them, and the principle adduced shewn to 
 apply to the Christian sacrifice. Thus the whole passage is one 
 and unbroken; consisting of an illustration, its application, and 
 an exhortation founded thereon. So much good is but seldom 
 secured by so easy and evident an expedient (merely under- 
 standing Jews for Christians), and the Church is deeply indebted 
 to the man who first suggested it.t 
 
 * Levit. xvi. 28. 
 
 + It would be by no means unreasonable to ask, if any other instances could be 
 found of St. Paul thus classing himself with the Jews, nationally, neglecting all con- 
 sideration of religious belief. The answer to such a question must be in the 
 affirmative; though, of course, such instances are to be sought chiefly in his addresses 
 to Jews, When the Apostle had been rescued from the mob in Jerusalem, by the 
 interposition of the chief captain of the temple guard, as he stood on the steps of the 
 tower of Antonio, he addressed the excited crowd in the Hebrew tongue, and said : 
 “Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. J am 
 verily a man that is a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this 
 city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of 
 the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day,” (Acts xxii., 3). So 
 again, when on the following day he was brought before the Sanhedrim, and perceived 
 that, by going further into particulars in this matter, he might divide his enemies, he 
 
 did not hesitate to do so. The historian informs us: “‘ When Paul perceived that the 
 R 
 
122 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 We are now prepared to answer the question which is put to 
 us—-‘‘Is there any scriptural testimony that it (the Eucharistic 
 sacrifice) was a sin-offering ?” I answer, most emphatically, No. 
 With regard to the assertion, ‘The offering of flour was so far 
 from being limited to the expression of thanks, that in all proba- 
 bility it was the common form in which the sin-offering was 
 presented,” J think it so much overstrained as to be probably 
 the very contrary of the truth ; for we shall find, that the 
 offering ordinarily prescribed was, “a female from the flock, a 
 lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin-offering.” But in case of 
 poverty, “1 he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring 
 for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves or two 
 young pigeons, unto the Lord; one for a sin-offering, and the 
 other for a burnt-offering.”* And it was only 7 cases of 
 extreme poverty that it was allowed to the offender to bring “‘ for 
 his offering the tenth part of an ephah* of fine flour for a sin- 
 offering,” though only a handful was burnt on the altar, as a 
 sin-offering ; the remnant was the priest's, as a meat-offering.”} 
 
 one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “ Men 
 and brethren, I am ἃ Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ; of the hope and resurrection of 
 the dead I am called in question,” (Acts xxiii., 6.) 
 
 So again, in Rom. iii., having shewn that the Jews had many advantages over tile 
 Gentiles, though they had sadly abused their privileges, as a Jew, he asks (v. 9.), 
 “ what then ? are we (Jews) better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before 
 proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.’ Thus again, beyond all 
 controversy, in Rom. iy., 1. “What shall we say then that Abraham, our father, 
 as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?” So also in that remarkable and feeling 
 passage above referred to, Rom. ix.,3: ‘ For I could wish that myself were accursed 
 from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites.” 
 And again he asks the question, “Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For 
 Z also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin,” (Rom. xi. 1.) 
 And below (v. 18), he addresses the Gentiles, as a class of which he was not one, on 
 the condition of the Jews, to which he belonged. ‘‘ Now if the fall of them (the Jews) 
 be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; 
 how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the 
 apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: if by any means I may provoke to 
 emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.” These instances 
 must suffice. The principle is one of common sense and of every day occurrence. 
 It is adopted by Stephen in his defence (Acts vii.) 
 
 * Levit. v., 7. + The tenth part of an ephah is an omer, rather more than six pints. 
 { See Levit. v., 6 to 13. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 123 
 
 Now, though it may be strictly true that “the poor outnumber 
 the rich,” yet it is not true that the abject poor are a majority ; 
 indeed, they must have been a very insignificant section of the 
 people in Palestine, ‘“‘ a land flowing with milk and honey,” “ the 
 glory of all lands,” whose monarchs at times thought gold alone 
 worthy to form their drinking cups, and in whose capital “ silver 
 was nothing accounted of,” being ‘“‘as stones” in the street:§ the 
 compulsory restitution, too, of all real property to its original 
 owner, in the year of jubilee, must have very much tended to 
 prevent the increase of such a class as that of abject poor. It 
 is also to be remarked, that the cases referred to above were in 
 the category of trespass or lesser sin-offerimgs, which the Arch- 
 deacon himself considers as very different in their nature from 
 the sacrifice on the great day of atonement, to which that of 
 our Lord more strictly applies. On the whole it is shewn, from 
 this case, that fine flour might be made a sin-offering in matters 
 of smaller import, though only then when nothing in the shape of 
 an animal could be obtained. 
 
 _ But ‘that there is direct scriptural authority for asserting the 
 Holy Eucharist to correspond to the Jewish sin-offering,” has, I 
 think, been proved an assertion without a foundation. The only 
 proof attempted is that of Hebrews xiii., 10, to which, in my 
 opinion, the most satisfactory reply has been given. 1 have 
 shewn that that passage has not the slightest reference to the 
 Christian system at all, much less to the Eucharistic supper ; 
 and that the poiné of the whole argument of the apostle is to 
 shew, not only that the eating of the sacrifice, in any case, is not 
 necessarily beneficial, but also that the Christian sacrifice, being 
 the exact counterpart of the Jewish great sin-offering, was not 
 to be partaken of. The passage, therefore, according to the 
 view propounded, not only fails the Archdeac6n, but actually lets 
 him to the ground, by shewing that the point which he wished to 
 establish could have no existence in the case of the antitypical 
 sacrifice. 
 
 § I Kings x., 21, 27. 
 
] 24 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Thus have I disposed of add the scriptural proofs, as they are 
 called, of the Eucharistic sacrifice. For it is evidently to assume 
 the whole matter in dispute to allege the prophecy of Malachi,— 
 “in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a 
 pure offering,’—as establishing the point. But assumption is 
 adopted, instead of proof, all through the ‘“‘ Doctrine of the Holy 
 Eucharist.” The following is a good sample of this, as it is also 
 of the general character of the whole book,—taking for granted 
 that the principle was satisfactorily settled, that the priesthood of 
 Jesus Christ was one instituted for the offering of the bread-and- 
 wine sacrifice, and that the above- quoted passage of Malachi 
 referred to it (though the only proof given of it is the assertion, 
 ‘‘thus—+.e., by the institution of the Eucharist—is that sacrifice 
 effected, which was predicted as the sacrifice of the Gentile 
 Church”), the Archdeacon proceeds : 
 
 «*Incense, as we read in the Book of Revelation, is the type of 
 prayer, and the parity of expression compels us to suppose that the 
 pure offering must have its antitype also. Now, what can this be, but 
 that res sacramenti, or reality, of which the bread in the Holy Eucha- 
 rist is the channel and type? The ‘ Breaking of Bread,’ therefore, 
 was joined with prayer in the daily ritual of the first disciples, and this 
 probably was the liturgy which was celebrated at Antioch, when St. 
 Paul was called to the office of an apostle. Now, wherein would this 
 service have been superior to the Jewish meat-offerings, unless it had 
 been the reality, of which the ancient sacrifices were a typical repre- 
 sentation? Yet such is the view always taken by the apostles respect- 
 ing the relation between the Jewish law and the Christian ritual : 
 they represent the law as the shadow, which had its reality in that 
 * perpetual sacrifice for sins,’ ‘ the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
 once for all..* And in this comparison the Eucharistic sacrifice is 
 represented as bearing its part. St. Paul contrasts the Christian 
 Eucharist as well with the sacrifices of the Jewish law, as with the 
 sacrificial rites of the heathen. He not only says, ‘ye cannot be 
 partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils;’ but ‘ behold 
 Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers 
 of the altar?” So that he parallels the daily offerings of the law with 
 the Church’s perpetual celebration of the Holy Eucharist.” + 
 
 * Heb. x. 1012. + Doct. H. Euch., pp. 305, 306. 
 
a 
 
 _ 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 125 
 
 Now, let us examine this quotation a little. In the first place, 
 it is assumed, as I have said, that the prophesy in Malachi refers 
 to the “ Eucharistic sacrifice.” Next, the mode of interpreting 
 that passage is both novel and strange. Half of it is interpreted 
 figuratively, the other half literally. “Incense is the type of 
 prayer,” we are told, correctly enough; and the “ pure offering 
 must have its antitype also.” Undoubtedly it has. “ Present 
 your bodies,” says the apostle, “ a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable 
 te God, which is your reasonable service.”’* And again: ‘ By 
 Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God conti- 
 nually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. 
 To do good, and to communicate, forget not, for with such sacri- 
 fices God is well pleased.”| These are its antitypes, the true 
 embodiment of religious truth. But the Archdeacon’s idea is 
 not that of an antitype for the “ pure offermg.’ He would make 
 it a reality—the juge sacrificium of the cross— “ awful,” 
 “qugust,’ ‘mysterious,’ “ efficacious,’ “the antitype to the 
 Jewish sacrifices,” “‘the reality, of which they were shadows,” 
 “the thing offered, the body of Christ,” “the victim and the 
 priest identical,’ and the same as on Calvary. ‘To look for an 
 antitype for the “pure offering” is perfectly natural and con- 
 sistent ; but to call all this 7¢s antitype, is to use words without 
 meaning. But this is, indeed, what is done from first to last in 
 this book of poor Robert Wilberforce’s; he seems to be lost in a 
 maze of unmeaningnesses ; he is bewildered by his own phrase- 
 ology. Thus, in the passage before us, ¢zcense, the concrete, 
 represents prayer the figurative; a pure offering, the concrete, 
 should represent, as above shewn, sel/-devotion, the figurative. 
 Here we have type and antitype according to what is said to be 
 required ; but the very next words of the Archdeacon, above 
 quoted, throw the whole idea into confusion: “now, what can 
 this be,” he says, “ but that res sacramenti, or reality, of which 
 the bread in the Holy Eucharist is the channel or type?” So 
 
 * Heb. iii., 26. + Rom. xii., 1. 
 
126 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 that the antitype of a concrete reality, is another concrete reality, 
 while the whole is still further disguised and confounded by the 
 introduction of another type in the sacred elements of the sacra- 
 mental supper. 
 
 Again, briefly, in explanation or confirmation of the view pro- 
 pounded of Malachi’s prophecy, it is remarked, ‘ The Breaking 
 of Bread, therefore,’ (do the capitals assume nothing?) “ was 
 joined with prayer in the daily ritual of the first disciples, and 
 this, probably, was the liturgy which was celebrated at Antioch, 
 when St. Paul was called to the office of an apostle.” What 
 grounds are there for all this assumption, which the modest 
 “perhaps” scarcely qualifies? But, in the next sentence, the 
 “perhaps” disappears, and the assumption is completed. The 
 fact of the celebration of this liturgy is taken for granted ; 
 and it is asked, ‘‘ Now wherein would this service have been 
 superior to the Jewish meat-offerings, unless it had been the 
 reality, of which the ancient sacrifices were a typical representa- 
 tion?” The superiority of this Christian service over the Jewish 
 consists in this,—not that in itself it is anything better than that 
 which it has superseded,—+zt ts not ttself the reality,—but because 
 it brings to the mind of the worshipper the reality foreshadowed 
 in the legal sacrifices, and is, towards the Deity, the remem- 
 brancer of the finished work of His own divine Son—of the one 
 Jjinal sacrifice for sin. The view which is said to have been 
 always taken by the apostles, “respecting the relation between 
 the Jewish law and the Christian ritual,’ was not that which 
 represents the law as the shadow, which had its reality in any 
 “perpetual sacrifice for sins,”"—if the word ““ perpetual” be used 
 to signify the unceasing repetition of the sacrifice,—but in “ the 
 offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.’* Nor do I see 
 how the intrinsic value of the Eucharist, as “the reality,” is 
 proved, by referring to the apostle’s statement, that the participa- 
 tion in a sacrificial feast, whether Christian, Jewish, or heathen, 
 
 * Heb. x., 10; 12. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 127 
 
 is the virtual blending into one, the worshipped and the worship- 
 pers. Indeed, if this proves anything, it proves too much; for, 
 whatever the apostle says of the one, he declares equally of the 
 others. So that I do not see what would be gained for the East 
 Riding, that is, the Popish theory, by St. Paul drawing a parallel 
 between ‘‘ the daily offering of the law” and “ the Church’s per- 
 petual celebration of the Holy Eucharist,” since he draws the 
 same parallel between the Lord’s table and the table of devils; 
 though, to say the truth, I find no such paralle) at all attempted 
 by the apostle, who simply illustrates and enforces on the commu- 
 nicants of the Church, the union of Christ's people with Him and 
 with one another, from the common opinion that existed, both 
 amongst the Jews and the heathen, that participation in a sacrifice 
 bound the worshipped and the worshippers together in one. 
 
 Thus have I examined and refuted every passage alleged in the 
 “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,” as supporting the Eucharistic 
 sacrifice. If the doctrine were true, it would be indeed astounding 
 that one of so much importance, second to none within the com- 
 pass of the Christian faith, should have been left to hints and 
 inferences ; a doctrine, moreover, so obscure, that it could never 
 have been discovered by the exercise of reason. The comparative 
 silence of Scripture upon the subject is acknowledged by the 
 Archdeacon ; for, after some reasoning on the Church's system 
 (which I cannot understand), nad the assertion, “ this must have 
 been peculiarly felt, &c.” (though what the feeling is I am unable 
 to comprehend), he adds—‘‘ To this circumstance it is, probably, 
 that we must attribute the comparatively little notice which the 
 Eucharistic service receives in Holy Scripture.” What the cir- 
 cumstance referred to is, I really cannot tell, unless it be that the 
 Eucharistic sacrifice was too well understood to make any expla- 
 nation at all of it necessary to the Jewish people ; but this “ com- 
 paratively little notice” does not prevent our being told that “ not 
 a word is said there which militates against its efficacy; and we 
 see it foreshadowed in the law, predicted by Malachi, instituted 
 by our Lord, and referred to in the epistles to the Corinthians and 
 
(Se THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the Hebrews,’—which, as I think, I have proved, are all pure 
 assumptions, without support in the Word of God, and attempted 
 to be established by inconclusive reasoning and false deductions. 
 I will say no more here, but give the following astounding asser- 
 tion, for the belief of which there is nothing save the audacity 
 with which it is made :—“‘ That the priesthood of Melchisedec was 
 exercised like other priesthoods, through the offering which it 
 presented, and, consequently, that its operation embraced all those 
 means by which our Lord's perpetual presence was bestowed upon 
 His people, was too obvious to require enforcement.’ * 
 
 We now weigh anchor, and, having spread our sails, are wafted 
 from the harbour of Scripture security into the wide and wild sea 
 of ecclesiastical history, almost like a mariner, in the midst of the 
 Atlantic, without compass or rudder. Whatever differences of 
 opinion there may be as to the meaning of particular passages in the 
 Word of God, of one thing we are certain—all are true. Again: 
 whatever variety of expression may be used, and by how many soever 
 writers, we know that they were all influenced by the same Spirit, 
 and, therefore, meant the same thing. We may, then, on both 
 these accounts, feel confidence in trusting to the Bible. But the 
 same cannot be predicated of the Fathers. They were not inspired, 
 and, being liable to error, we are not always sure that they meant 
 truth. Again: they are many; and in some things we may use 
 the old maxim, tot homines, quot sententie. ‘‘ Many men, many 
 opinions, is as true of the Fathers on the subject of religious 
 truth and biblical criticism, as it is true of other men on other 
 
 * It is worthy of notice, that Josephus saw no sacrifice in this act of Mechisedec, 
 but, what is above suggested, a provision for the wants of weary warriors. His words 
 are—‘ "EXopyyyce ὃ Μελχισεδέκης τῷ ᾿Αβράμου στρατιῇ ξένια, καὶ πολλὴν 
 ἀφθονίαν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων παρέσχε, 1. i. c. 11. [vol. 1. p. 32. Amstel. ὅσο. 1726.) 
 Nor could cardinals Cajetan or Bellarmine see what the quondam Archdeacon of the 
 East Riding saw so plainly. Cajetan says, ‘‘ Nihil hic scribitur de sacrificio, sed de 
 prolatione sen extractione, quam Josephus dicit factam ad reficiendos victores,” (Cajet. 
 in Gen. 14). And Bellarmine remarks, “ At nos non negamus data illa in cibum 
 Abraz et Sociis, sed dicimus fuisse prius Deo oblata et consecrata, et tum data homi- 
 nibus ut de sacrificio participarent.”—Bellarm. de Miss. 1. i. ο. 6. Ὁ. [vol. 3. p. 419. 
 col. 2. Prag. 1721.] In Payne’s Discourse on the Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 129 
 
 subjects. The dove must return to the ark before she can find 
 rest for the sole of her foot. 
 
 But, while we launch out into the tossed sea before us with such 
 feelings as these, we neither shrink from the voyage nor doubt its 
 termination. Though the Fathers did use language, on sacred 
 subjects, often approaching to, sometimes overstepping, the bounds 
 of soberness and truth, yet there is in their writings much that is 
 exceedingly valuable. Their remains are a blessing to the Church. 
 For, although some many isolated passages might be found which, 
 by being bound down to a rigid literal interpretation, when they 
 were only the expressions of pious rhapsody, might be made to 
 teach error, yet even these are always possible of correction by 
 the sober statements or reasonable interpretation, with which they 
 are generally accompanied. Those who advocate Romish doctrine 
 may claim the Fathers as supporting their views ; but it is a claim 
 without a solid foundation, which needs only to be examined to 
 be disallowed. One simple, common-sense rule is all that is neces- 
 sary for application to the passages produced : those that are poetic, 
 imaginative, and rhapsodical, are to be explained by the simple, 
 didactic, and sober—not vice versa. If this test were generally ap- 
 plied to those writings of the ancient Church which have descended 
 to us, it would be found that the primitive Fathers were, far more 
 frequently than is now imagined, sound theologians, not shamed 
 by comparison with an equal number of those of modern days. 
 
 We come now to consider the patristical authority, which is 
 adduced to prove the reality and character of the Eucharistic 
 oblation. The case is stated as follows by the Archdeacon : 
 
 «‘Bnt what proof have we that the statements of Scripture are to 
 be thus interpreted ?...This question will be best answered by adopting 
 the course which was taken previously, and considering what are the 
 alternatives of which the case admits. One of these is to deny that 
 the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice at all. Another is to admit that it is 
 a sacrifice, but to affirm that the thing presented is not the offering 
 of Christ, but the devotion of the communicants. A third is to suppose 
 that the sacramentum only, that is, the bread and wine, and not the 
 
 res sacramenti, is the thing offered. Each of these notions has been 
 5 
 
130 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 entertained, but the secoud, which affirms the Holy Eucharist to be a 
 sacrifice, but states that the thing offered is only the devotion of the 
 worshippers, is merely a nominal answer, and resolves itself in reality 
 into the first. For why should this ordinance be called the Eucharistic 
 Sacrifice, except because its sacramental character bears some part in 
 the offering ? Otherwise it has no more title to the name of sacrifice 
 than every act of prayer or praise. Whether the sacramentum were 
 offered, or the res sacramenti, we might fitly call it a sacramental offer- 
 ing; but the name is inapplicable, if nothing is intended but that which 
 is common to all religious offices. Why else do we not speak of a 
 baptismal* sacrifice, since the devotion of the worshippers may equally 
 be looked for in that sacrament also ?...There remained, therefore, in 
 reality, but three systems, which it is possible to entertain. Hither 
 the Holy Eucharist is not a sacrifice at all, or if it be, the thing offered 
 is either merely the sacramentum, or it includes the res sacramenti also. 
 Those who entertain the notions of Zuinglius and Calvin cannot adopt 
 the last opinion, because they either deny that there exists any res 
 sacramenti at all, or deny, at all events, its presence in the ordinance. 
 Their common and most consistent course has been to deny that the 
 Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice at all; but there have not been wanting 
 parties who have professed to attach great importance to the Eucha- 
 ristic sacrifice, and yet have maintained that bread and wine is all 
 which is offered. Now, what is the judgment of the ancient Church 
 respecting these three opinions? Is the Holy Eucharist a sacrifice, 
 and is the thing offered the sacramentum only, or the ves sacramenti 
 also? In reference to the first opinion, it may be asserted, without 
 fear of contradiction, that no doctrine of the Christian religion is 
 affirmed with more unanimityt by all ancient writers, than the truth of 
 
 * It must be a sufficient answer to this question to reply that, in this view of a 
 sacrifice (for which, as shewn in the text, there is the amplest scriptural authority), 
 the baptismal water and service are so called. Within a few days, in the course of 
 my own very limited reading, I have found two instances, and, I doubt not, many more 
 might be found hy seeking. The first is that given above, from St. Ephrem, where he 
 Says, speaking of baptism, “A symbol of the Spirit is in it, yea, a type of the Holy 
 Spirit, who is mingled in water, that it may become a propitiation, and is blended with 
 bread, that it may become a sacrifice.” And St. Augustine says, speaking of the same 
 sacrament, “ Holocausto Dominice passionis, quod eo tempore offert quisque pro pec- 
 catis suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide dedicatur, et Christianorum fidelium nomine 
 baptizatus imbuitur.”—Augustine ad Roman. Expos. cap. 19, tom. 3. apud Waterland. 
 So that the Archdeacon’s censures fall first on the inspired writers for adopting such 
 figurative modes of speech, and next upon the Fathers for following their example. 
 
 + “ Apud yeteres Patres, ut quod res est libere fateamur, de sacrificio corporis 
 Christi in Eucharistia incruento frequens est mentio, que dici vix potest quantopere 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 131 
 
 the Eucharistic sacrifice. ... It can hardly be disputed that there is no 
 ancient writer, whose subject leads him to speak of the Holy Eucha- 
 rist, who does not declare it to be a sacrifice, who does not call the 
 place an altar at which it is offered, and the person by whom it is 
 presented a priest.’ * 
 
 It cannot, indeed, be disputed that all the ancient Fathers call 
 the Eucharistic service a sacrifice, as they do all other services ; 
 though there were reasons why this was more appropriately called 
 so than others. It was the custom, even of the inspired writers, 
 and that, too, under the law, to apply the names od/ation and 
 sacrifice to all services of a character acceptable to God. And 
 I think the assertion above quoted, from the “ Doctrine of the 
 Holy Eucharist,’—viz., that to affirm that the thing presented is 
 the devotion of the communicants is but a nominal answer, and 
 is equivalent to denying that the Eucharist is any sacrifice at all, 
 is far from correct, whether we consider the language of inspira- 
 tion or that of the early Fathers. In order, then, to clear the 
 ground, before we go into the consideration of the language of 
 the writers of the first ages, we will consider what scriptural 
 authority they had for speaking of any Christian services as 
 sacrifices. The particular case of the Eucharist we will consider 
 afterwards. 
 
 We find, then, the names of sacrifice and oblation given in a 
 metaphorical and general manner, in various ways :—L. By David, 
 to a true repentance and sorrow for sin: “The sacrifices of God 
 are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou 
 wilt not despise,” (Psalm li., 17.) And again, to the outward 
 expression of thanksgiving: ‘“‘ We render unto God the calves of 
 our lips,” (Hosea xiv., 2.) “We offer unto Him thanksgiving,” 
 (Psal. 1., 14.) Or, as in the passage above quoted, ‘“ We offer 
 the sacrifice of praise to God continually,” (Heb. xiii., 15.) Where 
 the metaphorical expression is preserved also, through the fol- 
 
 quorundam alioqui doctorum hominum ingenia exercuerit, torserit, vexaverit.”—Bishop 
 Morton in Mede. Ep. lxxi. 
 * Doct. Εἰ. Euch., pp. 316—319. 
 
132 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 lowing verse, and applied to works of charity and benevolence; of 
 which the apostle adds—* for with such sacrifices God is well 
 pleased,” (v. 16.) He speaks similarly to the Philippians, on the 
 same subject, when he calls their charity ‘“ an odour of a sweet 
 smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God,” (PAz7. iv., 18.) 
 And, in another place, he calls their faith a sacrifice, and himself 
 offered upon it (P27. 11., 17.)* But St. Paul himself goes even 
 far beyond this ; for he calls preaching the Gospel a Aecroupyca and 
 ‘Iepovpyéa, and the effect of that preaching in the conversion of the 
 Gentiles he calls προσφορὰ, (Rom. xy., 16 ;)+ words which are made 
 much of by the Archdeacon, when used by Clement and others, 
 and supposed to be spoken of the Eucharist. The same phrase- 
 ology is adopted by St. Peter, also, and applied to works of godli- 
 ness, which he calls ‘‘ spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God, 
 through Jesus Christ, (1 Pe¢. ii., 5;)” for the offering of which he 
 assigns to all Christians the office of a “holy priesthood ;” on 
 which account St. John, also, in the Apocalypse, styles true Chris- 
 tians ““ priests unto God,” (Rev. i., 6.) Now, in all these passages, 
 offering,” &c., are used 
 in a loose and metaphorical manner, —7?.e., without the strictness 
 
 » ςς 
 
 it is manifest that the terms “ sacrifice, 
 with which it is applied to material offering. 
 
 * ᾽Αλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ { 7 θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτου ta TWS πίστεως ὑμῶν 
 2 
 χαίρω καὶ Bua πᾶσιν ὑμὲν." 
 
 + Eis τὸ etvad με λειτουρηὸν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, é ἑερουρηοῦντα τὸ 
 εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἕνα ,Ὑένηται 9 προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπροσδεκτὸς, 
 ἡγιασμένη ἐν Πνεύματι ayiw. 
 
 { Some theologians consider that the terms “ sacrifice,” “ oblation,” &c., are strictly 
 ΠΕ when used of prayer, praises, and such services, which are directly offered to 
 God. “ The sacrifice of obedience,” says Bishop Lany, “is metaphorical ; that is, 
 God accepts it as well as if it had been a sacrifice—that is, something given to Himself. 
 But the sacrifice of praise is proper, without a metaphor; the nature of it accomplished 
 by offering something to God, in acknowledgment of Him. The honour which God 
 receives from our obedience, differs from that of a sacrifice ; for that is only of conse- 
 quence and by argumentation ; that is, it suits with the nature and will of God; as we 
 say, good servants are an honour to their masters, by reflection. But the honour by 
 sacrifice is of direct and special intendment; it hath no other use, and is a distinct 
 virtue from all other acts of obedience, and of a different obligation —Though God hath 
 the honour of obedience and a virtuous life, if we deny him the honour of a sacrifice 
 besides, we rob him of his due, and a greater sacrilege we cannot commit.—This is 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 138 
 
 ΄ 
 
 Now, instead of being surprised or inconvenienced by the phrase- 
 ology which has been adduced, we cannot well conceive anything 
 more natural in the mouths of those whose whole religious 
 system was one of endless “ offering,” and sacrificial observances ; 
 to whose minds, if not eyes, from birth to death, daily, nay, 
 almost hourly, some oblation was present. Had we found works 
 professing to have been written by persons so situated to others 
 similarly circumstanced, and mo¢ containing such allusions and 
 adapted expressions, we should have considered such absence a 
 strong presumption against the genuineness of the productions. 
 What necessity, then, nay, what propriety can there be, to force 
 interpretations upon passages which they cannot be made to bear 
 without violence? Why should we do with the Fathers what we 
 feel we could not do with the passages above adduced from the 
 inspired writers ? 
 
 Confessing, therefore, that the primitive Fathers did use the 
 terms sacrifice, offering, or oblation of the Eucharist, we will next 
 proceed to consider the sense in which those terms were applied 
 to that religious ordinance. And here I do not know that I 
 could do better than give the summary, which has been given by 
 Waterland, of both the origin of the names, and of the change 
 which took place in them in the time of Cyprian.* 
 
 «The name of oblation may, I think, be fairly carried up as high 
 as to Clemens of Rome, who, upon the lowest computation, wrote his 
 famous epistle as early as the year 96. The more common date is 70, 
 
 robbing God of the service itself, to which the other, dedicated for His service, are but 
 accessary.” Dr. Dan. Waterland remarks sensibly upon this—‘ This very acute and 
 knowing divine had not learned to call every spiritual sacrifice a metaphorical sacrifice ; 
 tor he admits of prayers and praises, and the like religious services, as true and proper 
 sacrifices. I conceive, further, that even obedience, formally considered as respecting 
 God, and as a tribute offered to hin,—tllough it has other views besides, in which it 
 is no sacrifice at all,—is as properly sacrifice as the other, and so judged St. Austin.” 
 I have not thought it necessary, in the text, either to keep separate my instances, or 
 to shape my phraseology, to this less popular distinction. It is necessary, however, to 
 bear it in mind, in considering the meaning of the Fathers, when they speak of a true 
 sacrifice. 
 
 * As to this change, and Cyprian’s part in it, consult Appendix E, according to Dr. 
 Pusey’s acknowledgment. 
 
134 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 or thereabout: but a learned and considerate writer,* who very lately 
 has re-examined the chronology of that epistle, has, with great appear- 
 ance of probability, brought it down to 4.p. 96: and there I am willing 
 to rest it. 
 
 «Clemens speaks of the oblations and sacred functions of the Church, 
 referring, very probably, to the Eucharistical service ;+ neither can he 
 without some violence be interpreted to mean anything else. In 
 another place, he still more plainly refers to the same, where he says, 
 ‘Tt would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from the 
 episcopal function, who holily and without blame offer the gifts.’ 
 Here he expressly speaks of gifts offered (that is, of oblation), and by 
 sacerdotal hands. ‘The gifts were brought to the altar, or communion 
 table, by the people, and were recommended to God’s acceptance by 
 the officiating bishop, or presbyter. So there was first a kind of lay 
 oblation, and next a sacerdotal oblation of the same gifts to God. 
 Those gifts consisted partly of alms to the poor, and partly of oblations, 
 properly so called, to the Church ; and out of these last was usually 
 taken the matter of the Eucharist, the bread and wine.§ The oblation, 
 as I before hinted, was twofold; hence the whoie service of the 
 Eucharist came to be called the oblation: and to communicate, or to 
 administer, in Church language, was to offer. ‘There was a third kind 
 of oblation|| which came up afterwards, in the third century: or, to 
 speak more accurately, the commemoration, which was always a part of 
 the Encharistical service, came by degrees to be called an oblation 
 (but not within the first two centuries, so far as I can find), and then 
 commenced a kind of third oblation; not a new thing, but an old 
 service under a new name. 
 
 “Justin Martyr, though he does not directly call the Eucharist by 
 the name of oblation, yet he does obliquely, where he says, that the 
 
 * Lardner, Credibility of Gosp. Hist. part ii. vol. i. pp. 50, 62. 
 
 + Πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν . . - τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουρ- 
 γείας ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. . . οἱ οὖν τοῖς προστεταημένοις καιροῖς ποιοῦντες τὰς 
 προσφορὰς αὐτῶν, εὐπρόσδεκτοί εἰσι καὶ μακάριοι. Clem. Rom. Ep. ὁ. xl. p. 164. 
 
 t ‘Apaptia yap οὐ μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως προσε- 
 νέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα, τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. c, xliv. p. 178. Compare Jolin- 
 son’s Unbl. Sacrifice, part i. p. 75, 78, ἄο. 
 
 § See Bingham. Eccles. Antiq. b. xv. ὁ. 2, sec. 1, 2. Deylingius, Obsery. Miscellan. 
 p- 501. Constitut. Apostol. lib. viii. c. 27,30. L’Arroque, Hist. of the Eucharist, part 
 i. ch. iv. p. 30, &e. 
 
 || Of the third oblation, or threefold oblation, see L’Arroque, Hist. of the Euch. 
 part i. c. 8. Sam. Basnag. Annal. tom. 1, p. 371. Pfaffius, Dissert. de Oblat. Vet. 
 Eucharist. p. 283, 293. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 155 
 
 oblation of fine flowr, under the law, was a type of the bread of the 
 Eucharist ;* and where he speaks of the Eucharistical elements as 
 being offered to God.t Elsewhere he speaks plainly of the lay-offering, 
 brought by the people to the administrator :} and I presume, he is to 
 be understood of an offering to be presented to God by the hands of 
 the minister, brought to the minister in order to be recommended by 
 him to the Divine acceptance. 
 
 The reference to this act of presenting their gifts on the part 
 of the people, is constant and clear for several centuries. It is 
 probable that the apostle alludes to it in 1 Cor. x1., as also does 
 Clemens Romanus in the place quoted by the Archdeacon, where 
 he not only mentions these zpoogopa in connection with “ litur- 
 gies, δ but also commends those who make these “ offerings” 
 regularly.|| The apostolic canons, which are falsely attributed to 
 this Father, speak of these offerings as “ brought to the altar for 
 sacrifice.” Ignatius, in his epistle to the Smyrneans, says, that 
 without the bishop, it is lawful Οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε προσφέρειν 
 οὔτε θυσίαν προσκομίζειν, ἕο. Justin Martyr also mentions these 
 offerings as accompanied with prayer and thanksgiving, and as 
 the way in which Christians worshipped the Creator, instead of 
 the bloody sacrifices, libations, and incense that were offered by 
 others ;{1 “‘ and these,” says he, “we account the proper way of 
 
 ewe rn al \ ' = γὰν Ἢ a > 
 * “H τῆς σεμιδάλεως προσφορὰ . . . τύπος ἣν τοῦ upToU τῆς εὐχαρισ- 
 , . 5 
 τιας. Just. Dial. p. 119. Jebb. 220. Thirlby. 
 r a ~ , “ 
 + Προσφερομένων αὐτιῷ θυσιῶν, τουτέστι τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας, καὶ 
 ε , ~~ . . 
 τοῦ ποτηρίου ὁμοίως τῆς εὐχαριστίας. Just. Dial. p. 190. Jebb. alias 220. 
 + ἢ a A A 25 AE Peis , 
 ΤΕ πειτα προσῴερεται TH προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον 
 tle νὰ - “- \ U ~ A 
 ὕδατος Kal κράματος, Kai οὗτος λαβὼν, aivoy Kat δόξαν TH πατρί, ὅσο... 
 , °° Ἀ ε \ ε , ‘ 
 "Aptos προσῴεέρεται, καὶ οἶνος Kai ὕδωρ. καὶ ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως καὶ 
 Uy “ ! > - > , XP Ὲ ‘ - , ‘ 
 εὐχαριστίας, ὅση δύναμις AUTH, ἀναπέμπει, καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐπευῴφημεῖ, λέγων τὸ 
 > ω . 
 Apyv. Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 96, 98. 
 5 κ᾿ \ ! ' \ \ , > A 
 § Kata καιροὺς τεταγμένους τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ Λειτουργίας ἐπιτελεῖσ - 
 , ε ' 5 
 θαι (ἐκέλευσεν ὁ δεσπότης.) Clemens Ep. 1. ad Corinth. p. 85. 
 > ls a \ \ τς 
 " Οἱ οὖν τοῖς προστεταγμένοις καιροῖς ποιοῦντες τὰς προσφορὰς αὐτῶν, 
 , Ν 
 εὐπρόσδεκτοί τε καὶ μακάριαι, Th, p. 86. 
 . . A = κ᾿ ' 2 ἈΚ; 
 q Τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς σεβομενοι ἄνεν δεῆ αἱμάτων καὶ σπον- 
 nA ' - ‘ ' ? κι 
 δῶν καὶ θυμιαμάτων,---λότμῳ εὐχῆς καὶ εὐχαριστίας ἐφ᾽ οἷς προσφερόμεθα 
 a ' ' a \ ' ' ς Ἂς 
 πᾶσιν,--- μόνην ἀξίαν αὐτοῦ τιμὴν ταύτην παραλαβόντες οὐ πυρὶ δαπανᾶν 
 a ‘ a , , 4 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς δεομένοις Tpoohepewv.—Justin. Martyr. Apolog. 2 
 
 ~ 
 
136 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 honouring him, not by consuming his gifts in the fire, but by 
 thus offering them for the poor, and for ourselves.” Irenzus says, 
 “The Church offers to God, who affords us food, the first-fruits 
 of his gifts, and the first-fruits of his creatures, not as if He 
 wanted, but that we may be grateful ;’* where it is evident that 
 the oblation of Christ in the Eucharist is not meant; for “ the 
 offering to God of his own creatures,” and “ the first-fruits of his 
 creatures, + can be no other than of bread and wine, and the like ; 
 and hence he proves against the Marcionites, that Christ wast 
 truly the Son of the Creator and maker of the world, because 
 that His creatures were offered in the Eucharist. St. Cyprian, 
 condemning and blaming some of the rich women who came to 
 the sacrament without bringing these oblations, “ Thou comest,” 
 says he, “into the Lord’s house without a sacrifice, and takest 
 part of that sacrifice which the poor hath offered.’§ St. Augustine 
 insists upon the same thing, and bids them ““ offer the oblations 
 which are consecrated upon the altar; a man who is able ought 
 to blush if he eat of another's oblation|| without offering him- 
 561} 
 
 Now, it must be sufficiently manifest that all these passages 
 can have no reference to the mystical sacrifice to which Mr. Wil- 
 berforce and the Romanists would apply them: the application of 
 them is clear and consistent. They are used of the offerings 
 which were presented at the altar on the Sabbath, or at other 
 times ; some daily, some weekly, some monthly,{] as the case might 
 be, and which have their representative in “our alms and obla- 
 
 * Ecclesia . . . offert Deo, ei qui nobis alimenta prestat, primitias suorum munerum 
 
 . .. primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis; non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infruc- 
 tuosi, nec ingrati sint. Jren. advers. Heres. 1. 4. ο. 32. 
 
 + Primitias earum que sunt ejus creaturarum offerentes, . . . offerens ei ex grati- 
 arum actione ex creatura ejus. Ib. ὁ. 34. 
 t Quomodo autem constabit eum panem in quo gratie acte sunt... si non ipsum 
 
 fabricatoris mundi filium dicant. Ib. 
 
 § In Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, que partem de sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, 
 sumis. Cypr. de Oper. et Kleemos. 
 
 || Oblationes quee in altari consecrantur offerte, erubescere debet homo idonens, si 
 de aliena oblatione communicet. Aug. Serm. 13 de Temp. 
 
 §| See Bingham, book 15, c. 2, ss. 1, 3. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. ΤΟΥ 
 
 tions” (1.6., the sacramental elements), named in our own com- 
 munion service. 
 
 We come now to consider the second case. Waterland writes 
 as follows : 
 
 ‘“‘Trenzeus, of the same century, makes frequent mention of the 
 oblation of the Eucharist, understanding by it the whole service as 
 performed by clergy and people, according to their respective parts or 
 provinces.* | He supposes the oblation made to God, made by the 
 Church, in and by the proper officers : and though the oblation, strictly 
 speaking, according to its primary signification, means only one part 
 of the service, or two (viz. the people’s bringing their offerings to the 
 altar, and the administrator’s presenting the same to God), yet from 
 this part or parts of the service, the whole solemnity took the name of 
 the oblation at that time, and such name became very common and 
 familiar afterwards. For since the very matter of the Eucharist was 
 taken out of the obdations received from the people, and solemnly 
 offered up afterwards to God by the ministers, it was very natural to 
 give the name of oblation to the whole solemnity. 
 
 “ Tertullian, speaking of the devil, as imitating the mysteries of the 
 Church, takes notice, among other things, of his instructing his votaries 
 to baptize and to celebrate the oblation of bread :+ as muchas to say, that 
 they also had their Hucharist in their way; oblation being here the 
 name for the whole service. In another place, he uses the single word 
 offer, for the whole action of administering and receiving the commu- 
 nion.t Elsewhere he makes mention of oblations for the dead ; and at 
 the anniversaries of the martyrs ὃ and by oblations he could intend 
 
 | 
 
 nothing but the Hucharistical solemnities celebrated on those days.” 
 
 * Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam ecclesia ab apostolis accipiens 
 in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis prestat, primitias suorum mu- 
 nerum, &c.—(Iren. lib. iv.c.17.) Eecclesie ob/atio, quam Dominus docuit offerri 
 in universo mundo, purum sacrificium repertum est, &c.—Non genus oblationum 
 reprobatum est; oblationes enim et illic, oblationes autem et hic. Hane oblationem 
 ecclesia sol ampuram offert fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum actione, ex creatura 
 ejus. 
 
 + Tinguit et ipse quosdam . . . . celebrat et panis oblationem. Tertull. de Pre- 
 
 script. ὁ. xl. 
 + Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es 
 
 tibi solus. Tertull. de Exhort. Cast. c. vii. Conf. de Veland. Virg. c. ix. 
 § Oblationes pro defunctis, pro uatalitiis annua die facimus. Tertull. de Coron, c. 
 iii. Conf. de Exhort. Cast. ¢. xi. 
 || See Bingham, book xxiii. c. 3, s. 12, 13. Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. 
 T 
 
138 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Now we shall see that ¢/zs idea of a true sacrifice, both in the 
 thing and in its nature, was the same as that of the Fathers in 
 the ages preceding Augustine. Thus Irenzeus, even when speak- 
 ing of the Eucharist, says, “ God wills us to offer unceasingly a 
 gift at His altar, namely, our prayers and oblations, which are 
 directed to the heavenly altar.’* Surely he could have had no 
 idea of a true and propitiatory sacrifice of a more excellent na- 
 ture in that ordinance, or he would not have spoken thus. Justin 
 Martyr also, in total oblivion of any sacrifice of such a character 
 as is now insisted upon, says, “ Prayers and thanksgivings are 
 the only perfect and agreeable sacrifices, well pleasing unto God.”+ 
 Thus also Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of prayer, calls it “a 
 good and holy sacrifice ; adding, “ the sacrifice of the Church is 
 the words of devout souls.”{ Tertullian, in like manner, explains 
 the prophecy of Malachi, of “ glorification, benediction, praise, 
 hymns and prayer, proceeding from a pure heart.Ӥ And, in- 
 deed, he enumerates among propitiatory sacrifices and oblations, 
 “mortifications, humiliations, contritions, fastings, and general 
 strictness of life.” ‘The eccentric and uncertain Origen, in his 
 commentary upon Leviticus, is full of the same doctrine. And 
 Gregory Nazianzen said of St. Basil, after his death, that “ he 
 was in heaven, offering sacrifices and praying ;’|| adding elsewhere, 
 with respect to himself, that he sacrificed his Easter discourse, 
 and hoped in heaven “ to sacrifice unto God, upon His altar, 
 sacrifices well pleasing unto Him.’ 
 
 St. Chrysostom, in his commentary on Genesis, says, ‘‘ Prayer 
 is a great sacrifice, and a perfect oblation.”** And again, on St. 
 Matthew, he adds of the catechumens, “ They who are not initi- 
 ated offer their oblation and sacrifice,—? e., prayer and praise.’{+ 
 St. Ambrose also testifies to the same opinion. ‘“ Wisdom,” says 
 
 * Vult nos quoque sine intermissione offerre munus ad altare: est ergo altare in 
 ceelis, illuc enim preces et oblationes nostre diriguntur. Iren. 1. 4. advers. Heres. 
 ce. 83. fut supra, p. 251. col. 2. 252. col. 1.] : 
 
 + Contra. Tryphonem. 1 Strom., lib. 7. 
 § Contra Marcion, lib. iii., c. 22, and lib. iv., ο. 1. ἢ Orat. 20. 4 Orat. 42. 
 ** Hom. 9. ++ Hom. 16. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 139 
 
 he, “is a very good sacrifice, and faith and virtue a good obla- 
 tion. Prayer itself is a sacrifice.”* To all which Augustine adds, 
 “ We offer unto God bloody sacrifices, when we suffer unto blood 
 for His τὰ. When, therefore, we find the terms sacrifice, 
 offering, or oblation, applied to the most solemn of all services of 
 the Christian Church, we surely must be little surprised at such 
 application. Nor is it easy for us to mistake the sense of the 
 writer. Indeed, when the term is used of and applied to the whole 
 body of communicants, it can have no other meaning. Whatever 
 pretence might be made for insisting upon a further and fuller 
 significance for the word, when applied to the officiating minister, 
 it is evident that this is the extent to which the meaning can 
 be pushed, when used of the whole Church in its most solemn 
 service. 
 
 But there are other and yet more remarkable circumstances, 
 proving that this was ¢he idea which the members of the ancient 
 Church had respecting its sacrifices, and which not only shew 
 that the Fathers had no such idea as that of the Popish} 
 sacrifice of the mass, but absolutely exclude it. Numerous in- 
 stances of this are found in connexion with the apologies which 
 were addressed to the Roman emperors by the Christian apolo- 
 gists. The Jews and heathens were constantly taunting the 
 Christians with being atheists, because they had no temples, no 
 sacrifices, no altars, on which to offer to their God. Now, the 
 answers which are always given to these charges certainly ignore 
 any material sacrifice at all, and declare the only one which the 
 Church possessed to be of a spiritual character, consisting of 
 prayers and thanksgivings. ‘Thus we find Justin Martyr declar- 
 ing, “ We are not atheists,” as they were charged to be, because 
 they had not the visible worship of sacrifices, ‘‘ but we worship 
 the Maker of all things, who needs not blood, or libations, or 
 incense, with the word of prayer and thanksgiving, giving Him 
 
 * Ambrose de Fug. Sec. c. 8. + De Civit. lib. x. ὁ. 4. 
 t There is no longer any need to speak of the East Riding theory. It has all along 
 been apparent that there was no difference between it and the popish ; and now it 
 seems the Archdeacon has made his peace with Rome. 
 
140 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 praise as much as we can, and counting this the only honour 
 worthy of Him ;* and we are persuaded He needeth no material 
 oblations from men.’t And in another place he says, ‘ Prayers 
 and praises made by good men, are the only perfect and accept- 
 able sacrifices to God.’{ ‘ We are charged by some with atheism,’ 
 says Athenagoras, ‘who measure religion only by the way of 
 sacrifices ; and what do ye tell me of sacrifices which God wanteth 
 not, though we ought to bring Him an unbloody sacrifice, and to 
 offer Him a rational worship; where the rational worship ex- 
 plains the meaning of the unbloody sacrifice. Tertullian, in his 
 apology answering that charge, that Christians did not sacrifice 
 for the emperors, ‘ It follows,’ says he, ‘ by the same reason, we 
 do not sacrifice for others, because neither do we do it for our- 
 selves :'|| but in answer to this, he declares how Christians prayed 
 for the emperor, c. 80. And in another place he says, ‘they 
 sacrificed for the emperor's health; that is, ‘with a pure prayer, 
 as God has commanded,{] and I offer to God,’ says he, in the 
 same apologetic speaking against other sacrifices, ‘a rich and 
 greater sacrifice than he commanded the Jews, prayer from a 
 chaste body, from an innocent soul, proceeding from the Holy 
 Spirit. Feo) This is the host to be offered, says Minutius Felix, 
 
 *"AOcou μὲν οὐκ ἐσμὲν, τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς σεβόμενοι ἀνεν- 
 bei αἱμάτων, καὶ σπονδῶν, καὶ θυμιαμάτων, -λόγῳ εὐχῆς καὶ εὐχαριστίας 
 -ὅση δύναμις αἰνοῦντες μόνην ἀξίαν αὐτοῦ τιμὴν ταύτην παραλαβόντες. 
 Justin. Με γε. Apolog. 2. DApelog: Pon. Loti) (ip; θοῦ. 9Par 7425) 
 
 $ CANN οὐ δέεσθαι τῆς παρὰ ἀνθρώπων ὑλικῆς προσῴφορῶς προειλήφαμεν 
 τὸν Θεόν. Ibid. [p 48. 
 
 i Εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριστίαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι τέλειαι μόναι καὶ 
 εὖ ἄρεσται εἰσὶ Tw Θεῷ. Dialog. cum Tryph. (bid. p- 210.) 
 
 ὃ Ἐπεὶ δὲ of Baya τῶν ἐπικαλούντων ἡμῖν τὴν ᾿Αθεύτητα-- μετροῦν- 
 τες τὴν εὐσέβειαν θυσιῶν νόμιυ---τί δὲ μοὶ ὁλοκαυτιύσεων, ὧν μὴ δεῖται ὃ 
 @cos 5 καὶ τοι προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσά- 
 γειν λατρείαν. Athenag, Legat. pro Christ. [Apud Justin. Ibid. p. 980,1 
 
 || Pro imperatoribus sacrificia non penditis, sequitur ut eadem ratione pro aliis 
 non sacrificemus, quia nec pro nobis ipsis. Tertul. Apologet. adversus geptes, c. 10. 
 [p. 10. Par. 1695.] 
 
 4 Sacrificamus pro salute Imperatoris, i.e. pura prece sicut Deus preecepit. Idem 
 ad Scapul. [p. 69.) 
 
 ** Ei offero opimam et marjorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit, orationem de carne 
 pudica, de anima innocenti, de spiritu sancto profectam. Ib. Apol.c. 30. [p. 27.] 
 
δον ων, 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 141 
 
 ‘a good mind, a pure soul, a sincere conscience; these are our 
 sacrifices, these are the sacred things of God,’ in answer to their 
 not having altars and shrines ;* which objection, made also by 
 Celsus, is after the same manner replied to by Origen: ‘ Our 
 altars are the mind of every one that is righteous, from whence is 
 truly sent up sweet-smelling sacrifices ; to wit, ‘ prayers from a 
 pure conscience.+ lLactantius, when he proposes to speak of 
 sacrifice, shows how unsuitable an external one is to God, and 
 that the proper sacrifice to Him ‘is praise and an hymn: blessing 
 alone is His sacrifice. We ought, therefore, to sacrifice unto God 
 by word: the chief way of worshipping God is thanksgiving out 
 of the mouth of a just man directed to God.’ ” 
 
 Thus it will be seen that these worthy apologists always 
 acknowledge the truth of the accusation against them, that they 
 
 + 
 + 
 
 had no sacrifice or altars, properly so called, and in the ordinary 
 acceptation of the terms. But if they had had such an idea as 
 that the Eucharist was really the ¢rwest sacrifice, and the commu- 
 nion tables a rea/ altar, what would have been more easy than 
 to have explained the nature of their sacrifice, and, moreover, its 
 superiority over all others, Jewish or heathen? It is perfectly 
 unaccountable that those who have shewn themselves such skilful 
 
 * Cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus et pura mens, et sincera conscientia 
 hee nostra sacrificia, hee Dei sacra sunt.—Minuc. Octayv. sc. delubra et aras non 
 habemus. Ib. 
 
 + Βωμοὲ μέν εἰσιν ἡμῖν τὸ ἑκάστου τῶν δικαίων ἡγεμονικὸν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἀνα- 
 πέμπεται ἀληθῶς καὶ νοητῶς εὐώδη θυμιάματα προσευχαὶ ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως 
 καθαρᾶς. Origen. contra Celsum. 1. 8. p. 389. [vol. 1. p. 755. Par. 1733.] 
 
 t Nune de Sacrificio ipso pauca dicemus,—sacrificium laus et hymnus—hujus 
 sacrificii sola benedictio; verbo ergo sacrificare oportet Deo—summus igitur colendi 
 Dei ritus est, ex ore justi hominis ad Deum directa laudatio. Lactanctius de vero 
 cultu. 1. 0. sec. 25. [vol. 1. p. 486. Wirceb. 1783. ] 
 
 § That the ancients used the name of table or altar indifferently is shewn by 
 Bingham (bk. 8, cap. vi. ss. 12—14), and that they were made of wood and moveable 
 (5. 15). Itis probable that, about the time of Constantine, they began to be of stone ; 
 and Gregory Nyssen, in his discourse on baptism, speaks of the altar in his church 
 being nothing but common stone, till consecrated ; ‘“‘ but after it is consecrated,” saith 
 he, ‘‘ and dedicated to the service of God, it becomes a holy table, an immaculate altar, 
 which may not be promiscuously touched by all, but only by the priests in the time of 
 divine service.” The Council of Epone, in France, in 509, made the first decree, that 
 all altars should thereafter be of stone. Bingham wé supra. 
 
142 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 defenders of the truths of the Christian religion, should not only 
 have forgotten to urge what must have been a perfect answer to 
 this objection if they had believed in such a sacrifice, but also 
 have denied that they had one. Nor will it do to say that the 
 early Christians were wont to hide the mysteries from vulgar gaze, 
 which will account for their not urging the Eucharistic sacrifice ; 
 for we have, in one of the apologies, a full description of the 
 ceremonies used in the celebration, though without one word on 
 the sacrifice.* Indeed, these objections and replies meet us in 
 a way that leaves no room at all for doubt; for Julian the apos- 
 tate, who had himself professed the Christian religion for years, 
 and must have understood its doctrines, made the same charge, 
 of the absence of all sacrifices and altars ;+ while Cyril's answer 
 acknowledges the charge, but boasts of spiritual and mental 
 sacrifices, which are far better. Instead of corporeal and visible 
 sacrifices, ‘‘ We offer,” says he, “ for a sweet savour, faith, hope, 
 charity, righteousness, and praise."§ Now it really does seem 
 unaccountable, and almost incomprehensible, that there should 
 have been such an entire forgetfulness of the great sacrifice—trwe, 
 real, propitiatory—for the sins of both living and dead, as we 
 are told that of the Eucharist is, if there had been any idea extant 
 that it was such. I think it must strike every one of common 
 sense, and be acknowledged by every one of common honesty, 
 that the mention never was made, because no such idea existed, 
 When, therefore, the Fathers apply the term sacrifice or oblation 
 to the sacramental celebration, it is frequently to the whole service 
 as an offering of praise, and to the prayers and thanksgivings 
 connected with it. 
 
 * See Justin Martyr's second Apology ad finem (Appendix G). 
 , A e a A δ t . : 
 + wapayew δὲ ἱερεῖα βωμῷ καὶ θύειν παρητῆσασθε. Julian. apud Cyril. 
 : act 
 Alexand. contra Jul. 1. 10. p. 845. [843.] [Lut. 1638.] 
 + Θύομεν δὲ “pu τ » ἡμεῖ wi ἢ ἐκεῖ ἰλαι----- θυσίας τὰ 
 | Ovopiey Oe BAK py ἘΡΈΣΤΤΟν iets WUvE ἢ Ἐκεῖνον πα vowas Tas 
 πρὸς ἡμῶν πνευματικας δηλονοτι καὶ νοητᾶς. hid. p. 343. [845.] 
 ς κ ’ = δ , , 
 ὃ προσκομίζομεν yap εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας τῷ Θεῷ πάντα τρόπον ἐπιεικείας, 
 Ὁ U ‘ A 
 πίστιν, ἐλπίδα, ἀγάπην, δικαιοσύνην---ἀκαταλήκτους δοζολοηίας, καὶ Tas 
 ἑτέρας τῶν ἀρετῶν. Ib. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 1438 
 
 I now proceed to consider the third important sense in which 
 the terms were applied, peculiarly to the same holy ordinance. 
 
 «We have seen proofs sufficient of the name of oblation for the first 
 two centuries. But it is observable, that all this time we meet only 
 with oblation of gifts, or first fruits, or of bread, wine, or the like: no 
 oblation of Christ's body, or blood, or of Christ absolutely, as we shall 
 find afterwards. Hence it is, that some very learned men have thought 
 that, according to the ancients, the oblation was considered always as 
 previous to consecration, and that the elements were offered in order to 
 be consecrated :* which indeed is true according to that sense of obla- 
 tion which obtained for two centuries and a half: but a new sense, or 
 new application of the word, or name, came in soon after, and so it will 
 here be necessary to distinguish times. 
 
 “T shall now pass on to Cyprian, to shew how this matter stood 
 upon the change of language introduced in his time. We shall find 
 him plainly speaking of the offering Christ’s body and blood.4- This 
 must be understood of an oblation subsequent to consecration, not in 
 order to it: for Christ’s body and blood, whether real or symbolical, 
 are holy, and could want no sanctification or consecration. He further 
 seems to speak of offering Christ Himself,{ in this sacrament unto God, 
 but under the symbols of consecrated bread and wine. That may be 
 his meaning: and the meaning is good, when rightly apprehended ; 
 for there was nothing new in it but the language, or the manner of 
 expression. What the elder Fathers would have called, and did call 
 the commemorating οἱ Christ, or the commemorating his passion, his 
 
 * “Tt is manifest that it is called an ob/ation, or sacrifice, in all liturgies, according 
 to the style of the most ancient Church-writers, not as consecrated, but as presented, 
 and offered (whether by the people, as the custom was, to him that ministered, or by 
 him that ministered, to God) to be consecrated.’— (Thorndike, Relig. Assemb].) 
 Consecrationi autem oblationem prepositam olim fuisse, adeo perspicuum ex velerum 
 dictis, lidwrgiisque antiquissimis, maxime Grecis, esse arbitramur, ut nihil clarius esse 
 possit. Pfaff. Fragm. Iren. in prefat. 
 
 + Obtulit [Dominus ] hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est panem et vinum, 
 suum scilicet corpus et sanguinem. Cyprian. Ep. lxiii. p. 105. edit. Bened. Unde 
 apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, &c. p. 107. 
 
 1 Nam si Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos Dei 
 Patris, et sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit, et hoc fiert in sui commemorationem 
 precepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, 
 imitatur, et sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse. Ibid 
 p- 109. Quia passionis ejus mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus (passio est enim 
 Domini, sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit, facere debemus. 
 p. 109. 
 
144 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 body broken, or blood shed; that Cyprian calls the offering of Christ, 
 or of his passion, &c., because, in a large sense, even commemorating is 
 offering, as it is presenting the thing or the person so commemorated, 
 in the way of prayer and thanksgiving, before God. I do vot invent 
 this account for the clearing a difficulty, but I take it from Cyprian 
 himself, whose own words shew that the Eucharistical commemoration 
 was all the while in his mind,* and that that was all he meant by the 
 oblation which he there speaks of, using a new name for an old thing. 
 I shall shew in due time, that the later Fathers who followed Cyprian’s 
 language in this particular, and who admitted this third oblation (as 
 some have called it) as well as he, yet when they came to explain, 
 interpreted it to mean no more than a solemn commemoration, such as 
 I have mentioned. 
 
 “ T must further observe, that though Cyprian sometimes advances 
 this new kind of language, yet elsewhere he follows the more ancient 
 way of speaking, and understands oblation as other Fathers before him 
 had done. Thus, when he speaks of the sacrifice offered in the Eucha- 
 rist by the poor,} he means it of the lay oblation which was previous to 
 consecration ; as also when he speaks of the clergy’s presenting the 
 oblations of the people,t he is to be understood of the first and second 
 oblations, both of them previous to consecration. And when he 
 observes, that an oblation cannot be sanctified where the Spirit is not 
 given,§ he uses the word oblation for what was antecedent; and it 
 amounts to the same as if he had said, that such an oblation could not 
 be consecrated, could not be made the body and bleod of Christ.” 
 
 Thirdly: Yet there can be no doubt that the ancients applied 
 the terms in question to the Eucharist, on other grounds than 
 either of those considered,—viz., because it 1s a commemoration 
 and representation of the true sacrifice on the cross; and nothing 
 is more common than to give the name of the reality to its repre- 
 sentation. ‘Thus, we say constantly of busts, “this is Cesar,” 
 and “that is Shakespear,” without being in any danger of being 
 misunderstood as to the actual presence of either of these per- 
 
 * Calix qui in commemorationem (alias commemoratione) ejus offertur, p. 104. 
 Quotiescunque ergo calicem in commemorationem Domini et passionis ejus offerimus, 
 id quod constat Dominum fecisse, faciamus, p. 109. 
 
 + Partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulerit, sumis. Cypr. de Op. et Eleem. p. 242. 
 
 + Qui communicando cum lapsis, et offerendo oblationes eorum, &c. Ep. xxviii. 
 Ρ. 38. 
 
 § Nec oblatio illic sanctificari possit, ubi Spiritus Sanctus non est. Ep. Ixiv. p. 112. 
 
 ok rte 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 145 
 
 sonages. In the same way St. Paul says to the Colossians, (ii., 
 12.) ‘ Ye are buried with Him (Christ) in baptism, wherein also 
 ye are risen with Him ;” where it is evident that he means in ὦ 
 Jigure. And this is the explanation which St. Augustine himself 
 gives of the Eucharist. ‘‘ Christ,” says he, “was but once 
 offered, and yet in the sacrament He is daily immolated ; neither 
 does he lie who says Christ is immolated ; for if sacraments had 
 not the likeness of those things whereof they are sacraments, they 
 would be no sacraments at all; but from this likeness they 
 received the names of the things themselves.”* “Thus,” as he 
 gives several instances, ‘wherein that which is the memorial 
 of a thing, does, for its similitude to that thing of which it is a 
 memorial, receive its name, when Easter approacheth, we say, to- 
 morrow or next day is the passion of Christ ; and on the Lord's 
 day, we say, this day Christ arose, when Christ's passion was but 
 once, and that several years ago, and that day is said to be Christ's 
 resurrection, which yet it is not.’ What we call, then, a sacri- 
 fice, is a memorial or a sign, and a representation of a sacrifice, 
 as he says in another place.{ ‘‘ We offer the same sacrifice that 
 Christ did; for the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we 
 offer,’§ in St. Cyprian’s words; or rather, “‘ we perform a remem- 
 brance of a sacrifice,” as St. Chrysostom speaks,|| and after him 
 
 * Nonne Christus semel oblatus est? et tamen in Sacramento quotidie populis 
 immolatur; nec meuntitur qui dicit Christum immolari: si enim sacramenta non 
 haberent similitudinem earum rerum quarum sunt sacramenta, nullo modo essent sacra- 
 menta, sed ex similitudine seepe nomina earum accipiunt. August. Ep. 120. ad 
 Honorat. (Ad. Bonifacium. Episcop. vol. 2. p. 267. Par. 1679.) 
 
 + Illud quod alicujus memoriale est propter similitudinem, seepe ejus rei cujus 
 memoriale est, nomen accipiat, ut appropinquante Paschate, dicimus cras aut parendie 
 est Passio Christi, cum semel tantum ante multos annos sit passus, et die dominica 
 dicimus, hodie Christus resurrexit, propter similitudinem enim dies ille id esse dicitur, 
 quod tamen non est.—Ibid. 
 
 { Quod appellamus sacrificium, signum est et representatio sacrificii. August. de 
 Civit. Dei, 1. 10. c. 5. (vol. 7. p. 242.) 
 
 § Passio enim Domini est sacrificium quod offerimus. Cypr. Ep. 3. (Epist, 63. 
 p. 231. Venet. 1738.) 
 
 || Οὐκ ἄλλην θυσίαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀεὶ ποιοῦμεν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνάμ- 
 νησιν ἐργαζόμεθα θυσίας. Chrysost. in Heb. 10. Hom. 17. [vol. 12. p. 169. Par. 
 1135 
 
 U 
 
146 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Theophylact, “ we always offer Him, or rather, we make a remem- 
 brance of His offering ;"* “do we not offer unbloody sacrifices ? 
 yes, we make a remembrance of His bloody death,”t+ so that 
 “instead of a sacrifice, 1.6., a proper one, He hath commanded us 
 perpetually to offer up a memorial,” as Eusebius more strictly 
 words it. t 
 
 We can, therefore, understand Augustine when he says, 
 “Christus immolatur,—z.e., Christi immolatio representatur, et fit 
 memoria Passionis,’\—‘ Christ is immolated, that is, His immo- 
 lation is represented, and a memorial of His passion is made,” 
 even if he had not given us such a satisfactory explanation him- 
 self; and he also says most clearly, on another occasion, “‘ What we 
 call a sacrifice is a sign and representation of a sacrifice,” as 
 above instanced. 
 
 But there is no need of multiplying quotations where there is 
 practically no limit to them, and where every man’s judgment will 
 confirm the reasonableness, if not the necessity, of the principle 
 contended for. Indeed, it is not aione the early Christian Fathers 
 who thus speak, but some of those most in esteem in the Church of 
 Rome at the present day. Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas, 
 both of whom lived before the doctrine of transubstantiation was 
 Jixed, and the sacrifice of the mass taught as it now is, gave the 
 same reasons for calling the Eucharist a sacrifice, as Protestants 
 do now, and the Fathers did in the early ages of the Church. The 
 former says, “‘ Moreover, in a few words it may be told, that that 
 which is offered and consecrated by the priest, is called a sacrifice 
 and oblation, because it is the memory and representation of the 
 true sacrifice, and of the holy immolation made on the altar of 
 
 * Tov yap αὐτὸν det προσφέρομεν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνάμνησιν τῆς tposhopas 
 ἐκείνης ποιοῦμεν.  Theophylact. in Heb. 10. [vol. 2. p. 719. Venet. 1754.] 
 
 { Οὐχὲ ἡμεῖς det θυσίας ἀναιμάκτους προσφέρομεν. Nat ἀλλ᾽ ἀνάμ- 
 vyow ποιούμεθα τοῦ θανάτου. bid. 
 
 | Μνήμην ἡμῖν παρέδωκε ἀντὲ θυσίας τῷ Θεῷ διηνεκῶς προσῴφερειν. 
 Euseb. Demonstrat. 1. 1. c. 10. [ut supra, p. 38.] See Payne’s Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 
 ἃ De Consee. Dist. 2. [eap 26. Corp. Jur. Can. vol. 1. p. 1929. Lugd. 1671 ] 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 147 
 
 the cross.”* And Aquinas is very full, and says, ‘“‘ Both because 
 the celebration of this sacrament is a certain image of Christ’s 
 passion; and also because we are, by means of this sacrament, 
 made partakers of the benefits of the Lord’s passion, it is fitly 
 called the immolation of Christ. Because, first, it is an image of 
 Christ’s passion, for, as St. Austin says to Simplicius, images used 
 to be called by the names of those things of which they are 
 images ; as, when we look upon a painted table or wall, we say 
 this is Cicero, and that is Sallust; but the celebration of this 
 sacrament is a representative image of Christ’s passion, which is 
 the true immolation. Another way as to the effect of Christ's 
 passion ; it may be called a sacrifice, because, by this sacrament, 
 we are made partakers of the fruits of the Lord’s passion.t 
 
 Now, had the Church of Rome been satisfied to leave the 
 matter where her own best writers have left it, and where they 
 might have been met by the cordial response of warm hearts, and 
 every expression might have been reciprocated by loving spirits, 
 no man’s judgment being at the same time outraged, there would 
 have been no necessity for the wide breach in visible unity which 
 the dogmatic heresies of Trent have made, we fear, permanent. 
 We might all have agreed with the language of a divine who well 
 understood this subject, and to whom I am indebted for many of 
 the immediately foregoing quotations. 
 
 “ Christ is in some sense offered up to God by every commu- 
 nicant in the sacrament, when he does mentally and internally 
 
 * Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote, vocari 
 sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et repreesentatio veri sacrificii, et sanctz 
 immolationis facte in ara crucis. Lombard. t. 4. Dist. 12. [p. 3801. Colon. Agr. 
 1566.) 
 
 + Tum quia hujus sacramenti celebratio, imago queedam est passionis Christi, tum 
 etiam quia per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus, Dominic Passionis 
 convenienter dicitur Christi immolatio. Primo quidem, quia sicut Augustinus ad Sim- 
 plicium, solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appellari, quarum imagines sunt, 
 sicut cum intuentes tabulam aut parietem pictum, dicimus, ille Cicero est, et ille 
 Salustius ; celebratio autem hujus sacramenti imago quedam est representativa pas- 
 sionis Christi, que est vera ejus immolatio alio modo quantum ad effectum pas- 
 sionis Christi, quia sc. per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus Dominice 
 passionis. Thom. Aquin. Sum. 3. Pars. qu. 23.[vol. 24. p. 450. col. 2. Venet. 1787. ] 
 
148 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 offer Him to God, and present, as it were, his bleeding Saviour to 
 His Father, and desire him for His sake to be merciful to him, and 
 forgive him his sins. This internal oblation of Christ and His 
 passion is made by every faithful Christian in his particular 
 private devotions, and especially at the more solemn and public 
 ones of the blessed sacrament, when he has the sacred symbols 
 of Christ’s death before him, and does then plead the virtue of 
 Christ's sacrifice before God; not of the sacrifice then before him, 
 but of the past sacrifice of the cross. This is all done by the 
 inward acts, the faith, the devotion of the mind, whereby, as St. 
 Austin says, ‘ Christ is then slain to any one, when he believes 
 Him slain ;’* and when we believe in Christ from the very remains 
 of this thought, Christ is daily immolated to us.t As St. Jerome 
 says, ‘ when we hear the word of our Lord, His flesh and blood 
 is, aS it were, poured into our ears;’{ and so St. Ambrose calls 
 ‘the virgins’ minds those altars on which Christ is daily offered 
 for the redemption of the body.’ ”°§—-Payne’s Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 
 What has been said, then, will sufficiently explain all such pas- 
 sages as assign to the ministers of the New Testament the offering 
 of sacrifices ; for it is not alone theirs, in the sense in which it is 
 true of all Christians as ‘‘ kings and priests to God,” to offer 
 their own prayers and praises, but they act ministerially in offer- 
 ing those of the Church ; and still further they seem, not inap- 
 propriately, to be said to “ offer the sacrifice of the Lord’s body 
 and blood,” seeing it belongs to them peculiarly to celebrate the 
 sacramental representation of Christ's sacrifice in the Eucharist. 
 The significance of all such phrases, as when Ignatius says, “ It 
 is not lawful for the priest to offer without the bishop ;” and when 
 the Council of Nice decrees, ‘‘ Deacons are forbidden to offer the 
 
 * Tum Christus cuique occiditur, cum credit occisum. Augus. Quest. Evang. 1. 2. 
 
 + Cum credimus in Christum ex ipsis reliquiis cogitationis, Christus nobis quotidie 
 immolatur. Idem in Psal. 73. 
 
 } Cum audimus sermonem Domini, caro Christi et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris 
 funditur. Hieron. in Psal. 147. [vol. 7. Append. p. 385. Veron. 1737.] 
 
 § Vestras mentes, confidentur altaria dixerim, in quibus quotide pro redemptione 
 corporis Christus offertur. Ambros. de Virg. 1. 9, [vol. 2. p. 166. Par. 1690. ] 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 149 
 
 body of Christ,”* it is easy to understand. Every mention of 
 Christ’s merits and work in prayer, is ¢rw/y an offering to the 
 Father of the sacrifice of His Son, whether by priest or people ; 
 and the representation of Christ's death in the breaking of bread 
 and the outpouring of the wine, may be called all that the Fathers 
 call them. It is only when these phrases are bound down to literal 
 interpretation, and Christ's body and blood, which are offered as 
 objectively sacrificed in heaven, are declared to be subjectively 
 present on the altar and in the elements, that we not only “ with- 
 hold our assent,’ but emphatically protest against a doctrine 
 which, by destroying the efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross, 
 destroys man’s hope of mercy, and still further jeopardises his 
 salvation, by demanding supreme worship for one of the Almighty’s 
 perishable creatures. 
 
 I have thus at some length examined the circumstances under 
 which the Fathers call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ὦ 
 sacrifice, and the various senses in which they apply the word to 
 it. There are, doubtless, other points of view in which it is made 
 to bear the same name; but there is not one passage in which the 
 sense of the Church of Rome is borne out by the context. The 
 patient and sensible Waterland waded leisurely through almost 
 all the texts of the Fathers of the first three centuries, which bore 
 in any degree upon the subject, and has given the result of his 
 investigation in his work, entitled “A Review of the Doc- 
 trine of the Eucharist, as laid down in Scripture and Anti- 
 quity.” To his work, then, I beg to refer any one wishing more 
 thoroughly to investigate this matter, and shall conclude this 
 branch of my subject by giving his summary of the various senses 
 in which the words sacrifice, offering, and oblation, are applied 
 by the Fathers of the anti-Nicene period to the Eucharist : 
 
 “The service, therefore, of the Eucharist, on the foot of ancient 
 Church language, is both a true and a proper sacrifice (as I shall 
 shew presently), and the noblest that we are capable of offering, 
 when considered as comprehending under it many true and evan- 
 
 * Can. 14. 
 
150 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 gelical sacrifices: 1. The sacrifice of alms to the poor, and obla- 
 tions to the Church ; which, when religiously intended, and offered 
 through Christ, is a Gospel sacrifice.* Not that the material 
 offering is a sacrifice to God, for it goes entirely to the use of 
 man; but the service is what God accepts. 2. The sacrifice of 
 prayer, from a pure heart, is evangelical incense.t 3. The sacri- 
 fice of praise and thanksgiving to God the Father, through Christ 
 Jesus our Lord, is another Gospel sacrifice.[ 4. The sacrifice of 
 a penitent and contrite heart, even under the Law, (and now much 
 more under the Gospel, when explicitly offered through Christ,) 
 was a sacrifice of the new covenant :§ for the new covenant com- 
 menced from the time of the fall, and obtained under the law, 
 but couched under shadows and figures. 5. The sacrifice of our- 
 selves, our souls and bodies, is another Gospel sacrifice.|| 6. The 
 offermg up the mystical body of Christ—that is, His Church—is 
 another Gospel sacrifice ; or rather, it is coincident with the 
 former; excepting that there persons are considered in their single 
 capacity, and here collectively in a body. I take the thought 
 from St. Austin,** who grounds it chiefly on 1 Cor. x. 17, and the 
 texts belonging to the former article. 7. The offering up of true 
 converts, or sincere penitents, to God, by their pastors, who have 
 laboured successfully in the blessed work, is another very accept- 
 able Gospel sacrifice.tt 8. The sacrifice of faith and hope, and 
 self-humiliation, in commemorating the grand sacrifice, and rest- 
 ing finally upon it, is another Gospel sacrifice,}{ and eminently 
 proper to the Eucharist. 
 
 * Phil. iv. 18. Heb. xiii. 16. Compare Acts x. 4. Ecclus. xxxv. 2. 
 
 + Revel. v. 8. vili. 3,4. Compare Psalm cxli. 2. Malachii. 11. iii. 4,5. Hos. 
 xiv. 2. Acts x.4. Eccl. xxxv. 2. 
 
 t Heb. xiii. 15. 1 Pet. ii. 5,9. Compare Psalm ]. 14, 15. exvi, 17. Ixix. 31. 
 
 § Psalm li. 17. iv. 5. Tsa. i. 16. lvii. 15. 
 
 || Rom. xii. 1. vi. 13. Phil. ii. 17. 2 Tim. iv. 6. 
 
 Sl aCorrex Τὰν 
 
 ** Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 243. Cap. xx. p 256. Epist. lx. 
 alias exlix. p. 509. edit. Bened. 
 
 ++ Rom. xv. 16. Phil. ii. 17. Compare Isa. lvi. 20. cum notis Viming. p. 950. 
 
 t{ This is not said in any single text, but may be clearly collected from many com- 
 pared. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 151 
 
 “ These, I think, are all so many true sacrifices, and may all 
 meet together in the one great complicated sacrifice of the Eucha- 
 rist. Into some one or more of these may be resolved (as I 
 conceive) all that the ancients have ever taught of Christian sacri- 
 fices, or of the Eucharist under the name or notion of a true or 
 proper sacrifice. 
 
 “‘ Supposing this account to be just, from hence may easily be 
 understood how far the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice, 
 or otherwise. If that phrase means a spiritual service of ours, 
 commemorating the sacrifice of the cross, then it is justly styled 
 a sacrifice commemorative of a sacrifice, and in that sense a 
 commemorative sacrifice: but if that phrase points only to the 
 outward elements representing the sacrifice made by Christ, then 
 it means a sacrifice commemorated, or a representation and com- 
 memoration of a sacrifice.” 
 
 “ From hence, likewise, may we understand in what sense the 
 officiating authorised ministers perform the office of proper, evan- 
 gelical priests in this service. They do it three ways: 1. As 
 commemorating in solemn form the same sacrifice here below, 
 which Christ, our High Priest, commemorates above. 2. As 
 handing up (if I may so speak) those prayers and those services 
 of Christians to Christ our Lord, who, as High Priest, recom- 
 mends the same in heaven to God the Father.t 8. As offering 
 up to God all the faithful who sre under their care and ministry, 
 and who are sanctified by the Spirit.{ In these three ways the 
 Christian officers are priests, or liturgs, to very excellent purposes, 
 far above the legal ones, in a sense worth the contending for, and 
 worth the pursuing with the utmost zeal and assiduity.” 
 
 * Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso? Εἰ tamen in sacramento non 
 solem per omnes pasche solennitates, sed omni die populis immolatur; nec utique 
 mentitur qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim sacramenta quandam 
 similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacra- 
 menta non essent: ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina 
 accipiunt. Sicut ergo, secundum quandam modum, sacramentum corporis Clvisti 
 corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ; ita sacramentum 
 
 fidei fides est—Augustin. Epist. ad Bonifacium xcyiii. alias xxiii. p. 267. ed Bened. 
 + Revel. viii., 5. Vid. Vitring. in loc. t Rom. xy. 16. 
 
152 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE ANCIENT LITURGIES. 
 
 I HAVE purposely avoided saying much hitherto on the subject 
 of the ancient Liturgies, intending to devote a separate chapter to 
 their consideration. There can be no doubt but that these docu- 
 ments are most important, and their contents must materially 
 influence the controversy in which we are engaged. Extending, 
 as they do, over nearly the whole area of ancient Christendom, 
 and exhibiting a faithful picture of the Church engaged in its 
 solemn Eucharistic service, it is impossible but that they must 
 be felt to be exceedingly interesting in themselves, and most 
 weighty as far as they afford any testimony upon the questions 
 which are now agitated amongst us. : 
 
 The earliest writer, who goes at any length into the rites and 
 ceremonies observed in administering the Lord’s Supper, is Justin 
 Martyr. Justin was a Greek, and a native of Sichem, the ancient 
 capital of Samaria. Having, at Ephesus, tried the round of the 
 Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean, and Platonic philosophy, he 
 became fully convinced of the insufficiency of them all for hap- 
 piness, and tried Christianity as a last resource. Still, bearing the 
 philosophic cloak of the heathen schools, he undertook to teach 
 and to defend the truths of his new creed, and it is in the first of 
 two apologies for his religion, addressed to the Roman emperor, 
 Antoninus Pius, that we find a circumstantial account of the mode 
 in which the Eucharist was administered. Being the most ancient, 
 it is in all probability the most pure, and is, therefore, of great 
 importance in our controversy. The following summary of this 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 153 
 
 first apology of Justin is given as follows, by a judicious living 
 writer --- “ Justin presented his first apology, on behalf of 
 the Christian religion, to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, at Rome, 
 about the year 140 or 148. In this treatise he shows, first, how 
 unjust it was that Christians should be condemned without a 
 lawful hearing and trial, and how undeserving of punishment they 
 really were ;—that their religion was adapted to make men good 
 citizens, rather than to injure the state ;—that their principles did 
 not tend to atheism ;—that the dangers and privations to which 
 they exposed themselves evinced the sincerity of their belief ;— 
 and that they were not guilty of the immoralities which were 
 sometimes laid to their charge. He then proceeds to adduce 
 proofs of the truth of Christianity ;—shewing that Jesus was the 
 Messiah, from ancient prophecies, which he supposes to have 
 been at the foundation of many fables by which the evil spirits 
 (who had become acquainted with them) had imposed upon man- 
 kind. He asserts that Plato had derived his doctrine concerning 
 the formation of the world from the Mosaic account of the crea- 
 tion. In the concluding portion of the work he gives a circum- 
 stantial (and to us very important) account of the habits and 
 customs of Christians in his day, and especially of their mode of 
 celebrating divine worship. Justin gives two descriptions of 
 the Eucharistic service, immediately following each other, and 
 nearly in the same words. ‘Hither the second of these accounts 
 is a mere recapitulation of the former; or, which is more pro- 
 bable, the former relates to the Eucharist administered imme- 
 diately after baptism, called the first communion, and the latter 
 to the ordinary administration of the sacrament on the Lord's 
 day, in connexion with the Agape. This supposition is sup- 
 ported by the allusion made to the distribution of the oblation 
 among the absent, the sick, and the poor.* 
 
 “ Justin does not record the precise words of consecration used 
 in his time, neither does he mention any form which may have 
 accompanied the distribution. But, on the former of these matters 
 
 * See Appendix G. 
 
154 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 his brief account tends to throw some light. He speaks of a 
 ‘thanksgiving to the Father of the universe, through or in the 
 name of His Son, and the Holy Ghost; whence it appears that 
 the consecration was made in the name of the sacred Trinity in 
 Unity, and that mention was made of the third person, although 
 the ἐπίκλησις τοῦ πνεύματος ἁγίου, the calling upon the Holy Spirit, 
 may have been no special and distinct act or part of the solem- 
 nity. Here is mention, also, of a particular thanksgiving, whence 
 the name εὐχαριστία." —Riddle’s Christian Antiquities. 
 
 The next account of the ancient celebration is that contained 
 in the apostolic constitutions, a document, doubtless, of great 
 antiquity, but not the production of Clement of Rome, as it pro- 
 fesses to be. Their date is not satisfactorily fixed, but they are 
 supposed by most to have been written at different times, during 
 the second and third centuries, and to have been compiled before 
 the first general council of Nice, in 825. They are referred to 
 by Eusebius and his great antagonist, Athanasius. The consti- 
 tutions are also quoted by others in the third and fourth centuries. 
 “On the whole,” says the writer above quoted, “it appears pro. 
 bable, from internal evidence, that the Apostolical Constitutions were 
 compiled during the reigns of the heathen emperors, towards the 
 end of the third century, or at the beginning of the fourth ; and 
 that the compilation was the work of some one writer (probably 
 a bishop) of the Eastern Church. ‘Phe advancement of episcopal 
 dignity and power appears to have been the chief design of the 
 forgery. If we regard the Constitutions as a production of the 
 third century (containing remnants of earlier compositions), the 
 work possesses a certain kind of value. It contributes to give us 
 an insight into the state of Christian faith, the condition of the 
 clergy and inferior ecclesiastical officers, the worship and disci- 
 pline of the Church, and other particulars, at the period to which 
 the composition is referred. The growth of the episcopal power 
 and influence, and the pains and artifices employed in order to 
 derive it from the apostles, are here partially developed. Many 
 of the regulations prescribed, and many of the moral and religious 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 155 
 
 remarks, are good and edifying; and the prayers especially 
 breathe, for the most part, a spirit of simple and primitive 
 Christianity.” 
 
 In the eighth book of the Canons, we find the oldest record of 
 the full form of prayers and ceremonies observed in the Eucha- 
 ristic celebration. Though we do not know that it was ever 
 adopted by any Church as its authoritative ritual, yet it is the 
 model upon which all others are formed; and being the most 
 simple, and exhibiting nearly all the features of the most primi- 
 tive description of the Eucharistic service by Justin, it must be 
 looked upon as of equal authority with, if not of greater than, any 
 of those which were formed from it. In the Constitutions, it is 
 called ‘the order of James, the brother of John, the son of 
 Zebedee.”* Tis true that Renaudot censures pretty freely this 
 form, and declares it corrupt and less to be trusted than others of 
 a subsequent date. I confess I do not see how this can be, and 
 Renaudot has not at all helped us, by specifying anything. He 
 deals out a general charge of corruption, and there leaves it. 
 But wherein do these corruptions consist? It is not likely that 
 the very earliest liturgy which we have would have suppressed 
 anything, and it is chiefly in what we, Protestants, call corrupt 
 additions, that there is any difference between this form and the 
 other ancient liturgies. While, however, it does not sanction 
 what we charge as novelties, it has the general support of the 
 summary of Justin, written 150 years previous to its own pro- 
 bable compilation, and giving no countenance to the additions 
 
 * Instead of here giving, as I had intended, a comparison of the account afforded by 
 Justin, with that of the service in the Canons, I have added both of these valuable 
 documents in an appendix (see Appendix G), for the full satisfaction of the reader, It 
 is better far to be able to see and read the original for one’s self than to have ever so 
 full an epitome provided. The comparison of these with our own service, used on the 
 same occasion, will shew how near we come to the primitive model in celebrating the 
 same service ; while the absence of the corruptions which afterwards appeared in the 
 derived offices, will shew us our safety in cleaving to a church which, in this matter, 
 holds not only to the scriptural model, as far as that appears, but also has the oldest 
 ecclesiastical sanction for its established ritual. The truest antiquity is ours—that of 
 the earliest Fathers and the inspired apostles. 
 
156 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which are contained in others, it is yet fully supported, by all 
 these which differ from it on other points, in what it contains. 
 Thus the charge of corruption must be laid rather at other doors, 
 and this liturgy taken as the standard by which the rest must be 
 judged, whether approved or condemned. 
 
 This liturgy, which, though professing to be that of James, is 
 generally called the Clementine, because found in the apostolic 
 canons which are assigned to Clemens Romanus as their author, 
 differs in some very important particulars from the lhturgy of 
 St. James the Less, the Lord’s brother. I will give a brief 
 sketch of that which has come to us under that designation, and 
 which Mr. Wilberforce, following his co-religionists of the Romish 
 Church, claims to be the standard of comparison. It is diffi- 
 cult to see how a dater and more diffuse form can be the 
 original; simplicity and priority being always considered two 
 sure proofs of originality and truth. ‘That it is corrupt, we are 
 unfortunately compelled to acknowledge, which a comparison with 
 Scripture and with Justin proves: that it is more corrupt than 
 later ones, every canon of criticism and the dictates of common 
 sense emphatically deny. 
 
 The liturgy of St. James, which Mr. Wilberforce, in opposition 
 to Dr. Brett, Mr. Johnson, Bingham, and other English divines, 
 calls the most important of early liturgies, is that which was ori- 
 ginally used by the Church of Jerusalem, as is evident from the 
 fact that there is a special petition inserted in one prayer for 
 “Zion.” “ We offer also to Thee, O Lord, for Thy holy places, 
 which Thou hast glorified with the divine presence of Thy Christ, 
 and the appearance of Thy most Holy Spirit; but chiefly for 
 glorious Zion, the mother of all churches.” It was referred to, 
 Mr. Wilberforce tells us, by several writers within the patriarchate 
 of Antioch, “ as St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, Ephrem Syrus, and 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who gives a description of it in his Mys- 
 tagogical Catechism, by which alone it might be sufficiently 
 identified. It seems to have been imitated, also, by the writer 
 of the Apostolical Constitutions, who lived in that part of the 
 
a. 
 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Low 
 
 world about the Nicene age, and who borrowed what he called 
 the Clementine liturgy from the usages of the Church.” I have 
 given above the reasons why I cannot but agree with almost all 
 Protestant divines, in according the first place to the Clementine 
 liturgy,—viz., its priority and simplicity. The primitive form of 
 this liturgy is, in its leading features, identified by comparison with 
 the liturgies now in ‘use among the Syrian Christians, which must 
 be assumed to have had the same original, and which agree with 
 it in all its important outlines. 
 
 Before I proceed to make any comparison of this liturgy with 
 the Clementine, I must beg leave to qualify, if not to deny, the 
 deduction of Renaudot, drawn from a comparison of the liturgy of 
 St. James with those now in use among the Syrian or Monophy- 
 site Christians. The deduction which Renaudot makes is this— 
 that seeing the separation between the Monophysites and the 
 orthodox took place in 451, on the decision of the general coun- 
 cil of Chalcedon against the former, and the two have never been 
 united since; therefore every article, wherein the liturgies agree, 
 must have been one existing in their common liturgy before the 
 schism. The same reasoning he also applies in the case of the 
 liturgy of St. Mark, which he compares with one occasionally 
 used, at festivals, by the Egyptian Monophysites.* But will 
 
 * Mr. Wilberforce gives the following account of St. Mark’s Liturgy, which may be 
 taken as generally correct :— A similar mode of argument enabled Renaudot to deter- 
 mine what was the ancient liturgy of St. Mark, or that which was employed in the 
 Chureh of Alexandria. <A liturgy, purporting to be that of ‘the holy apostle and 
 evangelist Mark,’ and proved to be of Egyptian origin, by the prayers which it contains 
 for the rising of the Nile, has been printed from a manuscript (compare Renaudot, i. 
 40, 144, &e., and Palmer's Orig. i. 85,) of the tenth or eleventh century, discovered 
 in a Greek convent in Calabria. Now, this liturgy is found to tally exactly with that 
 which is at present used at festivals by the Egyptian Monophysites, and which Renau- 
 dot translates from the Coptic; and the correspondence between them is found to 
 extend even to those slight questions of arrangement in which different families of 
 liturgies differ from one another. The Coptic service, indeed, bears the name of St. 
 Cyril, whom the Monophysites (though unjustly) were accustomed to claim as 
 authorizing their opinions : but that it presents the form in which the Alexandrian 
 service was formerly solemnized, is shown by its re-production in the A‘thiopic Canon, 
 (Renaudot i., 496. Neale’s History of the Eastern Church, i., 324. Palmer i., 97,) 
 and its nine derivative liturgies. So that here again we can tell with certainty what 
 
158 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 this deduction, however plausible at first sight, and abstractedly 
 considered, stand the test of experience ? Let us look at the case 
 of the Church of England, and of those who dissented from it two 
 centuries ago. On what grounds did the schism take place? It 
 is notorious that it was not at all upon the same as those on which 
 it is maintained to-day. The surplice or gown, the peals of the 
 organ, the adornment of churches, &c., are no longer considered 
 antagonistic to devotion, and savouring of heresy; but these 
 objections (which were in themselves as contemptible as their 
 results were wicked) have not only been renounced by the succes- 
 sors of the men who held them, but the contrary principles and 
 practices have been adopted and acted upon. Now, this case is 
 one far less likely to happen, than that which Renaudot considers 
 impossible. The agreement between the Monophysite and the 
 orthodox is upon matters beside and beyond the grounds of the 
 original separation; but in our case the agreement is now on the 
 former subjects of disagreement. As the case stands here, it is as 
 if the Monophysites had renounced their errors and joined the 
 orthodox, which they have not done. What was to prevent the 
 same influences, acting in the same manner and with the same 
 results, upon a@//7 the Syrian Christians, in matters concerning 
 which there was no controversy between them? I confess I can 
 see none; while, on the contrary, I think it the most natural 
 thing in life that Protestant and Papist, Jew and Christian, ortho- 
 dox and heretic, should be similarly influenced, when living in 
 the same community, by the flux of time and the change of 
 circumstances, in most matters wherein there was no antagonism 
 between them. Ido not see why the controversy respecting our 
 Lord’s nature, between the Monophysite and the orthodox, should 
 have prevented their both being led insensibly by the same road 
 
 was the liturgy which was used in Egypt before the year 451; for the several parties 
 by whom the documents have been preserved, have been separated, not only by reli- 
 gious antipathy, but by difference of speech.” I have shewn in the text, that the test 
 applied is by no means a certain one, and that a comparison with the Clementine 
 liturgy proves, that the existing is not the anti-Nicene form of this or of the other litur- 
 gies, but one much corrupted by subsequent interpolations. 
 
 ~~ 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 159 
 
 to the adoption of doctrinal errors, or of doubtful practices. I 
 think, therefore, that the deduction of Renaudot cannot be main- 
 tained, and that agreement in matters beyond their original cause 
 of separation in the liturgies of the orthodox and the schismatics, 
 does not at all prove that these articles existed in the common 
 liturgy before the commencement of the schism. Therefore it 
 cannot be assumed that we can discover the anti-Nicene form of 
 the liturgies, but the existing copies must be received as evidence 
 only of the form existing in the age wherein they were made. 
 Now, in endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as 
 to the measure of, I will not say authority, but of weight, which 
 ought to be allowed to the contents of the various liturgies, it 
 will be necessary to consider first their age, and next their purity, 
 tested by comparison with the Clementine. For, as the learned 
 Dr. Hickes says generally, ‘‘ The ancient liturgies, how different 
 soever among themselves, agree in all these things with Justin 
 Martyr's account of the Eucharist, and the Eucharistical office in 
 the apostolical constitutions, which is the standard and test by 
 which all the others are to be tried. And by comparing those 
 with this, the innovations and additions in after times, be they 
 good or bad, will appear. . . . Among the additions, some 
 are good, and some bad. And any man, who is conversant in 
 the history of the councils, may see how and when both the 
 sorts were introduced into the liturgies of the Church. Of the 
 first sort is the word ὁμοούσιος, in acknowledging the Son to be of 
 the same substance with the Father, which likely was not brought 
 into the liturgies before the first Council of Nice. The Constan- 
 tinopolitan, commonly called the Nicene creed, which could not 
 be introduced before the second general council of Constantinople; 
 the benediction in the name of the holy, consubstantial, and 
 adorable Trinity, which must have come in after one of those two 
 councils ; the epithets added to the Holy Spirit* in the prayer 
 of oblation, in which they did not only call Him τὸν παράκλητον, 70 
 
 * Liturg. 5, Marci. 5. Jacobi. 
 
160 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 πνεῦμα τῆς αληθείας, the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, but τὸν 
 κύριον, τὸν ζωόποιον, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who spake in the 
 law, the prophets, and apostles, and who worketh sanctifying 
 grace in all αὐτεξουσίως, οὐ διακονικῶς, by His own power, not as a 
 minister, ἐκπορεύμενος, ὁμοούσιος, σύνθρονος, proceeding from the 
 Father, being consubstantial to the Father, and sitting upon the 
 same throne with Him and His Son Jesus Christ ;—this must 
 have been added after the second general council of Constanti- 
 nople, κατὰ τῶν πνευματομάχων. In the same liturgy is this 
 invocation of Christ, of the same date, κύριος, ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἀκατά- 
 ληπτε θεοῦ oye, TH πατρὶ Kai TH ayiw πνεύματι ὁμοούσιε, συναΐδιε, σύν- 
 avapxe-—O Lord our God, the incomprehensible word of God, of 
 one substance with, and co-eternal to, the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit, and without beginning, accept our hymn, &c. *So the 
 expression ᾿Ατρέπτως ἐνανθρωπήσας, Who was made man, not by con- 
 version [of the Godhead into flesh,] must have been added after 
 the fourth general council of Chalcedon against Dioscorus and 
 Eutyches. So, wheresoever we find the blessed Virgin called 
 ἅγια Θεοτόκος, We May presume it was an addition brought in after 
 the third general council at Ephesus, against Nestorius, who, not 
 believing Christ to be God, would only call her χριστοτόκος, the 
 Mother of Christ; though, as the Fathers of that council shewed, 
 she was called Qcorccos by the writers of the Church in the ages 
 before And, with these additions, I may take notice of the altera- 
 tions from the ancient form of oblation of the elements to God 
 the Father, to the oblation of them to God the Son, as an 
 acknowledgment of His Godhead in the proper offices (as I have 
 observed before upon the Atthiopic Liturgy) for Christmas, 
 Easter, and Ascension-day, which could not come, I think, into 
 use till after the first Council of Nice. 
 
 * But then, after the second Council of Nice, were introduced 
 additions of the latter sort, whereby the liturgies were most 
 abominably corrupted by commemorations, salutations, gratula- 
 
 * Liturg. 5. Jacobi. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 161 
 
 tions of the Holy Virgin, and desiring to be heard through her 
 intercessions, and the intercessions of other saints. Among these 
 additions, I may also reckon their superstitious practices, as put- 
 ting warm water to the sacramental wine, saying prayers at putting 
 on every vestment in the robing of the priest, making the sign of 
 the cross upon the Δῶρα, and * the late addition of σταυροθεστόκος, 
 the mother of the crucified God, to θεοτόκος, the mother of God.’ + 
 
 We will now proceed to compare the two liturgies—the Cle- 
 mentine and that of St. James—with each other. 
 
 In the apostolical constitutions, there are given what may be 
 called a few introductory particulars, all of which were observed 
 more or less by the whole Church. These consisted in the deacon 
 giving the solemn admonition, as soon as the common prayers 
 were over, Πρόσχωμεν --- “‘ Let us give attention.” Then the 
 Bishop gives his salutation to all present, saying, “‘ The peace of 
 God be with you all;” to which the reply of the people was, 
 “And with Thy Spirit.” Next the deacon says, ‘‘ Salute ye one 
 another with a holy kiss.” “Then the clergy salute the bishop, 
 and laymen their fellow laymen, and the women the women ; the 
 children standing before the bema, that is, either the reading-desk 
 or the altar, with a deacon attending them, to see that they keep 
 good order; others of the deacons walking about the Church, 
 and inspecting the men and women, that there be no tumult, nor 
 making of signs to one another, nor whispering, nor sleeping ; 
 and others standing at the men’s gate, and the sub-deacons at the 
 women's gate, that the doors be not opened for any to go in or 
 out in the time of oblation. After this, the subdeacon brings 
 water to the priests to wash their hands, as a sign of the purity of 
 those souls that are consecrated unto God.”—Bingham. 
 
 After these preliminaries commences the proper sacramental 
 service as it is given in Appendix G (p. lxxiv.,) and which may 
 be summed up under the following heads :—1. The admonition to 
 the non-communicants to withdraw, and to the communicants to 
 
 * In Liturg. ante consecratorum. Bibl. Patr. vol. ii. Parisiis. 1624. 
 + Hickes’ Christian Priesthood, cap. 2. 
 
 Y 
 
162 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 approach with charity and purity. 2. The common preface, swr- 
 sum corda, “ Lift up your hearts,” preparatory to (3) The great 
 εὐχαριστία “thanksgiving,” being a summary of God's great mercies 
 to His Church, through all time. 4. The hymn 7’risagion, or as 
 it was usually called, “the seraphic hymn,” “ Holy, holy, holy,” 
 included in the thanksgiving. 5. A special thanksgiving for the 
 mercies of redemption through Jesus Christ. 6. The “form of 
 consecration,” always composed of a repetition of the words of 
 institution, and a prayer to God to sanctify the gifts by His Holy 
 Spirit. 7. “A prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church 
 militant here in earth,” enumerating all classes, especially the 
 bishops and clergy, kings and magistrates,* the departed saints, 
 martyrs, confessors, and all others, as recorded in the diptychs ; 
 all orders of the living in that particular Church, with those 
 sick, in slavery, and banishment; all travellers, persecutors, 
 heretics, and unbelievers; catechumens, energumens, and peni- 
 tents ; for healthy and fruitful seasons ; the absent, &c.; con- 
 cluding with a gloria patri, and a responsive “ Amen” from the 
 people. 8. Upon which the bishop says, “The peace of God be 
 with you all,” to which the people rejoin, “ And with Thy Spirit.” 
 (Here, in such liturgies as contain them, follow the Creed, the 
 Lord’s Prayer, and sundry benedictions; but these are wanting in 
 the Clementine.) 9. Then follows the deacon’s “ bidding prayer ;” 
 and, 10. A short prayer by the bishop for worthy partaking of the 
 Holy Supper. 11. The exclamation ayia ay/ou—* Holy things 
 for holy persons,” and the “ Gloria Deo excelsis,"—“ Glory be 
 to God on high,” came next, and the service concluded with the 
 distribution, accompanied with the words (12), ‘‘ The body of 
 Christ,” ‘“ the blood of Christ, the cup of life.” 
 
 Now, in comparing the rival liturgy, St. James's, with the 
 Clementine, we find many additions,—“ some good and some 
 bad,” as Dr. Hickes has said,—but yet additions. The Virgin, 
 
 * For proof that the very general practice of the ancients, in praying for the dead 
 did not arise from their belief in the Romish purgatory, and for the various reasons 
 why they did so pray, see Bingham, book 15, cap. iii. 55, 16, 17. 
 
e 
 OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 168 
 
 for instance, is called in the Eucharistical prayer Θεοτόκος, which 
 was not used by the Church generally till after the condem- 
 nation of Nestorius, by the Council of Ephesus, in 481. So, 
 again, with respect to the Holy Spirit being consubstantial and 
 co-eternal with the Father and the Son, the epithets which were 
 adopted by the Council of Constantinople, in 381, and which are 
 given above in the extract from Hickes’s “ Christian Priesthood,” 
 are found in this liturgy. Thus the decisions of the Church, on 
 the Nestorian and Macedonian heresies, give us the means of 
 testing, in some degree, the date antecedent to which the liturgy 
 of St. James had not taken its present form. 
 
 The interpolations preceding, although manifesting a compara- 
 tively recent alteration in the liturgy of St. James, do not at all 
 mar its orthodoxy nor detract from its weight. But such is not 
 the case with some others found in it. The following apostrophe 
 to, and praises of, the Virgin Mary, are evident corruptions and 
 wholly unjustifiable :—‘‘ Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is 
 with thee: blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the 
 fruit of thy womb ; for of thee was born the Saviour of our souls.” 
 Also the next words—“ Most holy, immaculate, superlatively 
 blessed, and glorious lady.” And what the singers say imme- 
 diately after: “It is meet that we should truly magnify thee, the 
 ever-blessed and immaculate parent and mother of our God, who 
 art of more honour than the cherubim, and incomparably more 
 glorious than the seraphim ; thee we extol, who broughtest forth 
 the divine Word without knowledge of man, and art truly the 
 parent of God. ‘hou, O truth of grace, art the joy of the whole 
 creation, of angels and men, a temple of holiness, a spiritual 
 paradise, and the glory of virginity; of whom the Deity was 
 incarnate ; and our God, whose being is from eternity, was made 
 a child. For thy womb was his throne, the seat of him whom 
 the heavens cannot contain: for thou, O full of grace, art the joy 
 of the universe! glory be to thee.’ Now these are extravagant 
 praises, too great, most of them, to be given to a mortal, and are 
 not so full in any other liturgy. However there is nothing of 
 
164 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 them in the Clementine liturgy, which I have showed to be the 
 test and standard by which they are to be tried. 
 The next corruption I shall give an account of in the words of 
 
 Dr. Brett :— 
 
 « Another addition to the liturgy is, that after the priest has said, 
 ‘ Holy things are for holy persons,’ and the people have made the 
 proper answer to it, ‘ then the priest breaks the bread, and, taking 
 one-half in his right hand, and the other in his left, he dips the right- 
 hand piece into the cup, and says: ‘‘ The union of the most holy body 
 and precious blood of our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Then 
 he signs the left-hand piece, and after that the other half, and imme- 
 diately begins to break and distribute part into each cup, saying, “ The 
 union is made, sanctified and completed in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, now and for ever.” And when he signs the 
 bread he says, “ Behold the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, 
 that takes away the sins, and was sacrificed for the life and salvation of 
 the world.” And when he distributes a piece into each cup, he says, 
 “ This is a part of Christ’s most holy body, full of the grace and truth 
 of the Father and the Holy Ghost, to whom be honour and power for 
 ever and ever.” ‘Then he begins to break it into pieces. This custom 
 of dipping a piece of bread into the cup is an ancient addition, and 
 seems to have been elder in the Eastern Church than the Councils of 
 Ephesus and Chalcedon, that is, than the fifth century, because we find 
 it in both the Nestorian and Monophysite liturgies. Now Nestorius 
 was condemned, and he and his adherents excluded the communion of 
 the Catholic Church in the year 431. Therefore, after that time, we 
 have reason to believe they would not receive any new customs from 
 the Catholic Church.” 
 
 I have shewn, above, that this reasoning of Dr. Brett's, which 
 is really that of Renaudot, is by no means conclusive as to the 
 point of time. Like causes may have produced like results in 
 the case of the orthodox, the Nestorians, and the Monophysites. 
 The subject of this corruption was beyond the grounds of their 
 disagreement, and, therefore, one party was as lhkely to be 
 influenced by the causes which led to its adoption as another. 
 The fact, however, that St. Cyril, who must have used the liturgy 
 of St. James, omits all notice of the Virgin in his fifth cate- 
 chism, affords a strong presumption that these praises and prayers 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 165 
 
 were not in the liturgy in his day; and, indeed, the divines of 
 Cologne, in their Antididagma, a book written against Bucer and 
 Melancthon, declare their opinion that the service formerly ended 
 with the Lord’s Prayer, and that what followed was “an interpo- 
 lation or excrescence.” Another practice which, though not found 
 in express words in this liturgy, as we now have it,—but which 
 grew necessarily out of moistening the bread in the wine, which 
 custom is mentioned,—could not have existed in Cyril's time, 
 —viz., that of putting the consecrated elements together into 
 a spoon, and so administering to the laity; for, as the mystago- 
 gical catechisms give specific, though puerile, instructions as to 
 how the hands should be placed while receiving the bread and 
 also the cup, it is manifest such an unscriptural and unnatural 
 mode of administering had not been adopted in his day. Now 
 Cyril was appointed to his bishoprick about a.p. 350; and how 
 could a practice, of which he knew nothing in the middle of the 
 fourth century, have been in the liturgy which he used, even before 
 the Nicene Council in 825? It is clear, therefore, that all the 
 reasoning which is said to warrant the conclusion, that a comparison 
 of liturgies will give us their anti-Nicene form, is fallacious, as has 
 been shewn before. This custom was introduced probably some 
 centuries after the time of Cyril; for it was a growing super- 
 stition, that led more and more to these absurd and mistaken 
 practices, which, however innocent at first, became at length the 
 cause of great injury both to faith and practice. It is refreshing, 
 after reading the liturgies, to look back to the simple statement 
 of Justin as to the practice of the Church in his day, and still 
 more to read the unaffected record of the evangelists and the 
 apostle as to the institution and the celebration, while the Church 
 was in the hands of inspired men. It is sad to think that mis- 
 taken piety lay at the root of many corruptions in the Church. 
 
 It would seem to be wholly unnecessary to go through any more 
 of the liturgies to shew their interpolations, &c. It seemed ad- 
 visable, however, to do it in the case of that which bears the name 
 of St. James, as it is made by the Romish divines the standard by 
 
166 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which all others are to be judged.* The decided objection which 
 lies against this has been already shewn, and I shall now proceed 
 to consider the use which is made of the liturgies in the “ Doctrine 
 
 of the Holy Eucharist.” 
 
 ΤΙ will be seen, from the following table, in what points the ancient liturgies 
 agree, both as to matter and arrangement. It is taken from No. 63 of the “ Tracts 
 for the Times.” As given in the tract, it is not without the usual indication of the 
 bias of the mind of the writer towards “the centre of unity”—Rome: 
 
 1. It appears from Mr. Palmer’s valuable work, that all the ancient liturgies now 
 existing, or which can be proved ever to have existed, resemble one another in the fol- 
 lowing points :— 
 
 1. All of them direct, that previous to communion, those who intend to communicate 
 shall “‘ exchange the kiss of peace.” 
 
 2. In all of them, the more particularly solemn part of the service commences with 
 words exactly answering to ihe English, “ Lift up your hearts,” &c., as far as “ Holy 
 Father, almighty everlasting God.” 
 
 3. All contain the hymn, “ Therefore with angels and archangels,” &c., with very 
 trifling varieties of expression. 
 
 4. Also, they all contain a prayer, answering in substance to ours, “ for the whole 
 state of Christ’s Church militant.” 
 
 5. And likewise another prayer, which has been excluded from the English ritual, 
 « for the rest and peace of all those who have departed this life in God’s faith and fear,” 
 concluding with a prayer for communion with them. 
 
 G. Also a commemoration of our Lord’s words and actions in the institution of the 
 Eucharist; which is the same, almost word for word, in every liturgy, but is not taken 
 from any of the four Scripture accounts. 
 
 7. A sacrificial oblation of the Eucharistic bread and wine. 
 
 8. A prayer of consecration, that God will ‘‘ make the bread and wine the body and 
 blood of Christ.” 
 
 9. Directions to the priest for breaking the consecrated bread. 
 
 10. The Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 11. Communion. 
 
 II. These parts are always arranged in one of the four following orders :— 
 
 Sr. JamzEs’s LirurGy. St. Marn’s LirurRGy. 
 Oriental. Egyptian and Ethiopian. 
 
 0. The kiss of peace. 10. The kiss of peace. 
 1. Lift up your hearts, &c. 1. Lift up your hearts, &e. 
 2. Therefore with angels. 3. Prayers for the Church on earth. 
 5. Commemoration of our Lord’s words. 7. Prayers for the dead. 
 6. The oblation. 2. Therefore with angels, το. 
 4. Consecration prayer. 5. Commemoration of our Lord’s words: 
 
 3. Prayers for the Church on earth. 6. The oblation. 
 
 7. Prayers for the dead. 4, Consecration prayer. 
 
 9. The Lord’s Prayer. 8. Breaking of bread. 
 
 8. Breaking of bread. 9. The Lord’s Prayer. 
 11. Communion. 
 
 . Communion. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 167 
 
 Mr. Wilberforce having satisfied himself of the age—anti- 
 Nicene—of the Greek and Roman liturgies generally, and of their 
 number—sixty-two eastern and at least eight western—enquires : 
 
 “ Now, what is the conclusion to which these various liturgies con- 
 duct ? . . That which is found to be the essential characteristic of all 
 ancient ‘liturgies—the very purpose, which not only speaks in their 
 individual expressions, but gives shape and consistency to their whole 
 arrangements—is, that they represent a certain transaction, a certain 
 course of events, of which the crisis and consummation is that which is 
 done in respéct to the sacred elements themselves, with a view of giving 
 to them their character and importance. 
 
 “We have every variety, therefore, in the initiatory parts of the 
 service; but as soon as we come to the repetition of the words of 
 institution, we find the most striking sameness of expression. The 
 multiplied introductions of the Spanish and Gallic forms fall back into 
 the appointed canon or order, so soon as the solemn words recur, ‘ who 
 in the same night in which He suffered’ [Qui pridie quam pateretur, 
 &e.] Throughout all churches founded by the apostles, the exact 
 repetition of those words which our Lord had originally uttered, were 
 supposed essential to the consecration of the Eucharist. In all litur- 
 gies, with the smallest possible exception, they are found to be identical. 
 This proceeds upon the principle which is explained in the liturgy of 
 St. Chrysostom, that the real minister in the consecration of the Holy 
 Eucharist is Christ Himself.* The victim is identical with the priest. 
 
 St. Joun’s Liturey. Sr. Perer’s Lirurey. 
 
 Gallican, Ephesian, and Mozarabic. Roman, Milanese, African. 
 
 3. Prayers for the Church on earth. 1. Lift up your hearts, &c. 
 
 7. Prayers for the dead. 2. Therefore with angels, &c. 
 10. The kiss of peace. 9. Prayers for the Church on earth. 
 1. Lift up your hearts, &e. 4. Consecration prayer. 
 
 2. Therefore with angels, &c. 5. Commemoration of our Lord's words. 
 5. Commemoration of our Lord’s words. 6. The oblation. 
 
 6. The oblation. 7. Prayers for the dead. 
 
 4. Consecration prayer. 8. Breaking of bread. 
 
 8. Breaking of bread. 9. The Lord's Prayer. 
 
 9. The Lord’s Prayer. 10. The kiss of peace. 
 11. Communiop. 11. Communion. 
 
 ENGLISH ORDER. 
 
 3. Prayers for the Church on earth. 3. Commemoration of our Lord's words: 
 1. Lift up your hearts, &e. 11. Communion. 
 
 2. Therefore with angels, &c. 9. The Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 4. Consecration. 6. Oblation. 
 
 * Considering the general character of Luther’s doctrine, it might have been 
 expected that he would have admitted the reality of consecration, and probably le 
 
168 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 ‘Thou art the thing offered and the offerer.* Such is the doctrine 
 which is written no less clearly in the whole ritual, than in the indivi- 
 dual expressions of the ancient writers. For why this scrupulous care 
 to repeat} the exact words of our Lord, unless some peculiar effect was 
 dependent upon the action? It proceeds upon the notion, which St. 
 Paul authorizes, that the Holy Eucharist is a perpetuation of our Lord’s 
 passion, wherein that great event, on which the salvation of mankind 
 wholly depends, is continually pleaded before God. ‘ As often as ye 
 eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He 
 
 299 
 
 come. 
 
 It is sufficient simply to notice the absurdity of the Archdea- 
 con's remark, that “ as soon as we come to the repetition of the 
 words of institution, we find the most striking sameness of ex- 
 pression ;” as if we could have had a repetition of the words of 
 institution without ‘‘ sameness!” and the assertion that “through- 
 out all Churches founded by the apostles, the exact repetition of 
 these words were [was] supposed essential to the consecration of 
 the Eucharist,” shall be noticed hereafter. What I now want to 
 know is, why so much trouble should have been taken to prove 
 
 would have done so, if to recognise the priestly commission had not been its necessary 
 result. The high Lutheran party, who drew up the Formula Concordie in 1580, 
 ofdered the repetition of our Lord’s words of consecration, “ ut elementa panis et vini 
 ad hune sacrum usum .. . . sanctificentur seu benedicantur.”—Art. 7, p. 749. The 
 effect of the omission may be seen in the gradual dying out of high views respecting 
 the Holy Eucharist among the Lutherans. But, that Luther's own feelings on this 
 subject harmonized with the ancient system, was shewn when he was brought into 
 collision with Zuinglius in the conference at Marburg. ‘“ He did not teach (he said) 
 that men, by their word, could bring Christ’s body into the bread. Verba non nostra, 
 sed Christi sunt: Facite, &e. Per hoe verbum facit, ut manus sacerdotis sit manus 
 Christi, Os non est meum, lingua non est mea, sed Christi, though I be knave or 
 cheat.”—Collin in Hospinian, part ii. p. 124, as cited by Ebrard, vol. ii. p. 322. 
 Ebrard would understand the last words—“‘ich sey ein bub oder schalk,” as though 
 Luther meant, “otherwise I am a knave.” But they have surely a similar force to 
 the statement in our 26th Article. The consecration is effectual, because wrought by 
 Christ, though the minister may be an unbeliever. Luther repeats the same state- 
 ment (Hospinian, vol. ii. p. 127): ‘“‘ Wen die wort tiber das Brot gesprochen werden, 
 so ist der leib da, wie boss der sey der sie spaicht.” 
 
 * ob yap εἶ ὃ προσφέρων Kui rtpoopeponevos.—Goar, p. 72. 
 
 + Hence, in the English canon, as Renaudot observes, the words of institution are 
 ordered to be repeated if the consecrated elements are found not to be sufficient for the 
 communicants.—Dissert. vol. i. p. xiii—I have given notes and all, lest 1 be accused 
 of “ garbling.” 
 
 δυο, κὸν, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 169 
 
 the pedigree of the several liturgies, and that afterwards no use 
 should have been made of them? It is remarkable that the 
 Archdeacon makes no quotations from them to prove anything ; 
 but with the general reflection above given, about one idea per- 
 vading them, “ that they represented a certain transaction, of 
 which the crisis and consummation is that which is done with 
 respect to the sacred elements themselves, with a view of giving 
 to them their character and importance,” he bids adieu to them 
 and betakes himself to quotations from the Fathers. 
 
 Now, as we know what the idea intended to be conveyed in 
 these words is,—viz., that the thing “‘ done with respect to the 
 sacred elements” is to make them, without a figure, the veritable 
 body and blood of Jesus Christ,—let us see if this 1s the view which 
 the ancient liturgies authorize of their character and importance. 
 The question, then, is this: What do the liturgies mean, when 
 they say, ‘‘ Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and 
 that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, chang- 
 ing them by the virtue of Thy Holy Spirit ?” Is the petition here 
 offered for a change of swbstance, or a change in wse and virtue ? 
 
 First, what says the liturgy of St. James ? (for I will confine my 
 attention chiefly to those which are acknowledged of most weight 
 by our opponent). In that liturgy the following occurs :—‘‘ Send 
 Thy Holy Spirit upon us, and these holy gifts lying here before 
 Thee, to the end that He coming may sanctify them by His holy, 
 good, and glorious presence ; and make this bread to become the 
 holy body of Thy Christ, and this chalice the precious blood of 
 Thy Christ, to the end it may have this effect to all them which 
 shall receive it; namely, purify their souls from all manner of 
 sin, and make them abound in good works, and obtain everlasting 
 1186. Can any one say that the course of events here have their 
 “ crisis and consummation in what is dove in respect to the sacred 
 elements ?” The end in view appears to me to have been, not so 
 much to give the elements a character and importance, as that 
 the recipients of these might be partakers of spiritual blessings. 
 
 * Bibliot. Patr. Greeco. Lat., tom. ii., and Brett's Liturgies. 
 
170 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 So, also, the liturgy of St. Mark: ‘“ Send on us, and on these 
 loaves and chalices, Thy Holy Spirit, that He may sanctify and 
 consecrate them, even as God Almighty; and make the bread the 
 body, and the cup the blood, of the New Testament of our Lord 
 God and Saviour Jesus Christ, our sovereign King; to the end 
 they may become, to all those who shall participate of them, a 
 means of obtaining faith, sobriety, health, temperance, a rege- 
 neration of soul and body, the participation of felicity, eternal 
 life, to the glory of Thy great name.”* Now here, what can be 
 plainer than that the thing sought in the prayer is, not that the 
 substance of the bread and wine might be changed, but that they 
 might become, by a heavenly virtue, a means of imparting faith, 
 and holiness, and eternal glory, to those who partook thereof? 
 
 The liturgy of St. Chrysostom scarcely differs from these in 
 expression, much less in idea. ‘ Make this bread,” it proceeds, 
 “to become the precious body of Thy Christ, and that which is 
 in the chalice the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them 
 by Thy Holy Spirit, to the end they may purify the souls 
 of those that receive them; that is to say, be made a proper 
 means to purify the soul, by the remission of its sins, and com- 
 munication of the Holy Spirit,”} &e. 
 
 And even in the Roman Missal we find, “ Which oblation do 
 Thou, O Lord, we beseech Thee, vouchsafe to render in all 
 respects blessed, approved, effectual, reasonable, and acceptable, 
 that it may be made unto us the body and blood of Thy most 
 beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” Now, on the idea of a 
 change of substance, mecessarily, on the pronunciation of the 
 magical words, hoc est corpus meum, such a prayer is absurd. 
 And, moreover, the petitions in all the liturgies, that the elements 
 might become to the receivers the means of spiritual blessings, 
 seem equally absurd on the idea of transubstantiation; for since, 
 after consecration, the body of Christ mast be in the elements, it 
 was impossible but that it must be received both by the good and 
 
 * Bibliot. Patr. Greeco. Lat. tom. ii., and Brett's Liturgies. 
 + Euchar. Grecorum Jacobi Goar and Bibl. Patr. Grecor. Lat. tom. ii. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 10} 
 
 the bad. Τὸ the former it could not but be a benefit ; to 
 the wicked it must be just as necessarily a source of evil. These 
 prayers are all rational, on the idea of the elements being accom- 
 panied by gracious influences; but on the idea of transubstantia- 
 tion, and the virtue of the opus operatum, they are as absurd as 
 they are unnecessary. 
 
 With this idea of sanctification agrees, also, the various terms 
 used of the Eucharist ; as when the ancient Church denoted con- 
 secration by ἁγιάζειν, to sanctify; or when the liturgies call the 
 Mysteries ἁγιάσματα. ἅγια δῶρα, ἁγιάσθεντα δῶρα, ἅγια μυστήρια, μυστή- 
 pia ζώοποϊα, ἅγιος ἄρτος, “* the sanctifications,” “the holy gifts,” 
 “the sanctified gifts,” “ the holy mysteries,” “ the life-giving 
 mysteries,” “ the holy bread,” which are to be found on almost 
 every page. 
 
 Now, as a further proof that the crisis and consummation of 
 what was done was not ‘‘in respect of the elements themselves,” 
 it is to be noted that several of the liturgies call the elements, 
 after consecration, by the same names as they did before, just as 
 our Lord called the consecrated wine “the fruit of the vine,’* 
 and St. Paul, also, over and over again.t Thus Justin Martyr 
 says, “The Eucharistical office being thus performed by the 
 bishop (that is, the bishop having consecrated), and concluded 
 with the acclamations of all the people, those whom we call 
 deacons distribute, to every one present, to partake of this Eucha- 
 ristical bread and wine.’ Where is the proof that Justin consi- 
 dered the thing done, with respect to the elements, the crisis and 
 consummation of the whole Eucharistic service ? 
 
 In the Clementine liturgy, after the repetition of the words of 
 institution, we have the expression, “ We offer to Thee, our King 
 and our God, according to this institution, this bread and this 
 cup. And, again, in the liturgy of St. Mark, after the words of 
 institution have been pronounced, the prayer 15 offered, “‘ Send 
 down Thine Holy Ghost upon us, and upon these loaves and 
 these cups, that the Lord may sanctify and thoroughly consecrate 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 29. + See 1 Cor. xi. 26, 27, 28. 
 
12 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 them, making them His body and blood.” Which expressions 
 are thoroughly antagonistic to the whole of Mr. Wilberforce’s 
 theory ; and prove (1) that the repetition of the words of institu- 
 tion alone were not considered to consecrate ; (2) that after these 
 words have been repeated, the elements had not changed their 
 substance; and (3) that the change sought was one of sanctifica- 
 tion and virtue by the influences of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The liturgy of St. Chrysostom, after the repetition as above, 
 says, with reference to the elements, “ We offer to Thee Thine 
 own, out of Thine own gifts; and “ We beseech Thee to send 
 down Thine Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts lying 
 before Thee.” And immediately afterwards, twice we have the 
 expression, “‘ holy bread,” and a prayer from the priest, ‘‘ make 
 this 4read the precious body of Thy Christ.” 
 
 And lastly, in the liturgy of St. Basil, immediately after what 
 My. Wilberforce and the Romanists call the consecration,—7.e., the 
 repetition of the words of institution,—the deacon and the priest 
 each use the term holy bread and holy cup. And just afterwards, 
 the priest prays, ‘‘ Unto all us who partake of this ove bread and 
 one cup in the communion of one Holy Spirit,” though he does 
 not hesitate to add, ‘‘ and suffer none of us to partake of the holy 
 body and blood of Thy Christ to our judgment and condem- 
 nation ;” evidently calling ¢hat the body and blood of Christ, 
 which a moment before he had called one bread and one cup: 
 the latter, what they really were; the former, what they were in 
 a figure. . 
 
 It is hard to conceive how any one, reading such passages in — 
 the ancient liturgies, could rise up with the persuasion that they 
 were formed on the idea of a change of substance, and not of use. 
 It would be a misnomer altogether, if nothing worse, to call that 
 “bread and wine,’ which was the true “body, blood, soul, and 
 divinity” of Christ Jesus; though the contrary is not true, as 
 every one’s reason must tell him ; for, on the common principles 
 of every-day life, as well explained by the Fathers in this case, it 15 
 neither improper nor inconyenient to call things by the names of 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Lie 
 
 what they represent. It is no answer to this to say, that the 
 same is done in such cases as when Jesus, though God, is called 
 Man, for the cases are by no means parallel. It is alleged, that 
 after the words of consecration, transubstantiation has taken 
 place, and no bread is left, but simply its appearance under the 
 form of the elements ; to call it bread is, therefore, to call it what 
 it is no¢ ; but such was not the case with Christ's humanity ;—it 
 was as real as His divinity. He was Man as truly as He was 
 God, and, therefore, could be called Man with the strictest 
 propriety. The phraseology of the ancient liturgies, subsequent 
 to the repetition of the words of institution, is absolutely fatal to 
 the whole theory of the Romish Church on the subject of the 
 Eucharist. 
 
 The absence of all adoration of the “ host,” in every one of the 
 ancient liturgies, is also fatal to the theory that ‘‘ the consumma- 
 tion of the series of events is, in what is done with respect to the 
 elements ;” for it is impossible to conceive that, in so many 
 liturgies, and they embracing every form of variety, if the host 
 had been adored, not even the slightest indication of such a 
 practice should appear. This has been well put by an old writer 
 as follows: ‘“ From the oldest liturgies and the Eucharistic forms, 
 it appears that there was no adoration to the sacrament till of 
 late ; for in none of them is there any such mention, either by 
 the priest or the people, as in the Roman missal and ritual, nor 
 any such forms of prayer to it, as in their breviary. | Cassander* 
 has collected together most of the old liturgies, and endeavours, 
 as far as he can, to shew their agreement with that of the Roman 
 Church ; but neither in the old Greek, nor in the old Latin ones, 
 is there any instance to be produced of the priest’s or the people's 
 adoring the sacrament, as soon as he had consecrated it; but this 
 was perfectly added, and brought in anew into the Roman liturgy, 
 after the doctrine of transubstantiation was established in that 
 Church, which has altered not only their liturgy, but even their 
 religion in good part, and made a new sort of worship, unknown, 
 
 * Cassandri Liturgic. [Oper. p. 10, &c. Par. 1616.) 
 
174 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 not only in the first and best times of the Church, but for about 
 a thousand years after Christ. Boileau finding this, though a 
 negative argument, press very hard upon them (and sure it cannot 
 but satisfy any reasonable man, that there is no direction in the 
 ancient liturgies for adoring the sacrament ; and it is very hard 
 to require us to produce a rubric against it, when nobody thought 
 of that which after-superstition brought in), he would fain, there- 
 fore, find something in an old liturgy that should look hike that 
 of their own; and no doubt but he might have easily met with 
 abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and 
 Christ at that solemn office of the Christian worship, the blessed 
 sacrament; and therefore out of the liturgy called St. Chrysos- 
 tom’s, which he owns to be two hundred years later than St. 
 Chrysostom, he produces a place, wherein it is said,* that “ the 
 priest and the deacon worship in the place they are in, and like- 
 wise the people ;” but do they worship the sacrament? [5 that, 
 or only God and Christ, the object of their worship there? Is 
 there any such thing to determine this, as they have taken care 
 there should be in their missal? where it is expressly said several 
 times, they shall worship the sacrament ;+ but here in St. Chrysos- 
 tom's liturgy, it is God who is to be worshipped, “ God be merci- 
 ful to nfe a sinner ; 1 but in the Roman, it is the ‘‘ sacrament is 
 prayed to,Ӥ and they would reckon and account it as true irre- 
 ligion, not to worship and pray to that, as not to worship God 
 and Christ. So in the liturgy that goes under the name of St. 
 James, the worship is only before the holy table,|| as it is in the 
 Church of England; and I hope Boileau will not pretend that 
 
 * Boil. De Euch. Ador. 1. 2. p,.74. ex. Chrysost. Liturg. Εἶτα προσκυνεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς 
 καὶ ὁ διάκονος, ἐν ᾧ ἐστι τόπῳ, καὶ ὁ λαὸς, ὁμοίως πάντες μετ᾽ εὐλαβείας 
 προσκυνοῦσιν. 
 
 + Sacramentum Adorare, Rom. Missal. Cooperto calice Sacramentum adorare, et 
 genuflexus Sacramentum adorare. 
 
  °O Θεὸς ἰλάσθητέ μοι ἁμαρτωλιῇῷ, Chrys. Liturg. [p. 70. Par. 1560.] 
 
 § Stans oculis ad Sacarmentum intentis precari. 
 
 | Προσκυνοῦσιν ἔμπροσθεν τῆς ἁγίας τραπέζης. Liturg. St. Jacobi. [These 
 words, though occurring in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, are not to be found in the 
 Museum copy of that of St. James, ed. Par. 1560.] 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 175 
 
 this is to the holy table itself. If whatever we worship before, is 
 the very object of our worship, then the priest is so, as well as the 
 table ; but it is neither he, nor the table, nor the sacrament, but 
 only Christ Himself, to whom this worship is, or ought to be, 
 given at the celebration of the Eucharist; and, therefore, this 
 adoration was as well before as after the consecration of the 
 sacramental elements, and so could not be supposed to be given 
 to them.” 
 
 But in this matter, the Archdeacon seems to think that he has 
 made a strong point, and triumphs over the foreign Protestants 
 in remarks upon an extract from the Kirchen-Ordnung of the 
 Palatinate. The words quoted are as follows :— 
 
 “In order that we now, beloved in the Lord, may be fed by Christ 
 with the true bread from heaven, let us not fix our hearts on the out- 
 ward bread and wine, but raise up our hearts and faith above them- 
 selves to the heaven where Christ Jesus is an intercessor at the right 
 hand of His heavenly Father; there let us exhibit for ourselves the 
 articles of our Christian faith, and not doubt that as truly as we receive 
 the holy bread and drink in His remembrance, He will feed our souls 
 through the working of the Holy Ghost with His body, and make them 
 drink of His blood.’”* 
 
 Upon which the Archdeacon remarks: ‘“ Here, then, we see 
 the exact contrast between the ancient and modern services. The 
 first suppose Christ to descend through the agency of His Spirit 
 upon earth: the last suppose men to ascend through the action 
 of their spirits into heaven.” 
 
 Now, it is not at all to be feared that any one, perusing the 
 ancient liturgies, would imagine that the prayers after consecra- 
 tion were addressed to a being corporeally present, any more than 
 those preceding consecration. They are many of them addressed 
 to God and Christ iz heaven. As an instance, take that near the 
 end of the service, which is found not only in St. Chrysostom’s, 
 but in St. Basil’s, and other ancient liturgies. “‘ Draw near, Ὁ 
 Lord Jesus Christ our God, from the habitation of Thy dwelling, 
 and the throne of glory in Thy kingdom, and come and sanctify 
 
 * Sammlung Kirchen-Ordnungen. yol. ii., p. 930. 
 
176 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 us, O Thou, who sittest on high at the right hand of the Father, 
 and at the same time art invisibly present with us here below: 
 and vouchsafe to impart to us, by Thy mighty hand, Thine imma- 
 culate body, and most precious blood; and by us to all the 
 people.” 
 
 But what is St. Augustine's opinion of this triumph of Mr. 
 Wilberforce? It is well known that the liturgies contain the 
 words, "Avw τὰς καρδίας, Sursum Corda, “ Lift up your hearts.” 
 The meaning of which we are told by St. Austin :* ‘‘ What, there- 
 fore, is said in the sacraments of the faithful, that we should lift 
 up our hearts to the Lord, it is a gift of the Lord.” And he 
 explains it, ‘‘ That by the divine aid the soul is helped to ascend, 
 and set its affections upon things above, where Christ is sitting 
 at God’s right hand, and not upon things on the earth.” St. 
 Jerome also, when speaking of the same Eucharistic feast, says, 
 “ Let us, with our Lord, ascend the great upper room prepared 
 and made clean, and receive from Him above the cup of the New 
 Testament, and there celebrating the Passover with Him, be ine- 
 briated by Him with the wine of sobriety.”} What can be clearer 
 than that we are to exalt our minds to heaven, where Christ is, 
 there to celebrate the spiritual mysteries ? 
 
 Chrysostom also, in his usual flowery and poetic style, says, on 
 the same subject: “‘ From thence we become eagles, and so fly 
 to heaven itself; for where the carcase is, thither will the eagles 
 come. He calls his body the carcase, because of His death ; 
 
 * De Bono Persev. 1. 2.¢.13. Quod ergo in Sacramentis fidelium dicitur, ut sur- 
 sum corda habeamus ad Dominum, munus est Domini—ut ascendat et que sursum 
 sunt sapiat, ubi Christus est in dextra Dei sedens, non que super terram, &ce. 
 
 + Ad Hedibiam, qu. 2. Ascendamus cum Domino ceenaculum magnum stratum et 
 mundatum, et accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem N. Testamenti, ibique cum eo Pascha 
 oleae inebriemur ab eo vino sobrietatis. [Epist. 120. vol. i. p. 818. Veron. 1735.] 
 
 1 Πτῶμα καλῶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τὸν θάνατον. ᾿Αετοὺς δὲ καλεῖ, δεικνὴς 
 ὅτι καὶ ὑψηλὸν. εἷναι δεῖ τὸν προσίοντα Tw σώματι τούτῳ, καὶ μηδὲν πρὸς 
 τὴν γῆν κοινὸν ἔχειν, μηδὲ κάτω σύρεσθαι καὶ ἕρπειν, aXn’ ἄνω πέτεσθαι 
 διηνεκῶς, καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον τῆς δικαιωσύνης ἐνορᾶν, καὶ ὀξυδερκὲς τὸ 
 
 ὄμμα τῆς διανοίας ἐ ἔχειν" ἀετῶν γὰρ, ov κολοιῶν αὐτὴ ἡ πράπεζα. Vols x3 p- 
 233. Par. 1837. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 7/7 
 
 and He calls them eagles, shewing that he who comes to this 
 body ought to be sublime, and have nothing common with earth, 
 nor be drawn downward and creep, but contiuually fly upward, 
 and look to the Sun of Righteousness, and to have the eye of his 
 mind quick-sighted ; for this is a table for eagles, not for jack- 
 daws.” 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen asks, when speaking of persecutors as 
 being able to drive him from earthly temples, ‘ Will they drive 
 me from the altars? I know another altar, whose types the 
 things now seen are, upon which no axe has been lift up, no iron 
 tool or other instrument has been heard; but is wholly a work of 
 the mind, and an ascent by contemplation. Before this will I 
 present myself; on this will I offer acceptable things; sacrifice, 
 oblation, and holocausts, so much more excellent than the things 
 now offered, as truth excels a shadow.’’* 
 
 Could any one imagine Gregory speaking thus, if he had any 
 idea that the ‘‘ sacrifice of the altar” was that of the ¢rwe body of 
 Jesus Christ, as much so as that of the cross—nay, that it was 
 the very same? Whatever he might say in disparagement of his 
 own devotions on the one occasion, compared with those of the 
 other, he dared not thus to speak of that other had he deemed it 
 the awful, august, mysterious, efficacious, &c. sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 Gcumenius, a Greek author, who abbreviated the works of 
 Chrysostom in the ninth or tenth century, writes thus plainly— 
 perhaps all the more plainly, because of the developments of error 
 —‘ Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, 
 seeing there remains nothing visible, neither the temple, that is 
 heaven, nor the High Priest, that is Christ, nor the sacrifice, that 
 is His body; it remains that we have need of faith.”t 
 
 * Orat. 28. contr. Maxim. Οὗ τύποι τὰ νῦν ὁρώμενα. Ὅλον τοῦ νοῦ 
 τὸ ἔρηον, καὶ διὰ θεωρίας 0 dvaBacws.—Kpecttova τῶν νῦν προσαγομένων, 
 ὅσῳ κρεῖττον σκιᾶς ἀλήθεια. [Vol.i., p. 484. Par. 1080.] 
 
 + In Τὺ. x., v. 39. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ λοιπὸν οὐκ ἔστιν ὁρατὸν οὐδὲν, οὔτε ὁ 
 ναὸς, τουτέστιν ὃ οὐρανὸς, οὔτε ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς, τουτέστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, οὔτε ἡ 
 θυσία, τουτέστι τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, χρεία λοιπὸν πίστεως. [Vol. ii. p. 397. Lut 
 Par. 1631.] 
 
 Aa 
 
178 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 The Popish assumption, which is at variance with, and in direct 
 contradiction to, the concurrent voice of antiquity,—viz., that the 
 words of consecration in the Eucharistic service are, “ This is my 
 body,” is fully adopted in the “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.” 
 That those words, which are simply declaratory, should ever have 
 been taken as words of blessing, is strange enough. The inspired 
 account of the institution, certainly leaves no doubt that the 
 consecration by prayer had taken place defore these words were 
 pronounced ; and, therefore, they cannot be assumed to do what 
 had been done before. There is no ancient liturgy but negatives 
 such an idea, by a special invocation for the Holy Spirit “to 
 sanctify the gift” after the repetition of the words of institution, 
 while there are some which further negative it most emphatically 
 by not giving the words of institution at all.* 
 
 These are with Mr. Wilberforce, of course, corrupted ; and not- 
 withstanding that the whole of the Greek liturgies and their 
 derivatives have the invocation of the Holy Spirit as a most 
 prominent feature, not only subsequent to the repetition of the 
 words, “This is my body,” but for the expressed purpose of 
 
 * Mr. Wilberforce admits this, but, wonderful to relate, makes it corroborate his 
 argument! Who could convince a man, when omission or insertion equally answers 
 his purpose? This is an improvement on Goldsmith’s schoolmaster, of whom it is pre- 
 dicated that, “although vanquished he could argue still,” Mr. Wilberforce is never 
 vanquished. His words are as follows :— 
 
 “Tt was stated that all ancient liturgies, with the very smallest exception, repeat 
 the precise words of consecration, supposing that their exact repetition is essential, 
 because they are effective and not merely declaratory. The only exception would seem 
 to be found in some copies of certain Syriac Monophysite liturgies. It can hardly be 
 supposed, as Renaudot conceives, that the omission which is observable in {0656 litur- 
 gies has arisen from negligence, or because those well-known words, which were 
 always employed, were repeated from memory, inasmuch as the institution appears to 
 be really narrated, but in an imperfect and abbreviated form. Of the three liturgies to 
 which this remark applies, that of Xystus, the 2nd of St. Peter, and that of Barsalibi ; 
 the two first are given by Renaudot, from other authorities, in a more perfect furm ; 
 that of Barsalabi, he seems to have found incurable. But, however singular and 
 censurable may be these deviations from the usual rule, they rest upon a principle 
 which tends to corroborate the present argument. For it can scarcely be doubted, that 
 the peculiarity which distinguishes these few (and comparatively modern) Monophysite 
 liturgies, results from the great stress which they lay on another part of the liturgic 
 office, the invocation of the Holy Ghost.” Does this omission of the words of insti- 
 tution corroborate the idea that they are effectual ? 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 179 
 
 making the bread and the wine (thus called) the body and blood 
 of Christ, yet this, he says, by no means interferes with the Popish 
 theory, that the consecration and transubstantiation have already 
 taken place. In fact, we are told that it is not absurd to pray 
 for that to be done by the agency of the Holy Spirit, which 
 had been previously done by the direct interposition of Christ.* 
 This absurdity is attempted to be established through some forty 
 pages of Mr. Wilberforce’s volume; and the attempt is made by 
 breaking down the distinction between the work of the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit, wherein, if I mistake not, that gentleman falls 
 into some phases of Sabellianism, while accusing others of it.t 
 He says that an opinion, which would imply that the action of 
 the Second and Third Persons was successive, would be entitled 
 to that appellation. But surely the contrary is more true. That 
 which tends to make them identical and synchronize is Sabellian. 
 It is absurd to say, that because the Eternal is not affected by 
 time and its lapse, that, therefore, we are to act and speak of and 
 to the Deity as though there were none with us. Indeed, no one 
 point is clearer than that all the ancient churches believed the 
 consecration of the elements to be effected by the prayers which 
 were offered, and by the descent of the Holy Ghost. One view of 
 this is very well and briefly put by Bishop Morton, in his 
 charge of novelty against the Church of Rome, as follows : 
 
 “ The first transgression of the (now) Church of Rome, in con- 
 tradicting Christ his canon, is collected out of these words, ‘ And 
 he blessed it ; which concern the consecration of this sacrament. 
 
 * “This (that is, the consecrating efficiency of hoc est corpus mewm) proceeds upon 
 the principle which is explained in the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, that the real minister 
 in the consecration of the Holy Mucharist is Christ Himself. The victim is ide:.tical 
 with the priest. ‘ Thou art the thing offered and the offerer.’””—Doct. H. Euch. p. 52. 
 
 + Walsh Hist der Ketzer gives the following definition of Sabellianism :—“ The 
 ancients, one and all, say that tiie Sabellian system marred the true doctrine concern- 
 ing God, and concerning all the three persons. It was one of two directly opposite 
 errors, of which Arianism was the other; and the true doctrine occupied the middle 
 ground between them. Indeed Arius, by pushing his opposition to Sabellius too far, 
 was led into his error. It hence follows that Sabellius, who did not deny the existence 
 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, made too little distinction between them, while 
 Arius made the distinction too wide.” Does not Mr. Wilberforce do the former ? 
 
180 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 First, of the bread, the text saith, ‘ He blessed it; next, of the 
 cup, it is said, ‘When He had given thanks; which words, in 
 your own judgments, are all one as if it should be said, ‘ He 
 blessed it with giving of thanks.’ By the which word, blessing, 
 he doth imply a consecration of this sacrament. The canon of 
 the Romish mass attributeth the property and power of consecra- 
 tion of this sacrament only unto the repetition of these words of 
 Christ, ‘This is my body,’ and ‘this is my blood, &c., and that 
 from the judgment, as some say, of your Council of Florence and 
 Trent. Moreover, you also alleged, for this purpose, your public 
 catechism and Roman missal, both which were authorised by 
 the Council of Trent, and command of Pius Quintus, then pope. 
 Whereupon it is that you use and attribute such efficacy to the 
 very words, pronounced with a priestly intention, as to change all 
 the bread in a baker’s shop, and wine in the vintner's cellar, into 
 the body and blood of Christ. And your Swmma Angelica 
 speaketh more largely concerning the bread, namely, if it were 
 done conformably to the intention of the Church, and two of your 
 Jesuits, concerning both kinds. But Christophorus, your own 
 Archbishop of Cesarea, in his book dedicated to Pope Sixtus 
 Quintus, and written professedly upon this subject, cometh in, 
 compassed about with a cloud of witnesses and reasons, to prove 
 that the consecration, used by our Saviour, was performed by that 
 his blessing by prayer, which preceded the pronouncing of those 
 words, Hoe est Corpus meum, ‘This is my body, &e. To this 
 purpose he is bold to aver, that Thomas Aquinas, and all Catholics 
 before Cajetane, have confessed that Christ did consecrate in 
 that his benedixit; that is, ‘he blessed it.’ And that St. James, 
 and Dionyse the Areopagite did not consecrate only in the other 
 words, but by prayer. Then he assureth us that the Greek 
 Churches maintained, that consecration consisteth in benediction 
 by prayer, and not in the only repetition of the words aforesaid. 
 After this he produceth your subtlest schoolman, Scotus, accom- 
 panied with divers others, who derided those that attributed such 
 supernatural virtue to the other form of words. You shall further 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 181 
 
 find alleged the testimonies of Pope Gregory, Hierome, Ambrose, 
 Bernard, and (to ascend higher) the liturgies of Clement, Basil, 
 Chrysostom, and of the Roman Church itself, in gainsaying of 
 the consecration by the only words of institution, as you pretend. 
 And in the end he draweth in two popes, one contradicting the 
 other in this point; and hath no other means to stint their 1817, 
 but (whereas the authority of both is equal) to think it just to 
 yield rather to the better learned of them both. Whosoever 
 requireth more, may be satisfied by reading of the book itself. 
 And yet we would be loth to pretermit the (confessed) testimony 
 of your Jesuit Gordon, out of St. Augustine, attesting that in this 
 sacrament, the fruit of the earth is consecrated by mystical 
 “prayer. It will not suffice to say, that you also use prayer in the 
 Romish liturgy: for the question is not merely of praying, but 
 wherein the form of benediction and consecration more properly 
 doth consist. Now, none can say that he consecrated by that 
 prayer, which he believeth is not ordained for consecration. 
 
 ‘““We may further take hold, by the way, of the testification of 
 Mr. Brerely, a Romish priest, who out of Basil and Chrysostom, 
 (calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus) alloweth benedic- 
 tion to have been the consecration thereof. All this army of 
 witnesses were no better than meteors, or imaginary figures of 
 battailles in the air, if that answer of Bellarmine may go for 
 warrant ; to wit, that ‘the only pronunciation of these words, 
 Hoc est Corpus meum, imply in them,’ as he saith, ‘ an invoca- 
 tion or prayer. Which words, as any man may perceive, Christ 
 spake not supplicatory unto God, but declaratively unto His 
 apostles, accordingly as the text speaketh, ‘He said unto them,’ 
 as is also well observed by the aforesaid Archbishop of Cesarea, 
 out of St. Hierome. But none of you, we presume, will dare to 
 say that Christ did invocate His disciples. ‘This might Bellar- 
 mine have learned from antiquity, if he had not rather affected to 
 have been a doctor over all others, than a scholar to the primitive 
 Fathers ; who teach that Christ revealed not unto any His words 
 of invocation by prayer wherewith He consecrated ; which they, 
 
182 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 would not have said, if they had judged these words, ‘'This is My 
 body, to imply in them an invocation. These words, therefore, 
 are of declaration, and not of invocation. Which now Romish 
 doctrine of consecrating by reciting these words, ‘This is My 
 body,’ &c., your divines of Colen have judged to be a fierce mad- 
 ness, as being repugnant both to the Eastern and Western 
 Churches. But we have heard divers western authors speak, give 
 leave to (Nicholas Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessalonica) an 
 eastern archbishop, to deliver his mind. ‘No apostle or doctor is 
 known to affirm, saith he, ‘those sole words of Christ to have 
 been sufficient for consecration. So he, three hundred years 
 since, satisfying also the testimony of St. Chrysostom, objected to 
 the contrary. ‘This archbishop, you grant, was famous in his 
 time, living about the year 1300, to whom, as you know, the 
 Bishop of Ephesus and the patriarch of Constantinople did 
 accord, saying, that ‘this sacrament is not made as soon as these 
 words are uttered, but afterwards by certain prayers of the Church.’ 
 And why these Greek Fathers should not rather resolve us of the 
 ancient Greek tenor of consecration, than any of your late Italian 
 or Latin doctors, who will make question? As for your other 
 Greek patriarch Bessarion, who was made cardinal by your 
 Church, on purpose that he might make some opposition to his 
 fellows, we make no other account of him than of an hireling. 
 None of the great multitude of Fathers, who have required the 
 use of prayer besides these words, ‘This is My body,’ did 
 thereby testify that they held these words to be words of invoca- 
 tion. As miserable and more intolerable is the answer of others, 
 who said that the evangelists have not observed the right order 
 of Christ, His actions: as if He had first said, ‘ This is My body,’ 
 by way of consecration, and after commanded them to ‘ take and 
 eat. Which answer your own Jesuit hath branded with the note 
 of falsity: yea, so false it is, that (as is further avouched) all 
 ancient liturgies, as well Greek as Latin, constantly held, that in 
 the order of the tenor of Christ His institution, it was first said, 
 ‘Take ye,’ before that He said, ‘ This is my body. Lastly, your 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 183 
 
 other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former, where, when the 
 judgment of antiquity is objected against you, requiring that con- 
 secration be done directly by prayer unto God, you answer, that 
 some Fathers did use such speeches in their sermons to the people, 
 but in their secret instruction of priests did teach otherwise. 
 Which answer (besides the falsity hereof) we take to be no better 
 than a reproach against antiquity, and all one as to say, that 
 those venerable witnesses of truth would profess one thing in the 
 cellar, and proclaim the contrary on the house-top. It were to 
 be wished, that when you frame your answers to direct other 
 men’s consciences, you would first satisfy your own, especially 
 being occupied in souls’ businesses. We conclude, seeing that 
 form (as all learning teacheth) giveth being unto all things ; 
 therefore your Church, albeit she use prayer, yet erring in her 
 judgment concerning the perfect manner and form of consecration 
 of this sacrament, how shall she be credited in the materials ? 
 wherein she will be found, as well as in this, to have transgressed 
 the same injunction of Christ, ‘ Do this. Nevertheless, this our 
 conclusion is not so to be interpreted, as (hearken to Mr. Brerely) 
 to exclude out of the words of this celebration the repetition and 
 pronunciation of these words, ‘ This is my body,’ and, ‘ This is 
 my blood of the New Testament. Far be this from us; because 
 we hold them to be essentially belonging to the narration of the 
 institution of Christ, and are used in the liturgy of our Church: 
 for although they be not words of blessing and consecration (be- 
 cause not of petition, but of repetition), yet are they words of 
 direction; and, withal, significations and testifications of the 
 mystical effects thereof. For a further manifestation, hearken 
 you unto that which is written: ‘ Every creature of God is good, 
 if it be sanctified with the word of God and with prayer.’* 
 Wherein we find a double acceptation of sanctification ; the one 
 of ordination, by the word of God; the other of benediction, 
 namely, by prayer. For example, the eating of swine’s flesh is 
 
 earn hve 2: 
 
184 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 sanctified to the use of a Christian, first by ordination, because 
 the word of God, in the New Testament, hath taught us the law- 
 ful use of swine’s flesh ; and secondly, by benediction, by prayer, 
 or giving of thanks; in which respect it is that the apostle calleth 
 one part ‘ the cup of blessing.** Both of these are to be found 
 in our sacramental food, wherein we have the sanctification thereof, 
 both by the word of Christ, in the tenor of His first institution, 
 “He took bread, &c.; adding, ‘ Do this; as also by public 
 blessing in prayer, which is more properly called consecration. 
 And although, in our domestical feasts, the second course is blessed 
 in the grace, which was said upon the first service, so the second 
 supply of bread and wine (if it shall inordinately so happen) may 
 not altogether be denied to be consecrated by the blessing pro- 
 nounced on the first; (even as the sanctifying of the sheaf of 
 corn was the hallowing of the whole field) ; notwithstanding our 
 Church has cautiously ordained, that the words of institution, 
 ‘ He took bread, &c., be applied to every oblation of new bread 
 and wine, for accommodation’s sake, as they are referred in our 
 liturgy, wherein they are necessarily joined together with the 
 words of prayer and benediction. Therefore, where you shall 
 find in the Fathers the words of Christ's institution, called con- 
 secration (as it is in Chrysostom and Ambroset), it must be under- 
 stood as joined with prayer, as the benediction itself, which has 
 been already copiously confessed ; as well as it has furthermore 
 
 ἈΠ1 σε: σ- 10: 
 
 + “ΤῸ this mighty cloud of witnesses, the Romanists have nothing material to oppose, 
 but a few mistaken passages of the ancients, which the reader may find related, with 
 proper answers, in that excellent book of Mr. Aubertine upon the Eucharist. I shall 
 only take notice of one, which carries the fairest pretence, out of Chrysostom, who, 
 in one of his homilies |Hom. 30. de Proditione Jude, t. 5. p. 463], speaks of 
 the consecration after this manner: —‘ It is not man that makes the elements become 
 the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself that was crucified for us. ‘The priest 
 stands fulfilling his office, and speaking those words ; but the power and grace is of 
 God. Christ said, ‘This is my body ;’ this word consecrates the elements. And as 
 that word which said, ‘ Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth,’ was spoken 
 but once, yet at all times is effectual in deed to strengthen our nature to beget chil- 
 dren: so this word once spoken, from that time to this day, and until His coming 
 again, perfects and consummates the sacrifice on every table throughout the churches.’ 
 The meaning of which is not, as the Romanists mistake, that the pronouncing of these 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 185 
 
 been acknowledged by your Jesuit Cressolius, that ‘ sometimes 
 the whole sacred action was called consecration, insomuch that 
 the deacon, who doth not meddle with the words of consecration, 
 is notwithstanding called a consecrator by St. Ambrose.’”— Bishop 
 Morton's “ Institution of Sacrament,’ [ p. 9. 5. 3, Lond. 1635. ] 
 
 To this charge of Bishop Morton against the Romish Church, 
 in the matter of consecration, I will add Bingham’s excellent 
 summary of ancient authorities for that view of consecration 
 which is advocated by Protestants against the Church of Rome. 
 The importance of the subject will excuse, if excuse be necessary, 
 my giving so much upon it. In overthrowing the allegations of 
 the Romish Church as to the transubstantiating power of the 
 words, ‘‘ This is my body,” we overturn the whole of the theory 
 built thereupon. According to the acknowledgments of Popish 
 advocates, it is the pronunciation of these words which works 
 the change, or it is not wrought at all: if, then, we shew that 
 the voice of Catholic antiquity is against them in this, it necessarily 
 follows that transubstantiation, with all its consequences, must 
 fall to the ground. The summary of Bingham, after quoting, 
 
 words by the priest is the thing that makes the sacrifice; but that Christ, by first 
 speaking those words, gave power unto men to make His symbolical body ; as by once 
 speaking those words, ‘Increase and multiply, He gave them power to procreate 
 children. Christ's words are the original cause of the consecration ; but still prayer, 
 and not the bare repetition of His words, is the instrumental cause and means of the 
 sanctification. As Chrysostom himself says plainly, in another place, [Ibid. Hom. 32. 
 in coometerii appellationem, t. 5. p. 487.] where he attributes the consecration of the 
 elements to the invocation of the Spirit, and the Spirit's descent pursuant to such 
 invocation. What meanest thou, Ὁ man? says he. When the priest stands by the 
 holy table, lifting up his hands to heaven, and invocating the Holy Spirit to come 
 down and touch the elements, there should then be great tranquillity and silence. 
 When the Spirit grants His grace, when He comes down, when He touches the elements, 
 when thou seest the Lamb slain and offered, dost thou then raise a tumult and commo- 
 tion, and give way to strife and railing? In which words, it is plain, Chrysostom 
 attributes the consecration to the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, as the principal 
 and efficient cause; to prayer and supplication, as the instrumental cause, operating 
 by way of condition and means, to sanctify the elements according to Christ's com- 
 mand, by a solemn benediction, and to the words, ‘ This is my body, and ‘ This is my 
 blood, as spoken by Christ in the first institution, implying a declaration of what was 
 then done, and what should be done by His power and concurrence to the end of the 
 world.”—Bingham’s Ant. bk. xv. ¢. 3. 5. xi. 
 
 Bb 
 
186 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the prayer of invocation from the Clementine liturgy (which see 
 Appendix G, pp. Ixxix. Ixxx.), is given as follows :* 
 
 © Justin Martyr+ makes the consecration to consist in thanks- 
 giving and prayers, which, being ended, all the people answer, . 
 Amen. Ireneus says more expressly,t that it is done by invoca- 
 tion of God: for the bread, which is taken from the earth, has 
 the invocation of God upon it, and then it is no longer common 
 bread, but the Eucharist. Origen says,§ it is sanctified by the 
 word of God and prayer. Cyril, of Jerusalem, tells his catechu- 
 mens, that before the invocation of the Holy Trinity,|| the bread 
 and wine of the Eucharist is common bread and wine; but after 
 
 + I know that a charge against the Church of England is frequently made, because 
 she has omitted the prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit, after the repetition of the 
 words of institution in her service. It would seem, however, that she deems the whole 
 of the antecedent prayers, in several of which there are petitions for the Spirit, as 
 standing in the stead of any particular one, as is remarked above by Bishop Morton 
 [see page 184 supra], and which appears to have been the opinion of several of the 
 primitive Fathers [see page 188 infra.] This is, perhaps, more apparent when we 
 consider that, in the first reformed prayer book, in King Edward’s reign (A.D. 1549), 
 the consecration prayer, as it is called, stood at the beginning of the service imme- 
 diately after “the prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here on 
 earth,” which itself also followed the offertory sentences. In the new service book 
 of 1552 the present order was in all essential points adopted, and continued in Fliza- 
 beth’s of 1559. It is, perhaps, to be regretted that the Church of England should, in 
 this respect, have deviated from the universal practice of antiquity, though my own 
 impression is that the omission was designed, and that, the more emphatically to mark 
 the reprobation by the Church of England of the idea that any substantial or essential 
 change was wrought in the elements by any instrumentality. It is true that the 
 rubric which now exists in our prayer books, respecting the consecration of more bread 
 and wine, if the first consecrated be not sufficient, recognises the Popish idea that the 
 repetition of the words of institution consecrate. This rubric, which was first inserted in 
 1662, is a great misfortune, as it not only itself sanctions the Popish error directly, but, 
 taken in connection with the omission of the prayer of invocation for the Spirit, seems 
 to exclude the necessity of anything else. In any future revision of the service, there 
 can be no doubt, I think, that this rubric ought to be expunged, and a prayer for the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost inserted. This would make the Church of England less 
 Romish, but more Catholic. 
 
 + Justin. Apol. 2. p. 97. 
 
 t Tren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Qui est a terra panis, percipiens inyocationem Dei, jam 
 non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia. 
 
 § Orig. in Matt. xv. t. 2. p. 27. Sanctificatur per verbum Dei, perque obsecra- 
 tionem. 
 
 || Cyril. Catech. Myst. 3. n. 3. Μετὰ τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος, 
 οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτὸς, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Χριστοῦ, κιτιὰλ, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 187 
 
 the invocation it is no longer bare bread, but the body of Christ : 
 as the holy oil is not bare oil after the invocation, but the gift of 
 Christ. So, again,* after we have sanctified ourselves by those 
 spiritual hymns, we then pray the merciful God, that He would 
 send forth His Holy Spirit upon the elements lying upon the 
 altar, that He may make the bread the body of Christ, and the 
 wine the blood of Christ. Which manifestly declares that the 
 consecration was made by prayer and invocation. And the same 
 is implied by St. Basil,t when he asks, which of the saints hath 
 left us in writing the words of the invocation, by which the bread 
 of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing is consecrated ? Gregory 
 Nyssen,{ St. Basil’s brother, says, the bread is sanctified by the 
 word of God and prayer. Theophylus of Alexandria, that the 
 bread and wine, which represent the Lord’s body and blood upon 
 _ the table, are consecrated by invocation, and coming of the Holy 
 Ghost§ upon them. And Theodoret, most plainly in one of his 
 dialogues,|| what do you call the gift that is offered, before the 
 priest has made the invocation over it? Bread made of such 
 seeds. What do you call it after sanctification? The body of 
 Christ. The Latin fathers are as plain in their verdict. St. 
 Ambrose says,4] the sacraments which we take, are transformed 
 into flesh and blood by the mystery of holy prayer. And 
 Optatus,** describing the fury of the Donatists, asserts the same 
 when he asks them, what greater sacrilege they could be guilty 
 of, than to pull down the altars of God, where God Almighty was 
 invocated, and the Holy Spirit came down at the supplication of 
 
 * Id. Catech. Myst. 5. n. 5. 
 
 + Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 27. 
 
 { Nyssen. Orat. Catechetic. cap. 37. 
 
 § Theoph. Ep. Paschal. 1. Panem Dominicum, quo Salvatoris corpus ostenditur, 
 &c., per invocationem et adventum Sancti Spiritus consecrari. 
 
 || Theodor. Dial. 2. t. 4. p. 85. 
 
 4 Ambros. de Fide, lib. 4. cap. 5. Quotiescunque sacramenta sumimus, que per 
 sacree orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur et sanguinem, mortem Domini 
 annunciamus. 
 
 Ἐκ Optat. lib. 6. p. 98. Quid tam sacrilegum, quam altaria Dei frangere—quo Deus 
 omnipotens inyocatus sit, et postulatus descendit Spiritus Sanctus ? 
 
188 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the priest? St. Jerom* says, it was the peculiar office of the 
 ptesbyters to consecrate the body and blood of Christ by prayer. 
 And again, that prayer was necessary for this purpose.t The 
 author of the books De Sacramentis, under the name of St. 
 Ambrose,{ gives us the very form of words used in this prayer : 
 make this our oblation a chosen, rational, acceptable oblation, 
 which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. Juvencus§ says, Christ Himself consecrated it by prayer. 
 And Gregory the Great|| was of opinion, that the apostles used 
 only the Lord’s Prayer as the form of their consecration. And 
 Cyprian probably was of the same opinion; for he thinks, that 
 petition in the Lord's Prayer, ‘Give us this day our daily bread,’ 
 may be understood both in a spiritual‘! and common sense, to 
 denote the body of Christ, which is our bread, that we pray may 
 be given us every day. A great many other Fathers speak of 
 the** benediction or thanksgiving as that which consecrates the 
 Eucharist. Which is not much different from this; for the 
 thanksgiving was always a part of the Eucharistical prayers. 
 And, therefore, some join them both together, as Justin Martyr 
 and Ireneus, in the places now mentioned. And so Origen}+ 
 
 * Hieron. Ep. 85. ad Evagrium. Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque 
 conficitur. 
 
 + Id. Com. in Zephan. cap. 3. p. 98. Εὐχαριστίαν imprecantis facere verba, &c. 
 
 { Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 5. Vis scire, quia verbis ccelestibus consecratur ? 
 
 Accipe que sunt verba. Dicit sacerdos: Fae nobis, inquit, hance oblationem ascriptam, 
 rationalem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi. 
 
 § Juvencus, Hist. Evangel. lib. 4. Bibl. Patr. t.8 p. 654. Sancteque precatus, 
 discipulos docuit proprium se tradere corpus. 
 
 || Greg. lib. 7. Ep, 68. Orationem Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, 
 quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam con- 
 secrarent. 
 
 4 Cypr. de Orat. p. 146. Quod potest et spiritualiter et simpliciter intelligi—quia 
 Christus noster panis est. Hunc autem panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus. 
 
 ** Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. 1 cap. 23. Clem. Alex. Pzdagog. lib. 2. cap. 2. 
 Chrys. Hom. 82. in Matt. Victor. Antioch. in Marc. xiv. Facundus Hermianensis” 
 Defens. Tr'um Capitulor. lib. 9. Cyril. Alexandrin. Com. in Esa. xxv. item passim in 
 Glaphyris super Genes. Exod. Levit. styles it ewfogia, which is the same as Eucharist 
 or benediction. Vid. Albertin. de Eucharist. lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 21. 
 
 ++ Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. 390. Meta εὐχαριστίας καὶ εὐχῆς, κ-τ.λ. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 189 
 
 tells Celsus, that by thanksgiving and prayer they made bread a 
 holy body, sanctifying such as received and eat it with a pure 
 mind. And St. Austin, who in some places calls it barely the 
 benediction* or thanksgiving, in other places says more expressly 
 that the Eucharist was consecrated by prayer: we call that the 
 body of Christ,} which is taken from the fruits of the earth, and 
 consecrated by mystical prayer in a solemn manner, and so 
 received by us unto salvation, in memory of our Lord's suffering 
 for us. And writing against the Donatists,; who denied the 
 validity of the sacraments when they were consecrated and ad- 
 ministered by sinners, he asks them, how then does God hear a 
 murderer, when He prays either over the water of baptism, or the 
 oil for unction, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those 
 that receive imposition of hands? Implying, that the consecra- 
 tion of the Eucharist, as well as the rest of the things men- 
 tioned, was performed by prayer." —Ant. bk. xv. c. 3. 5. xt. 
 
 The next point to which I shall direct attention in the liturgies, 
 and the last, is that of the offering. As has been already shewn, 
 the ancient Church was wont to call not only the Eucharistic 
 service, but all divine services whatever, by the name of sacrifices. 
 But there were other senses in which the former was specially so 
 called. First, because the communicants made direct offerings of 
 a portion of their substance for the worship of God, and for the 
 poorer brethren ; and next, because the whole service was a com- 
 memoration of the great sacrifice on the cross. It will be found 
 that the ancient liturgies are formed expressly on this idea. All 
 the three proprieties of the name are again and again brought out 
 in the course of the prayers, and the blessing of God sought upon 
 the gifts themselves and upon those who offered them, that such 
 
 * Aug. Ep. 59, ad Paulin. 
 ae Aug. de Trinitate, lib. 3. cap. 4. Corpus Christi dicimus illud, quod ex frugibus 
 terree acceptum, et mystica prece consecratum rite, samimus ad spiritalem salutem, in 
 memoriam Dominice pro nobis passionis. 
 
 1 De Baptismo, lib. 5. cap. 20. Quomodo ergo exaudit homicidam deprecantem, 
 vel super aquam baptismi, vel super oleum, vel super Eucharistiam, vel super capita 
 eorum quibus manus imponitur ? 
 
190 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of the former as were to be used in the peculiar service of the 
 Holy Supper, might be the means of communicating what they 
 signified to the worthy participator. But the drift of the liturgies 
 will be best seen by giving a few extracts from them, and I think 
 it will be abundantly manifest that, while the early Church did 
 not hesitate to give such names as offering, oblation, and sacrifice, 
 to the whole service and to its several parts, yet there is not the 
 least foundation for concluding, from these compositions them- 
 selves, that those who used them had any such idea as that they 
 were offering Christ as upon the cross; that it was the same 
 sacrifice, not repeated, indeed, but continued, by the same priest ; 
 and that it was a true propitiation for the sins both of the living 
 and the dead. I will proceed, then, to give my quotations, leaving 
 the reader to discriminate generally the application in each indi- 
 vidual case. 
 
 Τ shall begin with the liturgy of St. James ; 1.6., of the Church 
 of Jerusalem, of which he was the first bishop. There, in the 
 beginning of the sacramental office, the priest prays, ‘‘ Δέσποτα 
 κύριε Ἰησοῦ, &e. “ O Lord Jesus Christ . . purge us from all 
 sin, and grant that we may present ourselves pure before Thy 
 altar, that we may offer unto Thee the sacrifice of praise,” &c. 
 Ὃ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτορ, Se HO Almighty God, who givest us 
 access to the holy of holies . . fearing, and trembling to approach 
 Thy holy altar, we implore Thy goodness. Send down Thy grace 
 upon us, and sanctify our souls, bodies, and spirits . . that we 
 may offer these gifts, presents, and sacrifices, with a pure con- 
 science,’ &c. ‘O ιἑρεὺς εἰσάγων τὰ ἅγια δῶρα, ἕο. “* The priest who 
 brings in the holy gifts shall say this prayer.” ‘O ἐπισκεψάμενος, 
 ἄρ. “0 Lord, who hast visited usin mercy and pity, and given 
 us poor sinners, and Thine unworthy servants, leave to come unto 
 Thy holy altar, and offer this tremendous and unbloody sacrifice 
 for our sins, ὅθ... And of Thy goodness receive me, who 
 approach Thy holy altar; and grant that these gifts, offered by 
 my hands, may be made acceptable to Thee,” &c. Kai τὰ περικέι- 
 μενα τῇ ἱερᾷ ταὐύτὴ τελετῇ, ἄο. “ And uncovering the secret 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 19] 
 
 meaning, which is symbolically veiled in this holy sacrifice, shew 
 it clearly to us,’ ἄορ. And then in the prayer of consecration, 
 Μεμνημένοι οὖν, ἄρ. ‘* We sinners, therefore, being mindful of 
 His sufferings, offer unto Thee, O Lord, this tremendous and 
 unbloody sacrifice. Have mercy upon us, O Lord, and send 
 down Thy most holy Spirit upon these gifts which are set before 
 Thee . . . that descending upon them, He may, by His holy, 
 gracious, and glorious presence, make this bread the holy body of 
 Christ, and this cup His precious blood.” Ὑπὲρ τῶν προσκομισθέντων 
 &e. “ Let us pray unto God for these sanctified, precious, hea- 
 venly, ineffable, pure, glorious, tremendous, dreadful, and divine 
 oblations, that our Lord would receive them into His holy, 
 heavenly, intellectual, and spiritual altar, for a sweet-smelling 
 savour, &c. ‘O θεὸς καὶ πάτηρ τοὺ κυρίου, Χο. “Ὁ God the Father 
 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who hast received the gifts, 
 presents, and sacrifices offered unto Thee for a sweet-smelling 
 savour, and hast vouchsafed to sanctify, and consecrate them by 
 the grace of Thy Christ, and the descent of Thy most holy Spirit ; 
 O sanctify also our souls, bodies, and spirits,” &c. 
 
 So in the liturgy of St. Mark, or the Church of Alexandria, at 
 the beginning of the oblation: “ O Lord our God, who art our 
 Sovereign Lord ; who hast made all things by Thy wisdom, the 
 true light; Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, and only 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, through whom, giving thanks to Thee, and 
 with Thy holy Spirit, we offer this reasonable and unbloody sacri- 
 fice, which ali nations offer up unto Thee from the rising of the 
 sun unto the setting thereof; from the north to the south ; because 
 great is Thy name among all people, and incense, and sacrifice, 
 and oblation, is offered unto Thee in every place. Kai δὸς ἡμῖν 
 μερίδα, ἄο. “ And grant that we may have our part and lot with 
 all Thy saints, who bring unto Thee sacrificial oblations. And, 
 O God, receive up these Eucharistical gifts into Thy heavenly and 
 intellectual altar.” Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν δώρων, &e. 
 “Ὁ Lord our God, we have set what are Thine of Thy own gifts 
 before Thee ; and we pray and beseech Thee, O bountiful lover of 
 
192 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 mankind, to send down from the height of Thy holy place, from 
 Thy prepared tabernacle, from Thy infinite bosoms [of love] the 
 Paraclete Himself, the Spirit of Truth, the holy, quickening Lord, 
 who spake in the law, and the prophets, and apostles; who is 
 every where present, and fills all things; and worketh not minis- 
 terially, but by His own power and holiness, according to Thy good 
 pleasure, in whom He will; who is simple by nature, but manifold 
 in his operations; who is the Fountain of divine gifts and graces, 
 consubstantial to Thee, and proceeding from Thee, and sits with 
 Thee and Thy only-begotten Son, and our Lord, and God, and 
 Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the throne of Thy kingdom. O send 
 down this holy Spirit upon us, and upon these loaves and 
 these cups; that, as God omnipotent, He may sanctify and con- 
 secrate them, and make this bread the body, and the cup the blood 
 of the New Testament of our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and 
 King of Kings, Jesus Christ.” 
 
 Very similar are the words of St. Chrysostom’s liturgy : 
 
 “‘ Send down, O Lord, Thy assistance from Thy holy habitation, 
 and strengthen me in Thy service, which I am going to perform, 
 that I may stand without blame before Thy tremendous altar, and 
 minister the unbloody sacrifice,’ &c. So, in the prayer at the 
 πρόθεσις, or table, where the people's oblations of bread and 
 wine were set, before they were brought to the altar of Thy good- 
 ness and love for mankind, remember those who have offered, and 
 those for whom they have offered. So in the prayer for the com- 
 municants: “O Lord, the God of powers, we give thanks to 
 Thee, who hast deemed us worthy to appear at Thy altar to sup- 
 plicate Thy mercy for our sins, and the errors of Thy people: O 
 God receive our prayer, and make us worthy to offer up to Thee 
 prayers, and supplications, and unbloody sacrifices for all Thy 
 people,” &c. So in the Cherubic hymn or prayer, who out of 
 Thy ineffable and immense love of mankind, wast made man not 
 by conversion, or confusion (of substance), and hast been de- 
 clared our high-priest by God, and as Lord of all hast instituted 
 the ministration of this unbloody sacrifice, &c. . . . “To Thee 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 193 
 
 do I come, and beseech Thee not to turn Thy face from me, nor 
 to reject me from among Thy children, but graciously permit that 
 these gifts may be offered up by me a sinner.” So in the prayer 
 after the oblations are placed upon the altar: “Ὁ Lord God 
 Almighty, who only art holy, and who receivest the sacrifice of 
 praise from those who call upon Thee with their whole heart, 
 receive the prayer of us sinners, and bring it to Thy holy altar, 
 and make us worthy to offer up these gifts and spiritual sacrifices 
 for our sins, and the errors of the people, and grant we may find 
 grace in Thy sight to have this our sacrifice made acceptable to 
 Thee.” Then after the swrsum corda, and the prayer of thanks- 
 giving, mentioned by Justin Martyr, and the words of the 
 institution, the priest saith: ‘ Wherefore, remembering this 
 salutary commandment, and all the things that are done for us : 
 His death, burial, resurrection on the third day, His ascension 
 into heaven, His sitting at Thy right hand, and His second and 
 glorious coming, we offer Thy own [gifts or creatures] unto Thee. 
 We also offer up unto Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacri- 
 fice, and we pray and beseech Thee to send down Thy holy Spirit 
 upon us, and upon these gifts. Amen.” 
 
 ““ Make this bread the precious [mystical] body of Thy Christ, 
 Amen. And what is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, 
 changing [them] by Thy holy Spirit.” Then in a prayer after the 
 Lord’s Prayer: ‘“‘ Thou, therefore, O Lord, bless these gifts which 
 are set before Thee to us all, according to every one’s necessity, &c. 
 
 “So in the liturgy of St. Basil, in the prayer at the prothesis, 
 upon which the oblations were set: “ Bless this table, and the 
 oblations thereupon, and receive them up unto Thy altar in the 
 highest heavens; and of Thy goodness and love towards men, 
 remember the offerers, and those for whom they have offered, and 
 preserve us free from all sin in the administration of these holy 
 mysteries,” &c. So in the prayer of the priest, after the offerings 
 are set on the holy table, or altar: ‘“‘ May it please Thee, O Lord, 
 as we are ministers of the New Testament, and liturgs of Thy 
 
 holy mysteries, according to the multitude of Thy mercies, to 
 CC 
 
194 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 receive us who are approaching to Thy holy altar, that we may 
 be worthy to offer unto Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacri- 
 fice for our sins, and the errors of the people. Which Thou 
 having received up for a sweet savour to Thy holy and intellectual 
 altar, send down for it the grace of Thy Holy Spirit upon us. 
 Look upon us, O Lord, and upon this our sacrifice, and receive it 
 as Thou didst receive the oblations of Abel, the sacrifices of Noah, 
 the holocausts of Abraham, the consecration-offerings of Moses 
 and Aaron, the peace-offerings of Samuel, even as Thou didst 
 receive this Eucharistical oblation, the verity of them, from Thy 
 holy apostles; let us stand as becomes us, with reverence, and 
 take heed that we offer this holy offering in peace.” 
 
 “ Wherefore, most holy Lord, . . . we approach to Thy holy 
 altar, and having set [thereupon] the figures [or symbols] of the 
 holy body and blood of Thy Christ, we pray and beseech Thee, O 
 most holy, by the pleasure of Thy goodness, that Thy holy Spirit 
 may come upon us, and upon these gifts lying before Thee, to 
 bless them, and sanctify them, and make them the body and blood 
 of Christ.” 
 
 “ Thou, O our God, who hast received these gifts, cleanse us 
 from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,” ὅσο. 
 
 Also, in the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great, we have the 
 terms used with the same reference, and not at all in the modern 
 Popish sense. In this liturgy ‘‘ the Canon of the Mass” thus 
 commences : 
 
 “ Wherefore, O most merciful Father, we humbly pray and 
 beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son our Lord, that 
 Thou wouldst accept and bless these gifts, these presents, these 
 holy, pure sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee for Thy holy 
 Catholic Church . . . . Wherefore we beseech Thee that Thou 
 wouldst graciously receive this oblation of our service, and of 
 Thy whole family. Which oblation we beseech Thee that it may 
 please Thee to make blessed, appropriated, approved, rational, and 
 acceptable, that it may be unto us the body and blood of Thy most 
 beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” In the treatise de Sacra- 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 195 
 
 mentis, falsely ascribed to St. Ambrose, but written by some 
 orthodox author of the ninth century, the words of this prayer 
 are these which follow :—‘‘ Vis scire quia verbis ccelestibus con- 
 secratur? Accipe que sunt verba. Dicit sacerdos: fac nobis 
 hane oblationem adscriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod sit 
 in figuram corporis, et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.” 
 In this prayer to God to appropriate, ratify, and accept the 
 elements to be offered, and thereby to become the figurative or 
 mystical body and blood of Christ, the words benedictam and 
 ratam are omitted ; but in the present canon of the Roman mass 
 they are as in the Sacramentary of Gregory I.: ‘‘ Wherefore, O 
 Lord, we, Thy servants and Thy holy people, being mindful of Thy 
 Son our God, and of His blessed passion ; also of his resurrection 
 from the dead, and His glorious ascension into heaven, offer unto 
 Thy glorious majesty a pure, holy, and spotless sacrifice of Thy 
 own gifts and benefits, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup 
 of everlasting salvation; upon which, we beseech Thee, look with 
 a propitious and serene countenance, and vouchsafe to accept them, 
 as Thou didst receive t}e oblations of thy righteous servant Abel, 
 and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and the holy sacrifice, 
 that immaculate host, which Melchisedec, Thy high priest, offered 
 to Thee. And we humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, com- 
 mand that these [oblations] be carried up by the hands of angels 
 unto Thy heavenly altar in Thy sight; that as many of us as have 
 partaken of the body and blood of Thy Son at this altar, may be 
 filled with Thy benediction and grace, through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord.” 
 
 So in the Codices Sacramentorum, published at Rome by 
 Joseph Maria Thomasius, 1680, which are ancient offices, written 
 about the latter end of the eighth century; in which, omitting all 
 the prayers of the priest, I shall only cite the words in the canon 
 of the celebration of the Eucharist, where, after Sursum Corda, 
 &e., “ Lift up your hearts.” Ams.: “ We lift them up unto the 
 Lord. Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.” 4.: “ It is 
 mect and right so to do.” Then it follows, Kt justum est, equum, 
 
196 THE TRUE DOCTRIXE 
 
 et salutare, ἄς. “ It is meet, night, and for our comfort, that we 
 should always, and im all places, give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, 
 holy Father Almighty, and eternal God,” &. Te igitur, clemen- 
 tissime Pater, per Jesum Christum filium toum, ἄς. “ We there- 
 fore, most merciful Father, humbly pray and beseech Thee, through 
 Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord: Uti aeccepia habeas, εἰ benedicas 
 hec dona, hec munera, hee sancta sacrificia illibata, &c. “That 
 Thou wouldsi accept and bless these oblations, these gifts, these 
 holy, unspotied sacrifices, which, in the first place, we offer unio 
 Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church.” ἄς. Hane igitur oblationem 
 servitutis nostre, ἄς. “ We therefore pray Thee. O Lord, that it 
 may please Thee to accept this oblation of our bounden duty and 
 service, and of Thy whole family, ἄς. Quam oblationem ἔπ 
 Deus in omnibus quzsumus benedictam, ascriptam, ὅθ. “ Which 
 oblaticn we beseech Thee, O God, bemg blessed, appropriated, 
 &c., Thou wouldst vouchsafe to make acceptable. that it may be 
 unto us the body and blood of Thy Son, our Lord and God, 
 Jesus Christ” And then after the words of the mstitution: Unde 
 et memores, ἄς. “ Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy servants, and 
 also Thy holy people. being mindful of the blessed passion of Thy 
 Son, our Lord God,” ἄς. Offerimus preclare Majesian tur de 
 tmis donis, ac datis hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam. hostiam 
 immaculatam, ἄς. “ We offer unto Thy glorious Majesty of Thy 
 own gifts and benefits, a pure. holy, immaculate sacrifice, the 
 bread of eternal life, and the cup of everlasting salvation, upon 
 which we beseech Thee to look with a propitious countenance. 
 and to accept them, as Thou didst the gifts of Thy nghieous ser- 
 vant Abel.” ἄς. 
 
 Now. from these examples of the mode im which the words 
 offering, oblation, and sacrifice are used in the liturgies, in every 
 one of which, I think. I am justified in sayimg, the words are 
 used in one of the three senses above referred to—+-c., eather of 
 the prayers, of the gifts as presented on the altar, or of the com- 
 memoration of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross,—is it too 
 much to conclude, that the Popish idea of the mass, which has 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 197 
 
 been adopted and taught so freely in the English Church, by Mr. 
 Wilberforce and others, was never thought of by the primitive 
 Church? Nay, is it not manifest, from the older forms of the 
 present Roman missal, and from much that remains in it to-day, 
 that such an idea as is now adopted by that Church is new and 
 an ingraft? If this be proved, I do not see how any stronger 
 case could be made out against any particular error than is made 
 out against this. For to suppose that we should find passages 
 directly against the “developments” of modern heresy, is evi- 
 dently absurd. It was not possible for objections to be made to 
 a doctrine before that doctrine itself was promulgated.* Nor, 
 indeed, is it very reasonable to expect any cautionary intimations 
 from those whose tendency was rather towards excess in the other 
 direciion, who, in truth, did not see the “ blasphemous fables and 
 dangerous deceits” of the “Mystery of Iniquity” to which, 
 alas ! their own unguarded, and sometimes dangerous, phraseology 
 ultimately led, and for which it is now quoted in proof and sup- 
 port. It is, I think, enough, amply enough, for condemnation of 
 both, that neither the adoration of the host, nor the reality of a 
 propitiatory offering in it, is mentioned in these liturgies. It is 
 not within the bounds of probability, scarcely of possibility, that 
 the two most important matters in the Eucharist should have 
 been, not only not most explicitly stated, but left to obscure hints 
 and imuendos, if not entirely omitted. If this be a subsidiary 
 ordinance of the Christian religion, valuable for its ecommemora- 
 tive significance, as well as because it is “ an effectual means of 
 grace, we should expect to find it just what we have it; but if it 
 be the means of grace, the great antitype of all the Jewish sacri- 
 
 * There is one point of view, however, in which the error of Rome on the Eucharist 
 becomes more striking, and that is when we consider the great pains which that Church 
 now takes to secure adoration for the elemenis. Noi only is there the strong contrast 
 afforded between the old and the modern form of the canon of the mass, wherein, 
 anciently, there was no trace of adoration, though now it is expressly enjoined, both on 
 priest and people, in every possible form; but we have, further, a special festival, that of 
 corpus Christi, lately instituted in honour of the sacrament. The different conduct of 
 the latter Church, compared with that of the earlier, affords very strong presumptive 
 evidence that their faith is as different as their practice. 
 
198 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 fices, the perpetuation of the mysterious and eventful tragedy of 
 Calvary, and the continued application of the incarnation of the 
 Son of God; then the Bible is, indeed, a dark book, and we stand 
 in need of another revelation to explain the last. Then, to the 
 virtual exclusion of spiritual worship and heartfelt devotion, forms, 
 and ceremonies, and the opus operatum are the things acceptable to 
 God, who no longer holds His throne in light, where happy myriads 
 of bright spirits adore Him; but, though He refuses to be wor- 
 shipped in the glorious Sun, is to be bowed down to in a drop of 
 wine or a mouse-eaten wafer, or, lower still, and I blush while my 
 pen writes it, in our own loathsome excrement. Oh, gracious 
 God! how long ? 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 199 
 
 C HAP TER VLE. 
 
 THE FATHERS UPON THE EFFECTS OF CONSECRATION, 
 
 I wave before expressed my surprise at so much having been 
 said about the ancient liturgies, as to their age and their authority, 
 and so little use having been made of them afterwards. They 
 are hardly referred to or quoted for the establishment of any point 
 which the Archdeacon advocates, or for the refutation of any 
 opinion to which he is antagonistic. He has endeavoured to 
 increase their authority, by greatly extending the antiquity of 
 our present copies, and then seems to leave it quietly to be 
 implied that they, without question, teach all that he would have 
 us believe. I think I have satisfactorily shewn, that that is not 
 by any means the case ; but, on the contrary, that these venerable 
 forms of the ancient service are thoroughly antagonistic to the 
 whole Popish scheme, which is once again being propounded for 
 our acceptance. 
 
 Forsaking, then, the liturgies (I conclude, because he felt that 
 they were against him), Mr. Wilberforce betakes himself to the 
 Fathers; and, although I have before shewn what are their 
 opinions of the Eucharist in some points of view; yet, perhaps, 
 1 ought to follow my opponent, and examine the passages which 
 he has brought. If it can be shewn that the Fathers speak a 
 different language from that which I have adduced from them, 
 still it will not prove that Mr. Wilberforce’s doctrine is correct, but 
 that the witnesses are not worthy of credit—since they contradict 
 one another, if not themselves. JI must confess, however, that I 
 have no such fears. I believe that the absurdities and mon- 
 
200 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 strosities of Popery were never present to the minds of the ancient 
 Christian writers, whose works have descended to us; and I enter 
 upon the course in which the Archdeacon leads, without the 
 slightest apprehension that I shall find him recognised by those 
 primitive worthies, however anxious he may prove to allege their 
 countenance, and claim their society. 
 
 In passing, then, from the liturgies to the Fathers, Mr. Wilber- 
 force thus speaks :-— 
 
 “50 much respecting the ancient liturgies, and the proofs which they 
 afford (where are they ? [ have found none), that the gift bestowed in 
 the Holy Eucharist is bestowed through the elements. We now come 
 to the next head of arguments, the direct statements of ancient writers, 
 that the efficacy of the Holy Encharist depends upon the change which 
 consecration effects in the elements. From which it would seem to be 
 a necessary inference, that it is through the elements themselves that 
 the benefit conveyed in this ordinance is communicated. The language 
 of ancient writers on this subject is less uniformly explicit seemingly 
 than it would be, because their habitual unwillingness to expose sacred 
 subjects to the profaneness of the heathen, restricted the express 
 mention of that to which they allude.” 
 
 So that it appears the Archdeacon is not so sure of his ground 
 as he would at first have us believe. He is, undoubtedly, quite 
 right in saying that the Fathers are not “ uniformly explicit” on 
 the subject of his effete heresy. He thinks, however, that he can 
 find four ancient authors, to whom he can refer with perfect con- 
 
 {ζ 
 
 fidence, in whose case “ grounds for reserve did not exist. In 
 the catechetical lectures, therefore, of St. Ambrose, St. Cyril, St. 
 Gregory Nyssen, and St. Gaudentius, we find express statements 
 of the change which consecration was supposed to make in the 
 holy elements.” But even with respect to these, his own selected 
 and approved witnesses, he thinks it needful to caution us, lest we 
 mistake their meaning. “50 forcible,” says he, “ are their ex- 
 pressions, that it is necessary to add, by way of caution, that they 
 must not be supposed to have admitted any carnal presence of 
 Christ,—7.e., any such presence as that He could be an object to 
 the senses.” Protestants would have said, “7.e., not any cor- 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 201 
 
 poreal presence at all.” It might have occurred to any one feeling 
 it necessary to give the caution which is given by Mr. Wilber- 
 force, that the whole of these expressions are simply figurative 
 or hyperbolical. 
 
 A beginning is made with St. Ambrose,* who, “ after speaking 
 of the regenerating force of baptism, goes on to affirm, that in the 
 
 Holy Eucharist is vouchsafed the real presence of Christ's body 
 and blood: 
 
 «You may, perhaps, say, that, which I see is something different : 
 how do you prove to me that I receive the body of Christ ? This is 
 what it remains for me to prove. What examples, therefore, am I to 
 use? Let me prove that this is not that which nature has made it, but 
 that which the benediction has consecrated it to be: and that the force 
 of the benediction is greater than that of nature, because by the bene- 
 diction nature herself is changed.’+ 
 
 “ And then, after citing various instances from the Old Testament, 
 in which an external element had been made the means of con- 
 ferring an inward gift, and of the influence exercised by the one 
 upon the other, ending with the mystery of the incarnation, he 
 concludes : 
 
 ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself proclaims, this is my body. Before 
 the sacred words of benediction, another species is named, after con- 
 secration the body is implied. He Himself speaks of His blood. 
 Before consecration it is spoken of as another thing. After consecration 
 it is named blood. And you’ (i.e., the receiver) ‘ say Amen—that is, 
 it is true. What your mouth expresses, let your inner mind confess— 
 fee] what you say.’ ᾿Ἶ 
 
 One might have supposed, that the second of these quotations, 
 made from St. Ambrose, would have sufficiently explained his 
 meaning, and have shewn that he spoke figuratively. There is a 
 sense, undoubtedly, in which every word quoted is strictly true, 
 but it is in a figurative one only. If we attempt to bind down 
 these expressions to a literal interpretation, they become at once 
 heretical in themselves, and at variance with other parts of the 
 
 * See Doct. H. Euch. pp. 62—66. + De Mysteriis. ix. 50. 1 Thid. 54. 
 ~*~ DD 
 
202 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 same author's writings. The folly, however, of thus interpreting 
 by the strictness of the letter the expressions quoted, was shewn long 
 since by Bishop Stillingfleet, in a review of the whole passage : 
 
 «1. St. Ambrose,” says the bishop, “ doth parallel the change in the 
 Eucharist with that in baptism; and to prove regeneration therein, he 
 argues from the miraculous conception of Christ in the womb of the 
 virgin ; but in baptism nobody supposes the substance {of the water to 
 be taken away ; and therefore it cannot hold as to the other, from the 
 supernatural change, which may be only with respect to such a divine 
 influence, which it had not before consecration. 2. He doth purposely 
 talk obscurely and mystically about this matter, as the Fathers were 
 
 wont to do to those who were to be admitted to these mysteries. Some- . 
 
 times one would think he meant that the elements are changed into 
 Christ’s individual body born of the virgin; and yet, presently after, 
 he distinguishes between the true flesh of Christ, which was crucified 
 and buried, and the sacrament of His flesh. If this were the same, 
 what need any distinction? And that this sacramentum carnis, is 
 meant of the Eucharist, is plain by what follows; for he cites Christ’s 
 words, ‘This is my body.’ 3. He best explains his own meaning, 
 when he saith, not long after, ‘That the body of Christ in the sacra- 
 ment is a spiritual body, or a body produced by the Divine Spirit ;’ 
 and so he parallels it with that spiritual food, which the Israelites did 
 eat in the wilderness: and no man will say that the substance of the 
 manna was then lost. And since your authors make the same St. 
 Ambrose to have written the book De Sacramentis, there is a notable 
 passage therein, which helps to explain this; for there he saith ex- 
 pressly, ‘Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vite 
 aterne qui anime nostre substantiam fulcit. ‘It is not the bread 
 which passes into the body, but the bread of eternal life, which 
 strengthens the substance of our soul.’ Where he not only calls it 
 bread after consecration, which goes to our nourishment; but he dis- 
 tinguishes it from the bread of eternal life, which supports the soul, 
 which must be understood of divine grace, and not of any bodily sub- 
 stance.’ 
 
 Here, then, we have a full reply to this quotation of the Arch- 
 deacon from St. Ambrose. But, to say nothing of the folly of 
 taking every chance phrase of a writer (and that, too, when he 
 is drawing parallels between things which, in many points, do not 
 
 * Doe. of the Trin. and Transubst. compared as to scripture, reason, and tradition. 
 
 πων αὐ CC 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 203 
 
 resemble each other), as fixed by the strictest rules of literal 
 interpretation, St. Ambrose explains himself most satisfactorily, 
 when he says, that it is a body only by implication, and blood 
 only 7x name. ‘To use such words of the realities of each, would 
 be to destroy the use of language by confounding the real and 
 the ideal, the literal and the figurative, in one hopeless jumble. 
 
 The next quotations are from St. Cyril, in which he begs his 
 auditors not to imagine the sacramental bread mere bread, nor the 
 consecrated wine a bare element, in which Protestants agree with 
 Cyril to the full. He also assures them that, though it escapes 
 sense, the body and blood of Christ are, under them, communi- 
 cated to the believer. On this point. also, we are agreed. The 
 question which lies between the Papist and the Protestant is not 
 touched by Cyril (as it was impossible it should) : but, as I have 
 already given the whole account of the mode in which this Father 
 celebrated the Eucharist, and also that he frequently calls the 
 bread and wine the emblems of the body and blood of Christ,* I 
 shall delay the reader no longer on the consideration of passages 
 already answered, I trust to the entire satisfaction of the inge- 
 nuous mind. 
 
 The next quotation is also one from a passage of illustration 
 and comparison ; and who but knows that it is most fallacious to 
 bring rigid proofs of doctrine from such? The Fathers, as 15 
 well known to even the casual student, were wont to run into the 
 erossest excesses in following out some fancied resemblance, which 
 disfigures nearly every ancient Christian writer, and runs riot in 
 Origen and others. Gregory Nyssen (the man now before us), 
 the brother of St. Basil, was gifted largely with the imaginative ; 
 and it is when he is indulging tolerably freely in this, his favorite 
 style, that he pens the passage which the Archdeacon has quoted. 
 “ St. Gregory Nyssen,” says our author, “in his Catechetical 
 Discourse, speaks of the human body of our Lord as exalted by 
 personal union with Deity, and brings this forward as illustrative 
 of the change which befalls the sacred elements: 
 
 * See supra, pp. 87, 88. 
 
204 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 ‘ With reason, therefore, do we believe that the bread, which is now 
 sanctified by the word of God, is transformed into the body of God the 
 Word. For that [natural] body [of our Lord’s] was in effect bread 
 [1.6., as he has explained before, bread had been the food by which it 
 had been nourished]. But it was sanctified by the indwelling of the 
 word, which tabernacled in our flesh.’ 
 
 “This process, then, he compares with the holy Eucharist : 
 
 ‘ For there, too, the bread, as the apostle says, is sanctified by the 
 word of God, and by prayer, so that it does not pass into the body of 
 the Word by the process of eating and drinking, but is transformed at 
 once into body by a word, as the word expressed it, saying, “ This is 
 my body.” ’* 
 
 ““ Τὴ this manner he says: 
 
 ‘ Humanity is made partaker of the divine nature through communion 
 with Deity.’ 
 
 “And he sums up with the statement that God 
 
 ‘ Bestows these gifts, by changing the nature of the apparent elements 
 into that [7.e., the immortal] by the power of the benediction.’ ”} 
 
 It is clear, from the first two of these quotations, that, when 
 Gregory speaks of “the human body of our Lord, as exalted by 
 personal union with Deity, and brings this forward as illustrative 
 of the change which befalls the sacred elements,” he does not mean 
 —he could not mean—that the human body of our Lord was 
 changed into Deity, but was sanctified by the indwelling of the 
 Word, which tabernacled in it. So, also, when he speaks of a 
 like change taking place in the sacramental elements, he means 
 what he says—“ there, too, the bread is sanctified by the Word of 
 God and prayer.’ Thus, in Gregory's idea, as the bread which 
 our Lord ate, and which became by this process his natural 
 body, was exalted by its union with Deity; so the bread of the 
 Eucharist becomes exalted (in a sense, His body,) by that union 
 of it with the Deity which is vouchsafed in answer to prayer. 
 There is, in both cases, a sanctification by connection with 
 Deity, but no change of substance in either. 
 
 But the same author, from whom we extracted a review of the 
 
 * Cat. Orat. 39. vol. iii. p. 104. - + 110. 100. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 205 
 
 passage in Ambrose, has also reviewed this one from Gregory. 
 He deals with it as follows: 
 
 “ Gregory Nyssen was a man of fancy, and he shewed it πὶ that 
 catechetical discourse. However, Fronto Duceus thought it a notable 
 place to prove transubstantiation, which I wonder at, if he attended to 
 the design of it; which was to shew, that as our bodies, by eating, 
 became subject to corruption, so by eating they become capable of 
 immortality ; and this, he saith, ‘ must be by receiving an immortal 
 body into our bodies, such as the body of Christ was. But then,’ saith 
 he ‘ how could that body, which is to remain whole in itself, be distri- 
 buted to all the faithful over the whole earth ?’ He answers by saying, 
 ‘ that our bodies do consist of bread and wine, which are their proper 
 nourishment; and Christ’s body being like ours, that was so too; which, 
 by the union with the word of God, was changed into a divine dignity. 
 But what is this to the Eucharist, you may say? He goes on, there- 
 fore, ‘ so I believe the sanctified bread, by the power of the word of 
 God, to be changed into the body of God the Word.’ Not into that 
 individual body, but after the same manner, by a presence of the Λόγος, 
 or God the Word, in it. And that this was his meaning doth evidently 
 appear by what follows:—‘ For,’ saith he, ‘ that body,—viz., to which 
 He was incarnate,—was sanctified by the inhabitation of the Λόγος, 
 dwelling in the flesh: therefore, as the bread was then changed into a 
 divine dignity in the body, so it is now; and the bread is changed into 
 the body of the Λόγος (not of Jesus Christ), as it was said by the Word, 
 ‘This is my body.’ And so by receiving this divine body into our 
 bodies, they are made capable of immortality.’ And this is the true 
 account of Gregory Nyssen’s meaning, which, if it prove anything, 
 proves an impanation, rather than transubstantiation.” 
 
 Whence it will at once be seen that the conceit of Gregory as to 
 our bodies being rendered immortal, or capable of immortality, by 
 participation of Christ's body,—an idea somewhat modified and 
 spiritualized by the Archdeacon,*—is shallow and absurd. Are 
 
 * “Ts it not the essential characteristic of the Christian system, that it depends on 
 those two men, in one of whom humanity fell, while it was regenerated in the other ἢ 
 Does not this imply that the cure of human ill must, in some measure, be correspon- 
 dent to its cause ? May we not anticipate the gifts of grace to be bestowed in a manner 
 which is analogous to the incursions of sin? Now, in what manner is corruption 
 propagated among men? ‘The souls of men are believed to be each a separate creation 
 of the Supreme Being; and to become in some way infected with that hereditary 
 taint, which is perpetuated through the propagation of their bodies. If it be affirmed, 
 
206 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 none immortal, then, but such as participate of Christ's body in 
 His Supper? What becomes of the wicked? are they annihi- 
 lated? Where is the B.c.-world with Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob ? Ifthe incarnation has restored immortality to the human 
 family, it has not done it by that flesh being corporeally eaten, 
 but by its divine energy pervading all space, and annihilating all 
 distinction of time. ‘‘ The Lamb slain from the foundation of 
 the world,” has brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel. 
 
 “St. Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, is next brought before us 
 with his testimony, which is as follows: 
 
 ‘The Creator and Lord of nature, who produces bread from the earth, 
 of bread again (because it is within His power and His promise) makes 
 His own body: and He who made wine of water, of wine makes His 
 blood.’* 
 
 “ And again: 
 
 ‘ The hereditary gift of the New Testament is that sacrifice which, on 
 the night that He was betrayed to be crucified, He left as the pledge of 
 His presence. This is that wiaticum for our way, by which we are 
 nourished in this journey of life, until departing from this world, we 
 come to Him; by reason of which the same Lord said, “ Unless ye eat 
 my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you.” For He wished 
 that His benefits should continue among us: He wished that through 
 the image of His own passion, our souls should be always sanctified by 
 His precious blood. He orders, therefore, His faithful disciples, whom 
 He appointed also the first priests of His Church, to solemnize per- 
 petually those mysteries of eternal life, which it is necessary that all 
 priests, throughout every Church of the whole world, should celebrate 
 till Christ comes again from heaven. This was done, that we, the 
 priests, and the whole body of the faithful, having the representation of 
 Christ’s passion daily before our eyes, carrying it in our hands, and 
 receiving it im our mouths and bosoms, might be possessed with an 
 indelible memorial of our redemption, and might obtain a sweet medicine 
 
 then, that the soul cannot be a channel through which the gift of Christ’s presence in 
 the holy Eucharist can affect and modify the whole body, how comes it that a man’s 
 own body can produce such effects upon his soul? And that the sanctified body of 
 Christ should be employed as the medium of benefit to the souls of men, is evidently 
 consistent with the analogy, which looks for a resemblance between the poison and the 
 antidote.’—Doct. H. Euch. p. 355. 
 
 * Ad Neoph, Bib. Pat. Max. vy. 946. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 207 
 
 and perpetual defence against the venom of the devil. As the Holy 
 Spirit exhorts, ‘‘ O taste and see how sweet the Lord is.’ + 
 
 Of the first quotation I have nothing to remark, having already 
 explained fully on what grounds the sacramental elements were 
 called by the names of the things which they represented, as _ the 
 Fathers themselves explain at large. And what need can there 
 be to make any remarks upon the second extract? Do not the 
 parts in italics exhibit most clearly the idea of the writer as a 
 Protestant one? Who amongst us but believes that, on the night 
 upon which Christ was betrayed, “ He left us the pledge of His 
 presence?” Who denies that Christ wished His benefits to con- 
 tinue with us? Is it not Protestant doctrine, and anti-Popish, 
 to call the sacrament an image, a representation of Christ's pas- 
 sion, ordered to be solemnized perpetually as an indelible memo- 
 rial of our redemption, {4 Christ comes again from heaven ? 
 Alas, what but judicial blindness could make a man fancy that he 
 
 ¢ 
 
 saw here the “ antitype to the Jewish sacrifices,” the juge sacrifi- 
 cium of the cross, awful, august, mysterious, efficacious! “ God 
 shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie,” 
 is an awful truth, but often realized. 
 
 The nine Propositions respecting the Eucharistic sacrifice, 
 which Mr. Wilberforce proposes to prove, may now be disposed 
 of without much trouble. I will take them seriatim, and see what 
 authority they have; or, if true in themselves, what pretence 
 there is to build up Popish doctrine upon them. 
 
 The first proposition, then, is: ‘‘ The thing offered in the Holy 
 Eucharist is the body of Christ.” This proposition is proved by 
 the combination of half-a-dozen scraps from Cyril and Augustine, 
 Chrysostom and Ambrose, in the same manner as the Bible is 
 made to command suicide: “ Judas went and hanged himself ;” 
 “Go and do thou likewise.” 
 
 There is no doctrine so monstrous, but may be proved in this 
 way, and from any source; and the Archdeacon’s performance is 
 
 * Ad Neoph, Bib. Pat. Max. νυ. 947. 
 
208 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 neither more respectable nor more conclusive than the preceding 
 example. I have already shewn in what sense the Fathers call 
 the Eucharist “ the body of Christ,” and how they use the phrases 
 “offering the body of Christ;” “make this bread the body of 
 thy Christ,” &c. So I shall give no more proofs—quantum 
 sufficit is better than ad nauseam. 
 
 Second proposition: ‘‘ The sacrifice offered in the Holy Eucha- 
 rist is affirmed not to be anything superadded to that on the cross, 
 por yet a repetition of it.” To prove this point were unnecessary, 
 as we all give our fullest assent to it. It is proved, however, by 
 along quotation from St. Chrysostom, beginning thus: ‘‘ What, 
 then, do we not offer every day? Certainly we do: but to make a 
 memorial of His death. And this memorial is one, and not many,” 
 &e.; which concludes, speaking of the connection of the sacri- 
 fice of the altar with that on the cross, “ This happens 77 memory 
 of that which then took place. For, ‘do this, He says, ‘7m 
 memory of me. It is not a different sacrifice as the High Priest 
 presented in former times; but we offer the same, or, rather, we 
 perform a memorial of that sacrifice.* What better Protestant 
 doctrine would one wish to read? Is it honest to bind Chry- 
 sostom to the expression, we offer the same sacrifice, when he 
 says that the expression is imaccurate, and is better expressed by 
 a memorial of that sacrifice? But this is Popery. ‘Speaking 
 lies in hypocrisy” is a faithful characteristic of that system, and 
 of all who give in their allegiance to it. Another spurious 
 passage given, it is needless to notice, though it says that the Chris- 
 tian sacrifice was instituted that “the victim might Jive continually 
 in memory, and be always present by grace.” We are quite 
 satisfied that it is so. 
 
 Third proposition: “ The victim offered in the Holy Eucharist 
 was said to be identical with Him who offered it.” Passages 
 quoted from St. Ambrose and St. Cyril to establish this point, are 
 to be interpreted exactly on the same principle as that on which 
 
 * In Epist. ad Hebr. xvii 3. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 209 
 
 any offering is spoken of, or Christ is said to be the victim. Such 
 expressions are true, figuratively, sacramentally, memorially, as 
 the Fathers themselves abundantly affirm ; in their literal signi- 
 ficance they are false and heretical. 
 
 Fourth proposition: ‘‘It was the habitual custom of ancient 
 writers to speak of the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist as awful,. 
 august, and terrible.” No doubt it was. In this they ran even 
 to excess, and used language, occasionally, which neither truth 
 nor reason could justify. But they did the same of baptism, of 
 confirmation, and of other sacred rites, which only proves either 
 that the Fathers were very devout, or that their piety was deeply 
 tinged with superstition. We do not find such excessive state- 
 ments in the mouths of the apostles, nor even in the writings of 
 the earlier Fathers. The comparative silence of the former, and 
 the “brevity” of the latter, are both acknowledged and lamented 
 by Mr. Wilberforce. 
 
 In reply to the fifth proposition,—viz., that the altar sacrifice 
 is called efficaciows,—it is sufficient to remark, that the prayers 
 and praises, and pleading of Christ’s death, have always, as now, 
 been considered efficacious. ‘‘ The effectual, fervent prayer of a 
 righteous man availeth much,” is at once a sanction for, and an 
 explanation of, such language, respecting the most solemn service 
 of the Christian Church. 
 
 Sixth proposition: “The sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist is 
 declared to have been that which the Jewish ordinances were 
 intended to typify.” When Mr. Wilberforce says, were intended 
 to typify, he says much more than his proofs support, though, 
 perhaps, not more than the Fathers sometimes assert, and we, too, 
 often declare. When it is said, in the Apostolical Constitutions, 
 that our Lord, instead of daily baptism, gave one to His Church ; 
 instead of one tribe for priesthood, He appointed the best of 
 every nation; instead of bloody sacrifices, He has given us a 
 reasonable, bloodless, mystical one; I find no sign of zntention to 
 typify manifested. I see comparison and contrast, such as our 
 
 divines now constantly make; and it must be confessed that 
 EE 
 
210 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 we go even much further than this, and sometimes declare those 
 things, which have a certain real or fancied resemblance in the 
 Old and New Testaments, as types and antitypes one of another. 
 There can be no doubt but that the Christian sacrifice of prayer 
 and thanksgiving has superseded the Jewish sacrifices ; but, to 
 say that the former were ¢tended to typify the latter, would not 
 be true: St. Paul shews, that they had their antitype in the 
 sacrifice of the cross. 
 
 The same remarks will meet the case of the seventh propo- 
 sition, which is the sixth in other words. 
 
 Eighth proposition: “ To offer the sacrifice of the Holy Eucha- 
 rist, 15. declared to be an especial office committed to the apostles 
 and their successors.” Who wouid wonder at passages innu- 
 merable being found to prove that the ministerial office had 
 the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in charge? If there be a 
 ministry at all, doubtless it must take cognizance of the most 
 solemn rite of that religion which it serves. But will this prove 
 aught for Mr. Wilberforce ? I confess I cannot see how. When 
 I turn to the writings of one better than the best of the 
 Fathers, I cannot find so much made of this particular ministerial 
 act, as Mr. Wilberforce would make of it. Listen to St. Paul: 
 “And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, 
 evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting 
 of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the 
 body of Christ,” (ph. iv., 11, 12.) I think the apostle would 
 have spoken differently, had he been impressed with the views of 
 the ‘‘ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.” 
 
 Here there is no mention of, or allusion to, that which we are 
 told was the special office of the ministry. Can any one imagine 
 the apostle so ignorant as not to know, or so thoughtless as not 
 to mention, the chief duty of even his own office? These are 
 entirely impossible suppositions ; so that no other conclusion can 
 be drawn from his omission of such reference than this, that he 
 knew not of, and therefore did not notice, the claims and preten- 
 sions which are now paraded for a proper sacrificial ministry. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 211 
 
 But, in conclusion, we are assured, that as the Church of Christ 
 is called the body of Christ, so it also is offered in the sacramental 
 oblation. “It is the offering up of the collective Church, Christ’s 
 mystical body, but it is also the offering up of Christ Himself, by 
 whom that body is sanctified.” We have seen that this idea is 
 St. Augustine’s,* who has given us with it very fully his view of 
 Christian sacrifices. 
 
 Now, in what sense can it be said that the Christian Church is 
 offered on the altar to God the Father? Are they—is it, offered 
 in a figure, or in the reality of human nature? It is hard to 
 conceive any one so mad as to assert, that the sacrifice is real, 
 not virtual—in the truth of human nature, and not in a figure. 
 Yet in what way Christ’s mystical body, the Church, is sacrificed, 
 in the same is His own true body offered on the altar. Neither 
 is offered up as though anything could be added to the sacrifice of 
 the cross, or as though that sacrifice required renewal. The 
 blood-stained sacrifice, which the one great High Priest for ever 
 pleads before the Father's throne, admits neither of increase nor 
 repetition. “ For in the Church of God,” as Leo the Great says, 
 “ which is the body of Christ, neither is the priesthood valid, nor 
 the sacrifice real (1 ¢., neither of them avails anything), unless the 
 true High Priest in our very nature reconciles us ; unless we are 
 washed in the true blood of the spotless Lamb. Who, although 
 He be placed at the Father's right hand, yet, (there) in the same 
 flesh which He took of the virgin, carries out the sacrament of 
 our propitiation ; as the apostle says, ‘Jesus Christ, who is dead, 
 yea, rather, who is risen from the dead, who is even at the right 
 hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” Nothing 
 can be more sound, and scriptural, and Protestant, than this 
 language of Leo’s ; but it is all perverted by the pretence that his 
 words mean, that the same flesh which Christ took of the virgin 
 is in the sacrament: a meaning which Leo intended not, and the 
 words will not bear without violence. Leo’s meaning is fixed 
 
 * See Appendix F, p. Ixxi. ad finem, 
 
212 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 by the quotation from the apostle; and it does seem strange that 
 any one should be so blinded as to write of this whole passage, 
 ** He who has been consecrated a priest for ever after the order of 
 Melchisedec, chooses this medium—?.e., through the elements of 
 the Eucharist—for giving effect to his perpetual intercession.” 
 Indeed, I do not think that Leo at all alludes to the Eucharist 
 in this passage, but calls our Lord’s perpetual intercession in 
 heaven, “ the carrying out of the sacrament of our propitiation ;” 
 a figure beautiful in itself, and strictly appropriate. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 218 
 
 CHEP PE ER. VEL: 
 
 A CONSIDERATION OF SOME PARTICULAR USAGES OF THE ANCIENT 
 CHURCH RESPECTING THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 I PROCEED, in the last place, to consider certain usages of the 
 ancient Church, which are alleged as confirming the assumption 
 that the words of consecration impressed not only a sacred cha- 
 racter upon the elements, but also made them readly the body and 
 blood of Christ, in the most literal sense of the words. TI shall 
 first consider those brought forward by the Archdeacon as con- 
 firmatory of his views, and then state such as, in my opinion, go 
 quite in the opposite direction. The mode of inquiry seems a fair 
 one to arrive at the opinion of those concerned, as to the sacred- 
 ness, whether relative or positive, of the sacramental elements. 
 It is hardly to be expected, however, that we shall be able to 
 gather from these usages the amount or kind of sanctity which 
 was considered to appertain to the elements, by the persons who 
 observed them. 
 
 Indeed, I do not see how it is possible for inanimate and irra- 
 tional things to have any inherent, positive holiness at all; while 
 it is evident enough that rational creatures may have. ‘Take the 
 case of any one thing whatever which we call ho/y, and it cannot 
 be said that it is so in and of itself. A church, though a conse- 
 crated building, is not ¢hws holy—it is only so in its relative 
 aspect, as devoted, set apart for the service of God. Its materials 
 are no better than those of any similar building, whether consi- 
 dered separately or in the aggregate. It is in its relationship that 
 it is to be called holy, and considered possessed of a sacred character. 
 
214 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 So also of that book called the Bible, the day known as the Sab- 
 bath, the person who is baptized, simply so considered. These 
 are all holy in a sense,—not inherently so, but relatively. The 
 case, however, is very different when we come to consider the 
 immortal part of a reasoning being. ‘There positive holiness, or 
 its absence, may be realized. There is such a thing as a saint 
 and a sinner, in the reality of the nature of each; and the Deity 
 and the devil stand apart by the necessary repulsion of their 
 opposing natures. When, therefore, we are told that ““ consecra- 
 tion is a mockery, unless the elements be rendered sacred,” we 
 wish to know what is meant, and ‘‘ withhold our consent” till we 
 areinformed. In reply, then, to the following series of questions: 
 
 ‘* How is it possible that those who admit the reality of consecration 
 should deny the efficacy of the elements? For is it not for this very 
 purpose that they are set apart? With what intention can they be 
 consecrated, except that they should be effectual ? Why is this espe- 
 cial portion separated from the element at large, except to be the 
 medium of a blessing? What other conclusion can reason dictate ὃ 
 for why should they be subjected to this ordinance, unless they are the 
 recipients of its effect ?” 
 
 We answer, why is a form of consecration observed, and why 
 is a separation of a special portion from the element in general 
 made, in the case of the water in baptism and of the materials of 
 a church ? Why are the twenty-four hours of the Sabbath sepa- 
 rated from profane uses and sanctified by divine command? The 
 answer in all these cases will be the same. There may be different 
 degrees of sacredness in the Christian offices to which these several 
 dedications or consecrations refer, but the nature and the amount 
 of sanctity in the external elements must be the same in all. 
 
 We proceed now to consider those usages which are said to 
 manifest the supposition, “ that the elements themselves under- 
 went some change, by virtue of our Lord’s words, and the power 
 of the Holy Ghost; and that, through the consecration bestowed 
 upon them, they became the media of a certain mysterious bene- 
 fit.” The first mentioned is this :— 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Pat, 
 
 “ It appears to have been a custom from the very first for bishops to 
 send the consecrated elements to one another, as a sign of intercommu- 
 nion. ‘This is mentioned, as an ancient usage, by St. [renzus (in his 
 letter to Victor), towards the end of the second century. Here we see 
 the same purpose, which is explained by Pope Innocent, in the fourth 
 century. ‘ The consecrated elements,’ he says, ‘ were sent from the 
 cathedral to the dependent churches of the city, in order that all might 
 feel themselves bound together in one communion.’ But what would 
 have been the meaning of this, unless the elements had been supposed 
 to gain some especial sanctity by consecration ?” 
 
 Now, surely the Archdeacon is not ignorant that a feast upon 
 a sacrifice was the common custom, not only of believers, whether 
 Jews or Christians, but also of heathens, as a token at once of 
 their union with the Deity, whom they worshipped, and of com- 
 munion with each other. The term κοινωνία, “ communion,” 
 which was applied as an ordinary designation of this sacrament, 
 must, in addition to the former ideas of the early converts, whether 
 Jews or heathen, have led them to look upon joint participation 
 as the most satisfactory evidence of Christian brotherhood, as it 
 was its surest seal. The Ayape of the primitive Church had their 
 origin in the same idea and intent, and were certainly derived 
 from the same source. ‘These were continued for many ages in 
 the Church, and generally in connection with the Eucharistic cele- 
 bration. The origin and mode of conducting them is thus abridged 
 by Riddle from Siegel :—‘‘ The Greek word Agape (ἀγάπη), which 
 signifies love or charity, is used in ecclesiastical antiquities to 
 denote a certain feast, of which all members of the Church, of 
 whatever rank or condition, partook together, intended to denote 
 and cherish those dispositions of humility and brotherly affection 
 which the Gospel prescribes to the disciples of Jesus. In the 
 New Testament, the word occurs only once in this sense of feast 
 of charity, or love-feast,—namely, in the Epistle of St. Jude, 
 verse 12, and there it is found in the plural number; but the 
 observance itself is alluded to in the sacred records, under other 
 names, as meat, tables (Acts ii., 46; vi. 2). The word was re- 
 tained by ecclesiastical writers, but not to the exclusion of other 
 
216 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 significant appellations:—e. g., συμπόσια, banquets ; κοιναὶ τράπεζαι, 
 public tables ; κοιναὶ ἐστιάσεις, public Jeasts ; δεῖπνα κοινά, public 
 suppers. ‘This use of the term ᾿Αγάπη is not found in the writings 
 of any profane authors before the Christian era; but it occurs in 
 the works of Plutarch and Celsus, who doubtless borrowed it from 
 the Christians. . 
 
 “ It is certain that the feast of charity was celebrated in the 
 earliest period of the Christian Church (see Acts ii., 46; vi., 2; 
 1 Cor. xi., 16—84). Some writers suppose that this custom had 
 its remote origin in the practice of the heathen ; while others 
 regard it as derived from the Jewish synagogue. But it is, per- 
 haps, stiJ] more probable that it originated simply in the circum 
 stances of our Lord’s last supper with His disciples; or that, at all 
 events, it is to be attributed entirely to the genius of a religion 
 which is eminently a bond of brotherly union and concord among 
 its sincere professors. 
 
 “ In the earliest accounts which have come down to us, we find 
 that the bishop, or presbyter, presided at these feasts (Justin 
 Martyr, Apolog. 2; see also 1 Cor., xii). It does not appear 
 whether the food was dressed in the place appointed for the cele- 
 bration of the feast, or was previously prepared by individual 
 members of the Church at their own homes; but perhaps either 
 of these plans was adopted indifferently, according to circum- 
 stances. Before eating, the guests washed their hands, and a 
 public prayer was offered up. A portion of Scripture was then 
 read, and the president proposed some questions upon it, which 
 were answered by the persons present. After this, any accounts 
 which had been received respecting the affairs of other churches 
 were recited; for, at that time, such accounts were regularly 
 transmitted from one community to another, by means of which 
 all Christians became acquainted with the history and condition 
 of the whole body, and were thus enabled to sympathize with, and 
 in many cases to assist, each other. Letters from bishops and 
 other eminent members of the Church, together with the acts of 
 the martyrs, were also recited on this occasion ; and hymns or 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Pally; 
 
 psalms were sung (Cyprian, Hy. de Spectac.; 'Tertull. de Coron, 
 ce. 8; Socrat. Hist. Hecl. lib. v., c. 22). At the close of the 
 feast, money was collected for the benefit of widows and orphans, 
 the poor, prisoners, and persons who had suffered shipwreck. 
 Before the meeting broke up, all the members of the Church 
 embraced each other, in token of mutual brotherly love; and the 
 whole ceremony was concluded with a philanthropic prayer. 
 (Justin Mart. Apol. ii.; Origen in Ep. ad Rom. xvi., 16).* 
 
 Jt cannot be assumed, then, that the custom which at one time 
 existed, of sending the consecrated elements to the absent, whether 
 of home or foreign churches, was founded on the supposition 
 “that the elements themselves conveyed some special gift.” In 
 fact, long after the custom referred to had been authoritatively 
 abolished, because of abuses,—(and why should it have been abo- 
 lished, if the elements conveyed some special gift ?),—other 
 means were used to express the same idea of intercommunion. 
 There were, to be sure, always many modes in which the same 
 thing was shewn ;t but when a close copy of the prohibited trans- 
 
 * Riddle’s Chris. Ant., pp. 728—730. 
 
 + “ Where we find, that not only the present members were all communicants, but 
 they that were absent had it sent to them by the hands of a deacon, to testify that, 
 while they were absent upon any lawful occasion, they were still reputed to be in the 
 communion of the Church. Thus, Justin Martyr says, [Justin. Apol. ii. p. 98. Vid. 
 Justinian. Novel. 123. cap. 36. Aut sanctam eis communionem portandam], the same 
 Eucharist, which was received by them that were present, was carried by the deacons 
 to the absent. For as they prayed for those that were absent, upon a probable or rea- 
 sonable cause, so they allowed them to communicate in the same sacrament also. Upon 
 this account, as we have seen before [b. xv. c. 2. s. 5], the Eucharist at Rome, in the time 
 of Melchiades, Siricius, and Innocent, was usually sent from the bishop’s Church to the 
 tituli, or lesser churches, for the presbyters ministering in those churches to commu- 
 nicate with him, and, as some think [Maurice of Diocesan Episcopacy, p. 39], for the 
 whole congregations also. For they suppose, that at first there was but one altar in 
 a city, and that at the mother Church, where the bishop ministered, and consecrated 
 the Eucharist, and sent it thence to the lesser congregations. And so they understand 
 even that passage in Justin Martyr. JI rather think, the presbyters had the privilege 
 to consecrate the Eucharist in their own churches; but, however, a portion of the 
 Eucharist was for all that sent them by the bishop from his own Church, to testify 
 that they were in communion with him: he did not send to the country churches, 
 because the sacraments were not to be carried to places at too great a distance, as 
 Tnnocent words it in his letter to Decentius. Yet, in case of testifying their commu- 
 nion with foreign bishops, they were wont to send it to far distant churches. As 
 
 FF 
 
218 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 action was made and regularly used, we see at once what was 
 the idea which the same persons had in the interchange of the 
 consecrated elements. If other means were thought to express 
 the same thing, which were substituted for the sacred elements 
 after their interchange was prohibited, it is evident that the pri- 
 mitive Christians did not imagine that any greater gift was 
 bestowed in the one case than in the other, though the greater 
 sanctity of the consecrated elements would naturally add a greater 
 sanction to the transaction than any substitute could give. 
 
 It is to be feared that the causes which led to some other pecu- 
 liar usages, were not so laudable or so innocent as the foregoing. 
 The respect which ought to be given to the Eucharist was not 
 given in the apostles’ days by the Corinthian converts; but it is 
 very apparent that excess in the other direction became common 
 very early in the Church. The foolish reserve which the Chris- 
 tians adopted, and the “mystical” terms which they employed 
 when referring to the Eucharist especially, gave the heathen a 
 
 Irenzus, in his Epistle to Pope Victor [Ap. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24], when he menaced 
 the Asiatic Churches with excommunication for their different way of observing Easter, 
 tells him his predecessors never thought of such rough proceedings against them ; but, 
 notwithstanding this difference, always sent them the Eucharist to testify their com- 
 munion with them. Valesius [Vales. in locum.] and others observe the same in the 
 Acts [Acta Lucien. ap. Metaphrast. 7. Jan.] of Lucian the martyr, and Paulinus’s 
 [Paulin. Ep. 1. ad Severum.] epistle to Severus. This was chiefly, if not solely, done 
 at the Paschal festival, in token of their unity, love, and charity. But the couneil of 
 Laodicea [Cone. Laodic. can. 13. Περὲ τοῦ μὴ τὰ ἅγια εἰς λόγον εὐλογιῶν 
 κατὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν τοῦ πάσχα εἰς ἑτέρας παροικίας διαπέμπεσθαι], for some 
 inconveniences attending the practice, absolutely forbade it; ordering that the holy 
 sacraments should not be sent from one diocese to another, under the notion of 
 eulogia, or benedictions, at the Easter festival. Yet, in some places, the custom con 
 
 tinued for several ages after. For Johannes Moschus [Mosch. Pratum Spiritual. cap. 
 29] speaks of the communion being sent from one monk to another at six miles’ 
 distance: not to mention again the custom of sending the Eucharist by Paulinus, and 
 the bishops of Rome, from the motlier Church to all the other churches throughout the 
 city in every region. But where they left off this custom of sending the Eucharist, 
 they introduced another way of testifying their mutual love and amity to one another, 
 by certain symbols of bread, which they blessed and sanctified also in imitation of the 
 EKucharist, but with a different benediction. And to these, also, they gave the names 
 of eulogie and panis benedictus (consecrated bread), which the modern Greeks call 
 ἀντίδωρα (vicarious gifts), because they were given in many cases instead of the 
 Eucharist.” 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 219 
 
 handle, and laid the foundation for many charges which were 
 brought against them by their unscrupulous adversaries. Perhaps 
 the very different estimate which was made of them by the heathen 
 in Pliny’s time, and subsequently, was, in some degree, due to the 
 language and conduct of the Christians themselves. For when 
 the governor of Bythinia wrote to Trajan respecting this “ trouble- 
 some’ sect, he had nothing to allege against them, as ‘Tertullian 
 wel] remarks, in his apology to Severus. “ For,” says he, “ the 
 second Pliny, while governor of a province, when some Christians 
 had been condemned, some degraded, being nevertheless troubled 
 by their very numbers, asked of Trajan (then emperor) what he 
 should do for the future ; alleging that, excepting their obstinacy 
 in not sacrificing, he had discovered nothing else touching their 
 religious mysteries, save meetings before day-break, to sing to 
 Christ as God, and to form a common bond of discipline: for- 
 bidding murder, adultery, fraud, perjury, and other crimes.”* Now, 
 this clear account of a heathen contrasts strangely with the inti- 
 mations contained in the passage of Tertullian, ad wsxorem, 
 to which reference is made in the “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucha- 
 rist,’ on the subject of the private partaking of the Eucharist. In 
 that letter, having quoted the caution of our Lord, not to cast 
 pearls before swine, he says, “‘ Your pear/s are the notes of your 
 daily conversation. The more you take care to hide them, the 
 more suspected wilt thou make them, and the more needful to 
 guard against heathen (her husband’s) curiosity. Wilt thou 
 escape notice when thou signest thy bed, thy little body (corpus 
 culum, the husband's term of endearment) ? when with thy breath 
 thou blowest away anything unclean ? when thou risest even in 
 the night to pray? and wilt thou not be thought to be working 
 somewhat of sorcery? Will not thy husband know what thou 
 tastest in secret before all food? and if he knoweth it to be bread, 
 will he not believe it to be that which is reported? And will any 
 man, not knowing the reason, simply bear with these things with- 
 
 * Pliny’s Ep. x., 97. 
 
220 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 out a groan? without a suspicious doubt whether it be bread or a 
 charm? Some do bear with them, but that they may trample on, 
 that they may mark such women, whose secrets they reserve for 
 the danger which they believe will come.”* 
 
 Now, in this passage, it is remarkable what use is made of 
 secresy on all sides. Tertullian deems it necessary—the wife 
 religiously observes—the husband misinterprets it. It was this 
 secresy, joined with an exaggerated estimate of the sanctity or 
 virtue of the consecrated elements, which led to the charges of 
 magic and charms, so constantly alleged against the Christians in 
 early ages. This practice of reservation and private communion 
 (if the terms be not a contradiction), having originated, as we 
 have seen, in the sending of the elements to the absent and sick 
 members of a Church, and also to others more distant, as a bond 
 of brotherhood, and a token of communion, was abolished at 
 last, on account of the many abuses which grew out of it. It 
 was a superstitious feeling which lay at the bottom of this prac- 
 tice, and not the idea that the elements were the veritable body 
 and blood, soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Mr. Wilberforce says, “ all these circumstances imply that the 
 elements themselves were supposed to gain a sanctity, which made 
 them the means of communicating the gift, which was sought for 
 in the Holy Eucharist; and, therefore, that the blessing was 
 believed to be bound up with the thing itself, and not to depend 
 merely upon the coincident action of the parties.” ‘This language 
 is indefinite, and, therefore, ambiguous. There are few Christians 
 who think other than that the elements gain a sanctity—relative 
 sanctity—from the consecration, and are made “‘ameans” of com- 
 municating what they signify to the worthy recipient ; but that 
 this should be made a basis for the belief of a substantial change 
 in the bread and wine is certainly astonishing. With the idea 
 that this change brings the true body of Christ into the elements, 
 the “usages” are altogether at variance. For, however much 
 
 * Ad uxorem, ii., 5. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. P22) || 
 
 respect men paid, or virtue they attributed, to the reserved por- 
 tion of the Eucharist, yet the mode in which they dealt with it 
 shews plainly that they had not the transubstantiated idea of it. 
 This is manifest enough, not only from the consideration of the 
 usages per se, but also demonstrably so, when compared with the 
 totally different ones of the modern Church of Rome. 
 
 Now, those usages to which I have referred, were such as the 
 following :—In the case of Gregory Nazianzen’s sister, Gorgonia, 
 to which the Archdeacon makes reference, as proving reservation 
 and private participation, we are told that she made a plaster, or 
 salve, of the consecrated elements, with which she anointed her 
 body, as a cure for her corporeal malady. Here, certainly, we 
 have evidence of superstition, but none whatever of the impression 
 which it is suggested must have prevailed from the former part of 
 this transaction. A similar case is mentioned by St. Augustine, 
 who tells us that, when a physician proposed to use mechanical 
 means to open theeyelids of a boy, whose eyes were thought to 
 be perfect, “‘ his pious mother would not suffer it; but what the 
 physician would have done with his lancet, she effected with a 
 plaster made of the sacrament; the child, being then five years 
 old or upwards, said that he remembered it very well.”* 
 
 The practice of burying the Eucharist with the dead was also a 
 custom savouring of superstition, and shewing that some idea of 
 its acting as a charm was prevalent, but not that it was deemed 
 what the Papists deem it now. In the “‘ Life of St. Basil,” attri- 
 buted to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconia, we read that “ St. 
 Basil, dividing the bread into three parts, took one with great 
 fear, and that he reserved the other to be buried with him; and 
 that, having put the third parcel upon a golden pigeon, he waved 
 it upon the altar, or, as it is said afterwards, upon the holy 
 08.016. A Council of Carthage, assembled in the year 419, con- 
 demned this practice in one of its canons, which is the eighteenth 
 in the code of canons of the Church of Africa. “It hath been 
 
 *« Aug. Oper. imperf. contr. Julian., 1. iii, c. 164, 
 + Vita Basil, c. 8, in Vit. Pat., 1. i. 
 
222 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 resolved, not to give the Eucharist unto dead bodies ; for it is 
 written, ‘Take and eat; now dead bodies can neither take nor 
 eat.”* Gregory the First, in his dialogues, relates the following 
 story of a youth that was a friar, and that having gone out of the 
 monastery to see his parents, without the benediction, died the 
 same day that he came home; and, after he had been buried, 
 next day the body was found cast out of the grave; and, having 
 been buried a second time, the same accident happened again: 
 then the friars speedily went unto S. Bennet, and prayed him with 
 tears to shew favour unto the deceased party, ‘‘ unto whom, saith 
 Gregory, the man of God, with his own hands gave the commu= 
 nion of the body of the Lord, saying, Go and lay this body of the 
 Lord with reverence, upon his breast, and so bury him; which 
 being done, the earth received and retained his body, and cast it 
 out no more.’ + 
 
 In some churches, the practice was to burn the sacramental 
 remains. ‘This was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem, as 
 Hesychius, a presbyter of that Church, testifies in his “ Lectures 
 on Leviticus.” In other churches, as Evagrius tells us in his his- 
 tory, a different course was adopted. He says—“ It was an ancient 
 custom in the Church of Constantinople, that when several parcels 
 of the immaculate body of Christ our God remained, young chil- 
 dren were sent for from school, unto whom they were given to eat.’ 1 
 To obviate which not quite seemly proceeding, several decrees 
 were made, that no more should be consecrated than could be con- 
 sumed, if not in the ordinance, at least by the communicants 
 immediately afterwards, before parting.§ 
 
 Another custom which existed, wholly inconsistent with the idea 
 of transubstantiation, was the mixing the ink, wherewith solemn 
 documents were written, with some consecrated wine, as was done 
 by Pope Theodore, in the seventh century, when he signed the 
 condemnation and deposition of Pyrrhus, a Monotholite, as is 
 
 * Cod. can. Eccles. Afric. just. 1. c. 18. T. 1. Concil. Gall. c. 12. 
 + Greg. 1. Dial. 1. 2. 
 | Evagr. Ilist., 1. iv., 6. 35. § See Clement's Ep. 2. Conc. Toled. xvi., c. 6. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 223 
 
 related by Cardinal Baronius. “ Pyrrhus,” says he, “ having left 
 Rome, and being arrived at Ravenna, returned like the dog unto his 
 vomit; which, Pope Theodorus understanding, he assembled the 
 whole Church, and went unto the sepulchre of the chief of the 
 apostles, and, asking for the holy cup, he poured the quickening 
 blood into the ink,* and so with his own hand signed the depo- 
 sition of Pyrrhus, who had been excommunicated.” So it was also 
 done by the eighth Council of Constantinople, assembled against 
 Photius, in the year 869. For the bishops subscribed the depo- 
 sition of Photius, with pens dipped not in ink only, but in the 
 blood of Christ itself.+ 
 
 Now, we cannot help seeing that, although the usages adduced 
 by the Archdeacon go to the length of shewing, that great and 
 superstitious respect was generally paid to the sacramental em- 
 blems in the ancient Church, which all my own instances equally 
 prove, they do not at all establish the point which he wishes 
 them to make good, while mine establish quite the contrary. 
 In fact, it is improbable in the highest degree,—that is, it is 
 impossible, if the practice of adoration had existed in the primi- 
 tive Church, in consequence of an idea of the actual presence of 
 Christ's body and blood,—but that the thing would appear in the 
 plainest possible manner. It would no more have been left to 
 hints and deductions, than it is now left in the Church of Rome. 
 In addition to this consideration, the actual existence of prac- 
 tices wholly inconsistent with the modern Romish idea, makes the 
 conviction inevitable, that there are no grounds in antiquity for 
 the peculiar doctrines of Trent, but that they are novel as well 
 as unscriptural—as unknown to the early Churches as to the 
 evangelists and apostles themselves. 
 
 The custom which also existed in some places, of not consecra- 
 ting on certain days, as inauspicious, and of reserving, as possessing 
 more virtue, that consecrated on a high festival, equally shew that 
 
 * Apud. Baron. an 648, sec. 15. 
 + In anteact. Synod. t. vi., Concil. p. 896, For other instances and authorities, 
 see L’Arroque, bk. i. cap. 16. 
 
224 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the fallacy of the present Romish Church had no place in the 
 ancient. For how could it be possibly imagined that transub- 
 stantiation was less effectually performed, or, being performed, 
 less effectual in its operation, on one occasion than on another ? 
 If the change were always made, “ the gift” must have been ever 
 the same, and “ the virtue” invariable. The preference of days 
 for consecrating, and the supposed varying efficiency of the sacred 
 gifts, are absolutely subversive of the Popish figment, unless we 
 are prepared to assent to the monstrous doctrine, that the body 
 and blood of Christ have more virtue in them one day than 
 another, and that the supplies of spiritual food from the heavenly 
 garner are properly distinguished as better and worse. 
 “But,” says the Archdeacon,— 
 
 «A further proof is supplied by the manner in which Christ was 
 asserted to communicate Himself, as a whole, in every portion of the 
 consecrated elements. For though the Holy Eucharist was admin- 
 istered in all Churches under both kinds, until the twelfth century— 
 and the contrary practice was forbidden by Gelasius, when the Mani- 
 cheeans, who thought the use of wine unlawful, refused to partake of 
 it, yet both kinds were held to communicate one gift, which was sup- 
 posed to be imparted perfectly through every portion of either element. 
 It is obvious, then, that the intervention of the elements themselves, 
 was looked to as the appointed means of conveying the blessing. The 
 ancient notion was identical with that which was laid down bv the Greek 
 Church at the Council of Jerusalem, a.D. 1672 :*—‘ We believe that in 
 
 * We were promised “anti-Nicene” authorities, or such as did not “ go lower than 
 the eminent divines who were contemporary with the first four councils of the ancient 
 Church,” when we began the “Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist;” but we have been 
 brought down now to less than two hundred years ago, for illustration, if not for 
 authority. Let the reader say what is to be thought of this illustration or authority, 
 whichever it be, when he has read the following extract from Dr. Covel’s account of 
 this so-called “council.” Plenty of similar doings are to be found recorded in Mons. 
 Claude’s “ Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist,” bk. ii.:—~ Mons. Arnauld had written 
 a treatise La Perpetuite, &e.—‘ The Perpetuity of the Faith of the Catholic Church 
 concerning the Eucharist, designed chiefly, as I have been often told, to have brought 
 over a marshal of France to the Church of Rome. The famous Mons. Claude wrote 
 against him, and at last, among other points of controversy between them, this was 
 insisted on as a grand question, whether the present Greek Church did own transub- 
 stantiation or not. Mons. Arnauld affirmed that it did—Mons. Claude as positively 
 denied it. The Romish emissaries, who had been for a long time sowing this new 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 225 
 
 every portion, even to the minutest subdivision, of the bread and wine 
 after they have been changed, are contained not any separate part of 
 the body and blood of the Lord; but the body of Christ is always 
 whole, and one in all its parts; and the Lord Jesus is present in His 
 
 doctrine up and down among the Greeks (as is above noted), were immediately set on 
 work to see now what crop they might reap thereby, in order to support Mons. Arnauld’s 
 assertion. Jn this effort they did not apply themselves so much to ordinary priests, or 
 others of a lower rank, as they aimed at the chief and leading men among them; having 
 well known, and everywhere practised all along that saying, ‘ Smite the shepherds, and 
 the sheep will be scattered ; if by any ways or means they could but prevent or secure 
 the great one, the rest would not much trouble either themselves or them. The great 
 men, however, were very wary and cautious at first, and gave but very cold or insigni- 
 ficant answers to either their private letters or personal demands ; according to Nec- 
 tarius’s advice to Paisius (in an epistle which I have by me in MSS.), who bade him 
 not give Friar Lazarus (who had solicited him for his opinion concerning the Eucha- 
 rist) so much as the very Lord’s Prayer in writing under his hand, for he and the rest 
 of the emissaries came slyly and craftily to traduce and disturb our affairs; and he told 
 him that the Pope himself, desiring such a confession, should not get it. Seeing, 
 therefore, that no private man, by word of mouth, or letter, could do any good in prose- 
 cuting this affair, it was at last concluded that the Marquis de Nointel (then the King 
 of France’s ambassador at Constantinople), being a man of address and of great devo- 
 tion, and now in so powerful a post, was the most proper man to undertake and effect 
 the weighty matter. His first attempt was upon Parthenius, the patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, in June and July, 1671, but could not prevail. He had at the same time, it is 
 said, been treating with Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, from whom he received the 
 declaration, called the synod of Bethlehem or Jerusalem. It is most evident that the 
 Latins (the Jesuits and others swarming about the French court at Galata) furnished 
 the main materials of this specious fabric; and it is possible enough that Dositheus 
 might be prevailed with, and did undertake to reduce and model them as we now have 
 them. For, first, the French ambassador, in his certificate, says thus expressly :— 
 ‘ Dositheus, the present patriarch of Jerusalem, coming to Constantinople, has declared 
 unto us that he had fully satisfied that which we had desired of him, following the 
 advices which he had received by our letters about it.’ Itis plain, then, that the French 
 ambassador put him upon this design; and what those advices were, I think no man 
 can be so stupid as not to imagine. They were, without all doubt, that the Greeks 
 should particularly declare, that all the points, especially that of transubstantiation, 
 which were asserted by Mons. Arnauld, in his controversy between him and Mons. 
 Claude, were orthodox, or according to the doctrine of the Greek Church; and, from 
 what shall here follow, I cannot but think that these points were specified, and many 
 of them set down in words at length by the Latins which were about the ambassador, 
 and sent to Dositheus by his order; for the ambassador did not understand Greek him- 
 self, and, therefore, could not treat with the patriarch but by interpreters. From whom 
 but from the French had Dositheus these notices of the heretical books and writings of 
 Mons. Claude, and that he was a Calvinist minister at Charenton? To my knowledge 
 Dositheus, with whom I conversed very frequently, knew then neither Latin nor 
 French. Whence, then, came he by all the school divinity and Latin notions which 
 we meet withal in his decrees ?”—Covel’s Account of the Greek Church, pp. 136, 146. 
 GG 
 
226 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 substance, that is, with His soul and divinity, as perfect God and 
 perfect man.’ "— Doct. of H. Euch., pp. 70, 71. 
 
 It is really amusing, while melancholy, to witness the infatua- 
 tion which can make a man pen such a sentence as the one just 
 quoted. With the most perfect perception of the fact, that, in 
 accordance With the terms of institution, the Eucharist was ad- 
 ministered in all Churches, both of the East and West, till the 
 twelfth century, ἐμ both kinds, with the exception of the Mani- 
 cheans, and with an emphatic condemnation of the contrary 
 practice by Pope Gelasius on his lips, Mr. Wilberforce actually 
 begins and ends his sentence with a virtual contradiction of the 
 facts which he states, and an approval of the practice which he 
 acknowledges has been on all hands condemned. The doctrine 
 taught in the extracts from the Ambrosian liturgy, and from 
 Cesarius, is by no means different from Protestant doctrine, 
 which is, that the efficiency of Eucharistic communion does not at 
 all depend upon the quantity of the elements partaken of, which 
 can only be true if that which is received be spiritual grace and 
 effective virtue. For if the substance of Christ's even-glorified 
 body be there, it must occupy space, or it is no body. A body 
 must have parts and extension, or it is not one according to 
 our ideas of a body; and if such be the case, the more of the 
 elements are received, the more of that which they convey is 
 received under them. ΤῸ argue upon the properties of glorified 
 bodies,* of which we know nothing at all, in order to bolster up 
 
 * Perhaps a more hopeless case of jumble, “ confusion worse confounded,” could 
 hardly be found than the following lucid summary of bis antecedent discoveries by 
 the Archdeacon. Here are his own words :—“ The brief sketch which has been given, 
 shows the various modes of expression which were employed in the early Church 
 respecting the Holy Eucharist, and what were the several circumstances which gave 
 their impress to its piiraseology. And it is obvious that, if it were made a question, 
 in what manner our Lord’s presence in the Holy Eucharist was supposed to be brought 
 about, and still more if it were requisite to explain this process, in terms which all 
 parties in the ancient Church would have been prepared to accept, the inquiry would 
 involve considerable difficulty. It would be necessary to find some mode of adjust- 
 ment between the tendency of the eastern school, as it has been called, on one side, 
 
 and that of the opponents of Eutychianism on the other. The former tendency went 
 so far, in some instances, as to imply that the outward part retained no real existence at 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. R227 
 
 what we do know to be absurdities, manifests more of subtilty than 
 honesty in him who employs it, and more of credulity than wisdom 
 in those who are influenced thereby. There is no deduction of 
 reason but may be abandoned, no suggestion of common sense 
 but may be renounced, if the possibilities in a future state, or the 
 baseless dreams of a deluded imagination, be taken as a guide in 
 this matter-of-fact world of ours. 
 But we are told,— 
 
 “Tt was a consequence of this doctrine, that when circumstances 
 debarred men from the regular reception of the elements in both kinds, 
 they were yet believed to receive the whole blessing through that medium 
 which remained to them. The mention of bread only, when the Holy 
 Eucharist was received in private houses, leads to the conclusion that 
 
 all: the latter led to language which might be represented to mean that it was wholly unal- 
 tered. The more scientific statements of the school of St. Augustine did not harmonize 
 exactly with either. And, consequently, the theory subsequently maintained by Aquinas, 
 that the substance of our Lord’s hody and blood supersedes that of the bread and wine, 
 while, so far as the senses go, the latter remain wholly unaltered, was an explanation 
 of the mode in which our Lord’s presence is brought about, which did not exactly 
 accord with the statements of any early party.” Here, then, we have, I know not how 
 many, different ‘‘ modes of expression,’—that is, different ideas,—on the Eucharist :— 
 1. That of the eastern school, “ which went so far, in some instances, as to imply that 
 the outward part retained no real existence at all” (which we might have imagined of 
 the fanciful children of the Orient, and their poetic and flowery language’. 2. That 
 of the Eutychian school, which adopted “language, which might be represented to 
 mean that it was wholly unaltered” (which would not be far from the truth). 38. That 
 “ of the school of St. Augustine, which did not harmonize exactly with either” 4. ‘That 
 “subsequently maintained by Aquinas ... which did not exactly accord with the 
 statements of any early party.” 5. Then comes the Wilberforcean school, which some- 
 times “ combines,” “ unites,’ the sacramentum and the res sacramenti “ into one 
 whole,” sometimes transubstantiates that into this; defining Christ's presence as “ a 
 manifold,” “adynamic,” presence. But this is not all; we must add a sixth, if not a 
 seventh school; for ‘‘ It has been disputed whether the system of Aquinas really im- 
 plies that the elements retain the power of nourishment; and therefore, whether the 
 elements, considered as objects of sense, can still be said to be present. For the pro- 
 cess by which the digestive organs supply the body with nourishment, is one of which 
 the senses can take note. Now Aristotle, and the schoolmen after him, taught that 
 food nourishes through the transference of its substance to the party nourished. And 
 Aquinas supposes the substance to be the thing changed. But then Aquinas and 
 his followers maintained, first, that Christ's body does not nourish our bodies in 
 the Holy Eucharist. [“ Corpus Christi est cibus mentis, non ventris; anime non 
 corporis.”—Opuse. lix., 6, and vide Summa, 111., 77,6. Catechis. Trident Pars. ii., De 
 Euch. Sac. 50.] Secondly, that our bodies are nourished by the sensible elements. 
 [Vide Suarez de Sacram. Disp. lvii., 3. Cat. Trid. ib. 39.] And for this Aquinas 
 
SE ee a ee ee ee ee 
 
 228 THE TRUE DOCIRINE 
 
 it was partaken in that kind alone. The story of Serapion, as related 
 by Eusebius, shows that this was supposed sufficient in the case of the 
 sick, and from a circumstance recorded by St. Cyprian, we learn that 
 infants were communicated under the other kind only.” 
 
 These circumstances appear to me to be, not a consequence of 
 a belief in transubstantiation, or of “‘ whole Christ,” being con- 
 tained in each particle of either element, but from the idea either 
 that the sacrament acted as a charm, or else it was the result of 
 necessity. This is the opinion of Neander, who is referred to by 
 Mr. Wilberforce in a note, as acknowledging the existence of this 
 half communion in private houses. He says: 
 
 ΤΠ those cases, however, where the custom of daily communion 
 still prevailed; but divine service was held, and the sacramental supper 
 consecrated, only one or twice on Sunday and Friday, or, at most, but 
 four times a week, on Sunday, Saturday, Wednesday, and Friday, no 
 other course remained for those who were desirous of having the body 
 of the Lord for their daily nourishment, except to take home with them 
 a portion of the consecrated bread—for a superstitious dread prevented 
 them from taking with them the wine, which might be so easily spilled— 
 and to reserve it for future use, so that now they might every day, 
 before engaging in any worldly employment, participate of the sacra- 
 ment, and consecrate’and strengthen themselves by communion with 
 the Lord. In voyages by sea, also, Christians were in the habit of 
 
 accounted by saying that, afier consecration, the buik [quantitas] took the place of the 
 substance, or, in other words, that when the substance was said to be changed, the term 
 substance was not to be understood in so wide a sense as that in which it was employed 
 by Aristotle. It is thus stated by De Marea: “ The substance was supposed to exist 
 as something separate from the bulk of the bread, so that this bulk might exist natur- 
 ally by itself, without any new miracle, whatever Aristotle may say.”"—{Traite de 
 YEucharistic, works, vol. τ. p. 125.] Thus, as I had before occasion to remark, we 
 have resuscitated the science as well as the theology of the middle ages. “ Bulk” 
 nourishes after the substance has been removed! I do not see why shape (figura) and 
 colour (color) should not have their part in the operation as well as “bulk.” There is 
 bulk in a brick or a bundle of straw; why should not either of these nourish as well 
 as a loaf of bread, if bulk only does it? Perhaps, however, itis so. The bul& of what 
 we eat makes us sfout; its colour decides our complexion—so that he who feeds on red 
 wheat will be ruddy, on white, pale ; and we are tall or short according as our food was 
 that or this. What Buifon (I think) says of the stag’s horns being the developments 
 of the branches upon which it fed, is, perhaps, the sober deduction of philosophic 
 truth! Such is the rubbish for which we are asked to renounce the use of reason and 
 of revelation together. God forbid! 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 229 
 
 taking with them a portion of the consecrated bread, so as to have it in 
 their power to partake of the sacrament by the way.* This abuse, so 
 contradictory to the original design of the Holy Supper, whereby it was 
 converted into a sort of amulet, was the occasion, too, of bringing about 
 the first deviation from the original form of institution ; for Christians 
 were now satisfied when they partook of the consecrated bread without 
 the cup.” 
 
 The case of Serapion was one of necessity rather than of super- 
 ‘stition, on the part both of himself and of the priest concerned ; 
 though so much cannot be said of Eusebius, who relates the 
 story. It is thus given by the historian: 
 
 “Dionysius, in his letter to Fabius, by way of reflection upon 
 the uncharitable determination of Novatus, tells a story of Se- 
 rapion, an old man, that had apostatised, and done sacrifice; and, 
 therefore, his absolution had been from time to time deferred. This 
 poor, unhappy wretch, falling into a dangerous illness, lost his speech 
 and his senses for four days together; when, a little recovering both, 
 he sent in all haste for a presbyter. The presbyter was himself sick 
 in bed, and unable to visit lim, but he sent him a consecrated viaticum, 
 So soon as his child (that had been the messenger), was approaching, 
 before he had yet set eyes on him, he recovered his speech again, which 
 in the interim had failed ; and directed him, since the presbyter could 
 not come in person, to give him what he had ordered, and release him. 
 Accordingly he received it, and immediately expired.” 
 
 This story of Serapion, and that of the childt referred to by 
 
 * See Ambros. oratio funebris de obitu fratris Satyri. This notion of a magical 
 virtue residing in the bread, is illustrated by an example which Ambrose here relates 
 in the case of his own brother. The latter, at some period before he had received 
 baptism, being on board a ship which ran ashore, and was wrecked, obtained from some 
 of his fellow-voyagers who had been baptized, a portion of the consecrated bread, which 
 they carried with them. This he bound round his neck, and then confidently threw 
 himself into the sea. He was the first to get to the land, and, of course, ascribed his 
 deliverance to the power of this charm. 
 
 + It is melancholy to see on what vicious foundations such men as the Archdeacon 
 build their faith. Leaving the Bible, which they feel will not support them, they run 
 off to the Fathers, and catch at aught which can be twisted into a support of their 
 system. I leave the reader to say what is to be thought of Cyprian for writing the 
 following, which is the authority referred to :—‘ Listen to an event that took place in 
 my own presence, and on my own testimony. Some parents who made their escape, 
 in the thoughtlessness of terror left behind them at nurse an infant daughter, whom 
 the nurse, finding in her hands, gave over to the magistrates, Unable, through its 
 
230 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Mr. Wilberforce, are good examples of the superstitious views 
 
 which were held in the second and third centuries on the subject 
 
 of the holy Eucharist. It was not so much as vehicles of spiritual 
 
 good, as charms for the averting of temporal evils, that the re- 
 
 served elements were sought and used; and it is to be feared that 
 
 the same erroneous impression accompanied the communicants to 
 
 the altar in the Church. What was the exact idea connected with 
 
 the word ezaticum by the ancients, it may not be quite easy satis-- 
 factorily to educe; but if it were that of the modern Church of 
 Rome, it was, that the elements acted as a charm for the soul in 
 
 its exit from earth, as they had been deemed before in the delivery 
 of the body from temporal evils. 
 
 Here, again, in the midst of abuses which it grieves the mind to 
 
 see, and growing out of superstitious practices and unwarranted 
 expectations regarding the Holy Supper, are many evidences that 
 
 tender years, to eat flesh, they gave it, before an idol to which the crowd assembled, 
 bread mingled with some wine, which, however, was remains of that which had been 
 used in the soul-slaughter of perishing Christians. The mother afterwards got back 
 her child; but the infant was as unable to express and make known the act that had 
 been committed, as she had before been to understand or to prevent it. Through 
 ignorance, therefore, it arose, that, when we were sacrificing, the mother brought it 
 in with her. The child, however, mixed with the holy congregation, could not bear. 
 our prayers and worship: it was at one moment convulsed with weeping, then became 
 tossed like a wave by throbs of feeling ; and the babe’s soul, while yet in the tender 
 days, confessed a consciousness of what had happened with what signs it could, as if 
 forced to do so by a torturer. When, however, after the solemnities were complete, the 
 deacon began to offer the cup to those who were there, and, in the course of their receiy- 
 ing, its turn came, the little child turned its face away, under the instinct of God’s majesty, 
 compressed its lips in resistance, and refused the cup. The deacon, however, perse- 
 vered, and forced upon her, against her will, of the sacrament of the cup. There fol- 
 lowed a sobbing and vomiting. The Eucharist was not able to remain in a body and 
 mouth that had been polluted. The draught which had been consecrated in the blood 
 of the Lord, made its way from a body which had been desecrated. So great is the 
 power of the Lord, so great the majesty. The secrets of the darkness are laid open 
 under His light, and God’s priest could not be deceived in crimes, however hidden. 
 Thus much concerning an infant, which had not the age to make known a crime 
 which was committed on her by the act of others.”—(De Lapsis, 16). Either Cyprian 
 was a very weak, or a very wicked man. I do not think that he was wicked, and 
 invented the story; so I think he was a very weak one, to make the use he has of it. 
 Tt would seem as if the poor child was seized with convulsions ; and this was inter- 
 preted by the swarthy bishop of Carthage into some supernatural dread or magical 
 influence of the consecrated elements. Those who wish to see more of the same sort, 
 may consult Cyprian in loco. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 231 
 
 the opinions of the ancients were not those of the present Church 
 of Rome. Thus, in the case of Serapion, is it at all likely that, if 
 the sick priest had had the same opinion of the Eucharist as is now 
 insisted upon in the ““ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,” he would 
 have sent it by the hands of a boy? Indeed it is thought (appa- 
 rently very correctly) by most, that, had it not been for the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation, we should still have had infant com- 
 munion and private reservations, &c.; and that these unwarranted 
 practices were all done away by the introduction of the more 
 unwarranted doctrine. 
 
 In this matter, then, the different conduct of the ancient Church 
 points to a corresponding difference in faith. In each case the 
 practice seems suitable to the belief held, as does also that of 
 Protestants now-a-days, which differs in some important respects 
 from both. 
 
 In short, the whole language and conduct of the early Church, 
 though running to excess in the direction of mysticism and super- 
 stition, in regard to the Eucharist, is still very far short of what it 
 ought to have been, had their belief been that of Trent. In such 
 comparatively indifferent matters as receiving the sacred elements 
 fasting, with the hands crossed, or in vessels of gold, or other 
 precious material,* we may see much of superstition and of exag- 
 gerated estimate respecting the consecrated elements ; yet all these 
 do not sanction the adoration which is now demanded; and 
 in this opinion the Church of Rome herself joins. For on what 
 other ground is it that she has abolished the ancient customs, and 
 introduced others which she deems necessary to indicate the 
 respect due to the Deity present? In short, the Church of Rome 
 is as much condemned by what she has rejected of the old Eu- 
 charistic ceremonies, as by what she has substituted for them. 
 She has been forced to change the ancient practice, because she 
 has changed the ancient faith. Not antagonistic to a true view, 
 though somewhat inconsistent with a sober one, were the language 
 
 * This practice was condemned by Cone. Trull., can. 101. 
 
232 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 and conduct of Cyril and Cyprian, Ambrose and Chrysostom, 
 sometimes Augustine; but the teaching of the Romish communion 
 on the subject before us, both as to faith and practice, is, while 
 consistent with itself, inconsistent with all beside. A Church 
 which professes a creed, and exhibits a practice, sw? generis, unlike 
 those of all others, is a church which can lay no claim to the 
 title of the One True, Catholic, Apostolic. 
 
 There is one impression which has been painfully, but strongly, 
 forced upon me in connection with the Archdeacon’s volume; and 
 it is, that it is essentially dishonest. That any man should 
 change his opinions, we have no right to object to, nor, perhaps, 
 even to wonder at; but we have a right to expect, in connection 
 with such a change, a fair statement of the grounds upon which 
 it has taken place, and an upright course of conduct dependent 
 upon it. Now, J think we have had neither in this case. I shall 
 not allude further here to the retention of his preferments by 
 Mr. Wilberforce, long after he had embraced, and openly taught, 
 the most monstrous of Rome's heresies. But, to remark upon 
 his book, is within my province. Now, I find evidences of this 
 dishonesty, not in one thing only, but in several. 1. 1 find 
 quotations garbled with an intent, for intention cannot be doubted 
 when the end is apparent. Now, this is done when, in quoting 
 St. Augustine’s “Commentary on the Thirty-third Psalm,” he 
 writes thus : 
 
 ‘‘Who is carried,” says St. Austin, “in his own hands? In the 
 hands of others a man can be carried, but not in his own. How this 
 could be understood literally of David, we do not find: but how it can 
 be understood of Christ, we do find. For Christ was carried in His 
 
 own hands, commending His own body He said, this is my body. For 
 He bore that body in His own hands.” 
 
 Now, in the last clause of this quotation, the words gwodam 
 modo are kept out altogether, which are most essential to the 
 right understanding of the passage. As it is given in the “ Doc- 
 trine of the Holy Eucharist,” the most literal interpretation of 
 our Lord having carried Himself in His own hands, is conveyed 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 233 
 
 to the reader from St. Augustine; but, when he says “in a 
 certain manner” it is true, we at once see his meaning. ‘The Arch- 
 deacon wished the passage to be understood Uiterally, and so he 
 did not hesitate to omit such words as were inconsistent with the 
 impression which he wished to convey. 
 
 Another instance of the same dishonesty is in connection with 
 the same Augustine. Mr. Wilberforce writes as follows : 
 
 «*« Tf any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever ; and the bread 
 which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ 
 ‘How should fleshly people understand this, in that He calls bread by 
 the name of flesh? That is called flesh, which the flesh cannot 
 receive ; and the reason why the flesh cannot receive it, is because it is 
 called flesh. For they were horrified at this; they thought it a hard 
 saying; they supposed it impossible. The faithful know what is meant 
 by the body of Christ, if so be that to Christ’s body they neglect not to 
 pertain.” Whereas the Jews, he goes on to say, were ignorant ‘how 
 He was to be eaten, and what was to be the manner of eating that 
 bread.’” 
 
 Now, what would any one suppose was intended by Augustine 
 by the words, “ The faithful know what is meant by the body of 
 Christ, if so be that to Christ’s body they neglect not to pertain ?” 
 especially when connected with the words following as quoted, about 
 eating Christ and eating bread? Is it not every one’s impression, 
 on reading the passage, that the “body of Christ” refers to ‘the 
 inward part or thing signified” in the Eucharist, and the manner 
 of pertaining to it, of which the Jews were ignorant, sacramental 
 participation? Yet, neither of these ideas is Augustine's. “The 
 body of Christ,” to which this Father speaks of pertaining, is the 
 visible Church, and “the manner of eating,’ which the Jews 
 understood not, was being one with Christ. “The faithful know 
 the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be the body of Christ.” 
 “ Let them become the body of Christ, if they wish to live by the 
 Spirit of Christ. . . . Then wouldst thou also live by the Spirit 
 of Christ? Be thou in the body of Christ. For doth my body 
 live by Thy Spirit? Mine liveth by my Spirit, and thine by 
 thine. The body of Christ cannot live but by the Spirit of 
 
 HA 
 
234 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Christ.” It is evident enough what Augustine means by “ the 
 body of Christ,” though it is not at all what the Archdeacon 
 insinuates by the quotation above, which is brought to prove 
 ‘the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, shewn by the sixth 
 chapter of St. John.” So also as regards the mode of “eating” 
 Christ's flesh, &c. ‘‘In the Eucharist” is the zns¢nuation of the 
 whole passage, and of the heading of the chapter. St. Augustine's 
 explanation is, “‘ This, then, it is to eat that meat, and drink that 
 drink: to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwelling in us.” 
 In fact, there is no countenance whatever in St. Augustine’s 
 ‘““Commentary upon the Sixth Chapter of John,” for the Popish 
 figment of transubstantiation. I have given entire, in an ap- 
 pendix,* that part of St. Augustine’s commentary on this chapter 
 which has reference to the verses (47 --- 68) respecting which 
 the controversy is. 
 
 2. We have evidence of the same unfairness in the way in 
 which our English divines are quoted. Some of the best of our 
 writers, as Overall, Cosin, Hooker, and Taylor, are again and 
 again quoted to sustain points to which it is well known they 
 were opposed, and which the very works quoted condemn. Now, 
 is it honest to extract a few words, or a paragraph, from a writer 
 which necessarily misrepresents his sentiments, and makes him 
 speak a language which he has not adopted, and support doctrines 
 which he has specifically repudiated ? Yet this has been done, 
 as I shall shew, when I come to consider the views of our own 
 Church and her writers on the subject of the Eucharist. 
 
 3. The authoritative declarations and protests of the Church of 
 England, are explained away by verbal quibbles, or jesuitical 
 reasonings. Thus, by making the Church of England mean 
 accidents by substance, while the Church of Rome means what 
 Anistotle meant by it, and what every one who understands the 
 meaning of the word must understand by it, the difference between 
 the Churches is made “ verbal rather than real—in language, not 
 
 See Appendix H. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 2385 
 
 in thought.” So, also, the strong condemnation of the article of 
 the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation, as defined by the 
 Council of Trent, is softened down to “ The Council of Trent is 
 not accepted by English churchmen ; they withhold their assent 
 from their account of the manner in which our Lord’s presence is 
 brought about in the Holy Eucharist.” While special jesuitical 
 pleading has attempted to make the rubric at the end of the com- 
 munion service (which is as plainly condemnatory of the worship 
 of the host as words can be) quite permissive of the practice, as 
 it only does not go on to say, which it might have done, that 
 ‘the supernatural presence of Christ's body and blood are be- 
 stowed in the Holy Eucharist.” 
 
 4. The whole book is based upon one giant deception—viz., 
 all the quotations from the Fathers are produced as though for 
 the first time, and as if no reply to, or examination of, them had 
 ever been made. Now, can any man honestly ignore the whole 
 controversial theology of the Church of England? There is 
 scarcely a passage in the “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” but 
 has been answered, and some of them many, many times, by our 
 Protestant divines. To bring forward evidence which has been 
 before rebutted, is the part of one who wishes for victory, not for 
 truth. And, should the plan succeed, it is only obtaining credit 
 under false pretences. It is disagreeable to be forced to such a 
 conclusion as this, with respect to one of whom we once thought 
 so highly; but there is no withstanding the effect of instances 
 numerous and strong, coming upon us, as they do, from all sides 
 and on every subject. 
 
 I have thus followed the tortuous windings of the quondam 
 Archdeacon through the greater part of his erratic course. Such 
 points as are still left untouched wili come into the second part of 
 this volume. I was anxious, as far as possible, to keep distinct 
 the investigation of the Archdeacon’s error, from the statement of 
 the opposing truth. This has not been absolutely effected—per- 
 haps it was scarcely possible. This is especially the case in the 
 consideration of the contents of the ancient liturgies, and the 
 
236 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 teaching of the early Fathers. In refuting the error, insinuated 
 as contained in the former, and attempted to be proved from the 
 latter, I have shewn what was really contained in the one and 
 taught by the other. Over this ground, therefore, I shall not 
 attempt to tread a second time. 
 
 The points hitherto controverted agaist Mr. Wilberforce 
 have been, that the Bible alone is that to which Protestants 
 can defer as authority, while they pay all due deference to the 
 opinions of the wise and good of all ages. It has been proved, 
 from incontestible evidence, that the consecration prayer in the 
 Holy Eucharist was not, in the early Church, considered to work 
 more effectually than similar prayers used on other occasions, 
 nor in a different manner; and that, consequently, there is no 
 essential difference between the two sacraments of baptism and 
 the Holy Supper. I have shewn that the Fathers did not believe 
 in a corporeal presence of Christ, in connection with the elements, 
 in any manner ; and that, therefore, they did not believe that His 
 body and blood were to be worshipped or were offered in them. 
 To these views we have found the ancient liturgies, and the writings 
 of the Fathers, correspond. So that, in all the main points of 
 his recently-adopted creed, the Archdeacon is without that support 
 which he most values and ostentatiously claims. 
 
 I shall now proceed to consider the true Doctrine of the Holy 
 Eucharist, as it is revealed to us in the scriptures, and confirmed 
 by the teaching of all churches independent of modern Rome. 
 
 END OF BOOK I. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE USE OF MATERIAL SYMBOLS IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. 
 
 Ir is interesting to the thoughtful mind to notice the care 
 manifested by the Great Ruler of all things to bring His creatures 
 into close acquaintance with Himself; and equally consolatory is 
 it to the true Christian to feel that his heavenly Father has 
 adopted likely means to maintain a connection with his erring 
 creatures. ‘“‘ He knoweth our frame, and remembereth that we 
 are but dust,” is not more true or plainly seen in the pardon of 
 sins, or the compassionate oblivion of infirmities, than in the 
 suitable provisions which has been made to prevent the former 
 and remove the latter. The evil, it is true, is seated in the soul, 
 and to the soul the remedy must be applied. But as faith is 
 necessary for practice, and evidence for faith, so we have merci- 
 fully provided for our senses certain representations of the unseen 
 spiritualities with which is_our chief concern, and, at the same 
 time, “‘ means whereby we receive the same, and pledges to assure 
 us thereof.” This is the use of all external symbols in religious 
 worship, and we will briefly consider their nature and their use. 
 
 It is not to be supposed that we can ever arrive at any certain 
 conclusion, as to the connection of the end with the means, in 
 any religious ordinances. In all matters of such sort, far more 
 blessed is he who can act because it is commanded, leaving the 
 result to God, than he who will not believe till he has enquired, and 
 pushes his enquiries till he thinks he understands all. Such an 
 one has his faith suspended upon his investigations, instead of 
 upon God's revelation and promises; and the no uncommon 
 result of such a state of mind as this, is eternal instability 
 
240 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 and the dissatisfaction of doubts, if not at length confirmed scep- 
 ticism. 
 
 But if evils lie in the way of enquiry, and at last a gulph too 
 broad to be overpassed, and too deep and dark to be scanned, 
 there is much of evil on the other side in unenquiring ignorance 
 and uninformed belief. Enlightened conviction is the most 
 satisfactory basis for faith, both as regards the comfort of the 
 possessor, and the stability of his principles. 
 
 There have ever been some differences of opinion, amongst even 
 the wise and good, as to the value and importance to be attached 
 to the use of symbols. It is hardly to be expected that, wherever 
 we find the use of them recorded in God’s word, it should be 
 without effect, or without producing the fwd/ effect intended. But 
 this is by no means to be assumed as the invariable result when 
 used by inferior hands. In the case of divine interposition, the 
 subject is always a fit one; or the blessing would not be bestowed, 
 nor the external symbol, which is only an outward and visible 
 sign of the boon, whether temporal or spiritual, be used. It is 
 not wise, therefore, to argue from scriptural precedent in this 
 matter, if such exists, to the same result in all cases whatsoever. 
 
 Now, while there is no lack of instances* in the Old and New 
 Testament, wherein the medium of a sensible object is made use 
 οἵ; yet we can, perhaps, find no one in which there was any 
 virtue in the symbol, or medium which would a priori, have sug- 
 gested its use as appropriate ; 7.e., there was nothing of virtue or 
 power manifestly, or even presumptively, inherent in the visible 
 instrument itself. Thus, it would appear that that which brought 
 death into the world and all our woe, —viz., the eating of a fruit, 
 
 * J quite agree with Alexander Knox (from whom the substance of much of this 
 chapter has been taken), when he says, “‘ With respect to the Old Testament, I believe 
 it may be asserted, that wherever a divine benefit, or blessing, whether to individuals, 
 or to the whole people, was of such a nature as suitably to admit the intervention of 
 a sensible instrament or medium,—something bearing that character in itself, perhaps, 
 ot the humblest nature, was almost uniformly employed. To particularise the various 
 instances would be to transcribe a large portion of the sacred history.”—Knox’s 
 “ Doctrine of the Sacraments.” 
 
 vail 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 24] 
 
 would have been the means of securing immortality, or οἵ per- 
 petuating it, if man’s destiny had been of a happier cast ; and the 
 whole scheme of Judaism, as has been before remarked, was one 
 of pictorial representation and of material media. The following 
 extract, from the author above referred to, will give us, in as few 
 words as well may be, a general view of the whole case :—‘‘ When, 
 in the great progressive scheme of divine beneficence, Moses was 
 commissioned to work miracles, he was not directed to perform 
 them merely by a word. ‘The shepherd’s rod, which, at the 
 moment of the divine call, he had in his hand, was from thence 
 to be, not only the ensign, but the instrument of the power with 
 which he was endued. ‘Thou shalt take this rod, said Jehovah, 
 ‘in thy hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.’ We accordingly 
 find it afterward denominated ¢he rod of God ; and the numerous 
 instances in which it was used, are so many exemplifications of 
 Omnipotence acting through a material medium. ‘There was a 
 profound fitness in this mode of proceeding, else it would not 
 have been adopted. It obviously gave a palpability to the divine 
 interposition, which accommodated it, with peculiar aptitude, to 
 the complex nature of man; while the simplicity of the means 
 evinced the unseen agency by which the effect was accomplished. 
 
 “We may also observe, that not only where miraculous acts were 
 to be performed, but even where settled purposes were to be noti- 
 fied, and habitual impressions produced, sensible expedients were 
 equally employed Thus, to give sustenance, through the bodily 
 senses, to the faith and devotion of the heart, the pillar of cloud 
 by day, and of fire by night, accompanied the children of Israel 
 through the wilderness ; and thus, when that miracnious token of 
 the divine presence ceased to appear, the ark of the covenant, to 
 which it had been used to attach itself, and which was thereby 
 sealed as the perpetual symbol of God's special residence, became 
 the point of inexpressible attraction to every true Israelite, as the 
 place where God was infallibly to be found, and from whence 
 mercy and goodness were sure to flow forth upon every faithful 
 worshipper. 
 
Pye. THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 “The depth of this feeling might be illustrated by numerous 
 examples. The care which God was pleased to take for its con- 
 firmation and continuance, at the consecration of Solomon's 
 temple, by the reappearance of the same divine cloud attaching 
 itself to the same ark, in proof that the same presence would reside 
 in the new mansion, unspeakably evinced the value of such a 
 support to faith, and such an excitement to devotion. Its actual 
 influence on minds the most capable of appreciating it, is mani- 
 fested in the case of Danie] ; who so venerated and loved even the 
 desolated spot which had been thus distinguished, that, in defiance 
 of the king of Babylon’s edict, he persevered in praying, as he had 
 been wont, three times a day, ‘his window being open, in his 
 chamber, toward Jerusalem.’ 
 
 “Tt will hardly be said, that the eyes of pious Israelites were 
 directed to the ark, as the pledge and symbol of providential, 
 rather than of strictly spiritual blessings. An expectation of 
 these latter is continually expressed in the devotional language of 
 the Old Testament; and it is everywhere evident that, in the 
 inmost concerns of the heart, access to God was facilitated, reliance 
 on God strengthened, and fixedness and concentration of mind 
 secured and heightened, by the settled assurance of his specially- 
 present Majesty. 
 
 “ But it particularly pertains to the main question to remark, 
 that amongst extraordinary effects produced in the Old Testament 
 times, through material instruments, those of a strictly mental and 
 spiritual nature are not wholly wanting. One instance, at least, 
 of this kind is found in the impression on the mind of Elisha, 
 through the touch of Elijah’s mantle. Elijah had been directed 
 to appoint Elisha his successor in the prophetic office. It may, 
 therefore, be concluded, that the general dispositions of the latter 
 fitted him for such a distinction; but he himself seems, at the 
 moment, to have had no apprehension of what awaited him, as he 
 was busily occupied in agricultural labour; but as soon as Elijah 
 cast his mantle upon him, he is drawn as if by irresistible attrac- 
 tion, and only wishes to have time for bidding his father’s house 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 243 
 
 farewell. The prophet, probably, had been led to throw his mantle 
 by a special impulse, and scarcely foresaw the fulness of the result ; 
 for he answers, as if in some surprise, ‘Go back again, for what 
 have I done unto thee?’ But it is remarkable that that very 
 mantle becomes again the pledge and symbol of divine blessing to 
 Elisha. He had asked that a double portion of his master’s 
 spirit should rest upon him; and the fall of Elijah’s mantle, while 
 the prophet himself was carried up to heaven, appears to have 
 been regarded by Elisha, as notifying the success of his petition. 
 In addition to what he himself had felt, he had seen Elijah divide 
 the waters of Jordan, by smiting them with that very mantle; and 
 as if to satisfy himself, that, in possessing the visible pledge, he 
 possessed also the mysterious power, we see him smiting the same 
 waters with the same mantle, with the solemn and successful 
 appeal,—‘ Where is the Lord God of Elijah ?’”* 
 
 And it is not alone to the dispensation of types and shadows 
 that we have to look for this employment of a visible medium, by 
 which the Divine Being sees fit to communicate, whether temporal 
 or spiritual blessings. Similar means are used for both purposes 
 in the transactions recorded in the New Testament, and equally 
 successful in effects upon the body and the mind. Our author 
 well continues :—“ It was right, and perhaps necessary, that when 
 the word was made flesh, and tabernacled among men, He should 
 manifest His divine prerogative, of simply commanding nature, 
 and being instantly obeyed. He, accordingly, on some occasions, 
 merely spoke, and the effect immediately followed. Thus, He 
 healed the centurion’s servant, and the nobleman’s son, who was 
 sick at Capernaum. ‘Thus, He stilled the tempest; and thus, 
 also, He raised Lazarus from the tomb. But, ordinarily, He was 
 pleased to act otherwise. He made use of some visible sign; and 
 often transmitted the divine virtue, which dwelt in Him, through 
 a material medium. He laid His hands on those who applied ; 
 or He permitted them to touch ‘the hem of His garment, and as 
 
 * Knox's Doct. Sac. pp. 112—116. 
 
244 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 many as touched Him were made perfectly whole. Once He 
 touched the tongue of a dumb man with His spittle. At another 
 time He made clay by spitting on the ground, and put it on the 
 eyes of a blind man, whom He sent (for the cbvious purpose of 
 notoriety) to wash it off in the pool of Siloam. 
 
 “Nor was it only where corporeal blessings were conveyed, 
 that our Lord was pleased to use a visible sign. When children 
 were brought to Him, not to be healed, but simply to receive His 
 divine benediction, we read that He laid His hands upon them. 
 And in that most signal instance, when, after His resurrection, 
 He solemnly established His apostles in their exalted office, we 
 are told, that ‘He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost.’ 
 
 “ With reference to the particular subject under consideration, 
 this last instance appears worthy of peculiar attention. The 
 period of types and shadows was now clearly over, and the dis- 
 pensation of ‘grace and truth’ had substantially begun. We 
 may humbly conclude, therefore, that our Lord would do nothing 
 at this time, which was not strictly congenial with all that was to 
 follow. Yet at this moment of immutable precedent, He employs 
 the same method of impressive accommodation to man’s animal 
 nature. In an instance the most important and vital, He com- 
 municates inward and spiritual grace, through an outward sign 
 and a corporeal medium. His breath, as man, is made the 
 vehicle of that Spirit, which, even as man, He had possessed 
 without measure. It was the last and best blessing which His 
 apostles were to receive from His bodily presence ; and may be 
 justly regarded as their first strict and proper animation with the 
 inward and spiritual life; the firstefulfilment of that promise, 
 so lately made to them respecting the divine Paraclete, “ He 
 dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.’ Here, therefore (it would 
 seem), no less really than on the day of Pentecost, the words of 
 His forerunner were verified, ‘ He shall baptise you with the Holy 
 Ghost.’ On that day they received new powers: the fire which 
 our Lord came to send upon the earth, was then vis¢b/y kindled ; 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 245 
 
 but it was at that former time, when our Lord ‘breathed upon 
 them, and said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost, that they really 
 became mew creatures: for how else shall we account for those 
 clearer apprehensons of the new dispensation, which their choice 
 of a successor to Judas, and their deep and unremitting intensity 
 in prayer, prove them to have possessed, previously to their last 
 signal endowment ‘ with power from on high ?’ 
 
 “T have enlarged on that remarkable act of our Redeemer, in 
 His final intercourse with His apostles on earth, not merely 
 because it may be thought in the highest degree pertinent to my 
 present subject, but because its powerful influence, as manifested 
 in so immediate a change of character, has, as far as I know, been 
 hitherto not sufficiently adverted to. 
 
 “That the apostles, from this and other divine evidences, were, 
 in their own minds, impressed with the suitable transmission of 
 inward and spiritual blessings, through outward and visible signs, 
 appears from their own subsequent practice. As their Divine 
 Master, in breathing on them, had made them partakers of that 
 Spirit which was in Him ; so, when it became their part, as His 
 ministers, to communicate, in measure, the same heavenly gift to 
 others, they conferred this blessing by the imposition of their 
 hands; and it is expressly testified, that ‘through the laying on 
 of the apostles’ hands, the Holy Ghost was given.’ 
 
 “Tt is remarkable, that this practice of the apostles is stated, 
 without any explanatory observation ; obviously, because such a 
 proceeding, however wonderful in itself, was in such complete 
 accordance with all of a like nature which had been done formerly, 
 that there was no more room, before-hand, for questioning its 
 fitness, than there was Bene ent ysh afterward, of disputing its 
 efficacy.’* 
 
 From these examples, then, and from the consideration of their 
 suitability to the nature of man, we might, perhaps, be led even 
 to expect some prescribed employment of visible media, in con- 
 
 * Knox’s Doct. Sac. pp. 116—120. 
 
246 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 nection with the impartation of spiritual blessings in the economy 
 of grace. At all events, we cannot for a moment wonder at their 
 appointment, and especially when we find those prescribed so 
 extremely suitable in themselves to represent the agent and opera- 
 tion to which they respectively refer. I have above shewn at 
 length that the water in baptism represents the Holy Spirit, and 
 that the effect of that corporeal element on the body, is beautifully 
 typical of the Spirit’s operation on the soul. Similarly, the 
 elements in the Eucharist are appropriate representations of the 
 inward part of that sacrament, and the effect of the one have 
 their exact counterpart, mutatis mutandis, in the effect of the 
 other. The employment of media is, therefore, in the Christian 
 system, perfectly analogous with the Creator's dealings under 
 other dispensations ; and in their relationship to man, in his 
 external organization and spiritual being, these media are com- 
 memorative and didactic ; they prevent the lapsing from the mind 
 of truths of mighty import, and teach the need of invisible opera- 
 tions on the soul analogous to those on the body. The next 
 question is, how far are they efficient ? 
 
 Leaving out of consideration, for the present, the question as to 
 whether or not our blessed Lord made any reference to the Eucha- 
 rist in His discourse in John vi. (we hope to enter on this enquiry 
 by and bye), perhaps it may be almost assumed that the apostles 
 would, in some degree, connect the words of the Eucharistic 
 institution with the lesson so difficult and mysterious at Caper- 
 naum. ‘In that memorable discourse, he had clearly intimated 
 that His death was to make provision for that divine nutriment, 
 which He was to furnish from Himself. ‘The bread from heaven,’ 
 said He, ‘is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ 
 When, therefore, just before His entrance on the great concluding 
 scene, He took bread, and having blessed and broken it, gave it 
 to His disciples, saying, ‘Take, eat, this is my body, which is 
 given for you,’ it was impossible not to connect these words, and 
 this act, with the corresponding expressions uttered at Capernaum. 
 When they saw that last Paschal supper (in itself a type of the 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 247 
 
 Redeemer) formed into a new ordinance, in which the acts of 
 eating and drinking were to have an import, and the aliments fed 
 upon to bear a denomination, identical with the terms of that 
 former announcement ; what could be their conclusion, but that 
 not only the ordinance generally, but the specific acts and aliments 
 so distinguished, were to be instrumentally conducive to that 
 divine benefit with which they were thus intimately conjoined ? 
 
 “The promise, therefore, of our Lord’s flesh and blood to be to 
 them meat indeed, and drink indeed, to be the spiritual and eternal 
 life of their souls, by virtue of which He should dwell in them 
 and they in Him, and they should live by Him as He lived by 
 the Father,—this promise, I say, could not, consistently with the 
 terms in which it is expressed, be understood to mean anything 
 less than an inconceivable, but most real, emanation from His 
 divine person, in which there would be the same exercise of His 
 divine power, for the animation and sustenance of the soul, as 
 when divine virtue had gone out of Him for the healing of the 
 body. I conceive they could have given no other interpretation 
 than this to our Lord’s prospective assurances. In the appoint- 
 ment, therefore, of visible symbols to be instrumentally effective 
 in conveying the promised blessing, they would see nothing but 
 that which, according to all their experience, was suitable and 
 proportionate. They would, moreover, perceive, that a twofold 
 communication, the flesh and blood of the Redeemer, was pro- 
 vided for by a twofold medium ; the lowliness of which evinced 
 only the more, the power of the invisible agent, while, in such an 
 operation, it would not appear unfitting that bread, the prime 
 nourishment of human life, and wine, the prime cherisher of 
 human weakness, should be the material instruments of this 
 heavenly purpose.’* 
 
 Now in all that has been said, I think we may see that the 
 sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is more than a commemorative 
 rite. Indeed, if it be no more than this, how is it of more benefit 
 
 * Knox’s Doct. Sac. pp. 121—123. 
 
248 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 to the worthy communicant than to the unworthy—to the spiritual 
 worshipper, than to the formalist, for both alike commemorate ? 
 I believe, however, that it is much more than this, and that it is so 
 for two reasons—lst, Because God works effectually in His own 
 ordinances in the case of His own children ; and, 2ndly, Because 
 I cannot conceive it possible that the righteous get no more spi- 
 ritual good from the observance of the most solemn Christian rite 
 than the careless and profane. There is a great and essential 
 difference between the idea of the opus operatum, which supposes 
 the wicked to receive the same benefit as the good in the ordi- 
 nance, and that view which makes the Eucharist a simple com- 
 memoration, and robs the righteous as well as the profane of all 
 blessing whatsoever. These two extremes should be equally 
 avoided. I think the following remarks are consistent at once 
 with both sound reason and scriptural truth : 
 
 “Tt would be obvious, that if the sacrament of the Eucharist 
 had been ordained merely as a commemorative celebration,—that 
 is, if our Redeemer had said nothing more than, ‘Do this in 
 remembrance of me,’ its institution would have implied rather the 
 injunction of a permanent duty, than the pledge and means of a 
 permanent blessing. In that view it might have afforded an 
 occasion for the more solemn expression of Christian gratitude, 
 or the renewal of Christian obligation ; but it could not be thought 
 to give the prospect of any special spiritual benefit, beyond what 
 might be found in an equally ardent exercise of devotion on any 
 other religious occasion. The ordinary grace of God might have 
 been relied upon for co-operation in such an effort of the mind 
 to think more closely on the love of their dying Lord, or to feel 
 it more deeply; but, as it should seem, only as equal efforts 
 would be assisted in the common acts of pious supplication. Yet 
 still, on this ground, it might not have been easy to account 
 satisfactorily for introducing, into a simple commemoration, any 
 outward or visible part. The merely natural effect of the Eucha- 
 ristic signs on the external senses, would hardly explain their 
 adoption in a religion in which rites and ceremonies were so pro- 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 249 
 
 fessedly to give place to spiritual worship; and it would be still 
 more difficult to conceive, how the eating and drinking of those 
 visible symbols should be an essential co-ingredient in the exercise 
 of a purely-commemorative devotion.’* 
 
 Nor let it be supposed that we imagine the effective virtue of 
 the sacramental service to lie in the elements, though communi- 
 cated through them. It appears quite plain that their effective- 
 ness is dependent on two things,—1st, The will of the Institutor ; 
 and, 2nd, the disposition of the recipient. It has been asserted that 
 these are the Calvinistic and Zuinglian views respectively ; and if 
 so, each is half true and half false. It would be presumptuous to 
 expect grace through this ordinance, had it not been of divine 
 origin, as it would be profane to deny that the worthy alone 
 receive a blessing through it. ““ In ascribing to the Eucharistic 
 symbols the instrumental effectiveness with which the significant 
 word of their Divine Master had appeared to invest them, the 
 apostles would see in that institution a provision for their spiritual 
 consolation and benefit, in which all their pre-existing habits of 
 mind were consulted, and all their mental and moral exigencies 
 richly supplied. The nature of the Eucharistic sacrament was 
 clearly such as to have in it no other virtue than what flowed into 
 it from Him by whom it was instituted. The eating of bread, 
 and drinking of wine, had in itself neither conduciveness, nor 
 any obvious congeniality, to a spiritual purpose. It could, there- 
 fore, have only that precise import which our Redeemer was 
 pleased to give to it; namely, that it was a visible method 
 appointed by him, of spiritually eating his flesh, and spiritually 
 drinking his blood; and that it must accordingly derive its 
 spiritual efficacy from the concomitancy of His omnipotent power. 
 The Eucharist, when thus regarded, would be, to the disciples of 
 our Lord, such a pledge as was given them in no other instance, 
 of their living by His life, being strong through His strength, 
 and growing in grace by a vital effluence from Himself... . . 
 
 * Knox’s Doct, Sac. p. 125. 
 K καὶ 
 
250 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 In the Eucharistic institution alone, human co-operation could 
 have no share in the effect, because the medium employed could 
 communicate influence or blessing only through the direct opera- 
 tion of Almighty power. It was not to be questioned that, in 
 every instance in which spiritual benefit was conferred, the good- 
 ness of God was to be regarded as its supreme source. ... . In 
 a word, according to the apostle, and that universal belief to which 
 he appeals, the commemorative celebration of the Eucharist as a 
 devotional act, is not that which makes it peculiarly beneficial and 
 venerable; but it is so, because, in this ordinance, the aliments 
 which Christ has appointed, become, through His designation and 
 blessing, the direct vehicles of His own divine influences, to 
 capable receivers. * 
 
 Now, I conceive that, in virtue of the divine appointment, this 
 view of the efficacy of the sacramental symbols to all such as 
 oppose no barrier to the reception of the inward grace which is 
 signified and conveyed, is entirely the doctrine of our Church and 
 of Holy Scripture. 
 
 The definition of a sacrament, given in our twenty-fifth Article, 
 is this: ‘‘ Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or 
 tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain 
 sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will 
 towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth 
 not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in 
 Him.” Now, here it is emphatically denied that the sacraments 
 are badges of profession only; but it is further asserted that they 
 are rather “ certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace.” 
 This language is very remarkable, and evidently adopted after full 
 deliberation. The representative nature of the symbols is twice 
 suggested by the words “ witnesses” and “signs,” while. the 
 epithets ‘‘ sure” and “ effectual” guard against the possibility of 
 such a conception, as that they are merely representations. ‘The 
 same is said in the catechism, wherein we are informed that a 
 
 * Knox’s Doct. Sac. pp. 126, 127, 136. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 251 
 
 sacrament is “an outward and visible sign of an inward and 
 spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ Himself, as a 
 means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us 
 thereof.” The same restrictive phraseology is used in the twenty- 
 seventh Article, where it is said, ‘‘ Baptism is not only a sign of 
 profession . . . but it is also a sign of regeneration, whereby, 
 as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted 
 into the Church.” And, perhaps, more strongly still, “ The 
 supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Chris- 
 tians ought to have among themselves one to another; but 
 rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death: 
 msomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, 
 receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of 
 the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a par- 
 taking of the blood of Christ.” In all which passages it will 
 be seen that the benefit is connected with the outward symbols as 
 means. But, indeed, it is hard to conceive for what purpose they 
 were appointed, unless that they might convey the suggested 
 blessing through the invisible agency of the Holy Spirit's opera- 
 tion. 
 
 But while the sacraments, or the sacramental emblems (for 
 unless when we mean the outward and inward part together, the 
 word sacrament must refer to the outward part only, as when we 
 say “ he received the sacrament”), are the appointed channels of 
 communicating grace, yet are they more than this. For sacra- 
 ments seem not only to be complex in their character, but to be 
 still more complex in their effects. Thus are they “ signs of pro- 
 fession and marks of difference” between Christian men and 
 others. They are also efficient channels of communication, 
 whereby “ faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of 
 prayer to God,” which is therein offered, as has been fully shewn ; 
 and they are still further “ signs and seals” of forgiveness of sins, 
 and of adoption to sonship. And this third office which they 
 sustain, is entirely confirmatory of their efficiency as a means in 
 the second. 
 
252 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 And, indeed, this view is the only one which will enable us to 
 distinguish between sacraments and the common rites or ceremo- 
 nies which are made by the Church. The former are Christ's 
 own appointment as ordinary channels of grace, the latter “ badges 
 and signs of Christian men’s profession.” “A sacrament,” says 
 Bishop Burnet, “is an institution of Christ, in which some mate- 
 rial thing is sanctified by the use of some form or words, in and 
 by which federal acts of this religion do pass on both sides; on 
 ours by stipulations, professions, or vows ; and on God's by his 
 secret assistances: by these we are also united to the body of 
 Christ, which is the Church. It must be instituted by Christ ; 
 for though ritual matters, that are only the expressions of our 
 duty, may be appointed by the Church, yet federal acts, to which 
 a conveyance of divine grace is tied, can only be instituted by Him 
 who is the author and mediator of this new covenant, and who 
 lays down the rules or conditions of it, and derives the blessings 
 of it by what methods and in what channels he thinks fit."* It 
 is this makes consecration necessary; for matter being of the 
 essence of a sacrament, any one particular portion can only become 
 peculiarly appropriated when it has been set apart by benediction. 
 A sacrament is, therefore, more than prayers or any other act of 
 religious worship, for these are mere acts of the mind; whereas a 
 sacrament is the separation of a portion of visible matter from all 
 profane uses, and applied in a prescribed form to the worship of 
 God. “With the matter there must be a form; that is, such 
 words joined with it as do appropriate the matter to such an use, 
 and separate it from all other uses, at least in the act of the sacra- 
 ment. For in any piece of matter alone, there cannot be a proper 
 suitableness to such an end, as seems to be designed by sacra- 
 ments, and therefore a form must determine and apply it; and it 
 is highly suitable to the nature of things to believe that our 
 Saviour, who has instituted the sacrament, has also either insti- 
 tuted the form of it, or given us such hints as to lead us very near 
 
 * Burnet’s Expn. Art. 20. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 258 
 
 it. The end of sacraments is double; the one is by a solemn 
 federal action both to unite us to Christ, and also to derive a 
 secret blessing from Him to us: and the other is to join and unite 
 us by this public profession, and the joint partaking of it, with 
 His body, which is the Church.”* Now, it is impossible to conceive 
 any reason why these observances should ever have been com- 
 manded, and the use of matter enjoined, unless that a blessing 
 might be communicated under the symbols. Indeed, how can we 
 conceive that our gracious Saviour could appoint ceremonies and 
 enjoin duties upon the right observance of which no blessing 
 followed to the pious soul—followed, I mean, 7”, and by means of, 
 the institution upon which it was engaged, when no bar was 
 interposed by the observer, either in his act or his intention ? 
 “ Let it be carefully noted, that it is not merely a duty of ours, 
 but a sacred rite (in which God Himself bears a part), that we 
 are labouring to exalt, or rather to do justice to. The doctrine 
 of our Church, and of all Christian churches, early and late, is 
 much the same with what our homilies teach ust—namely, that 
 ‘in the sacraments God embraces us, and offereth Himself to be 
 embraced by us; and that they ‘set out to the eyes, and other 
 outward senses, the inward workings of God's free mercy, and seal 
 in our hearts the promises of God.’ "t 
 
 Now, itis worthy of remark that no persons, with the exception 
 of the Socinians (and they cannot be called Christians at all), 
 have ever doubted of God's part in the sacrament, whatever they 
 may have doubted of man’s. After instancing the participation of 
 one sacrament by infants, where on their part there can be no idea 
 of duty, Waterland goes on to say, “1 suppose it might be on 
 these and the like considerations, that some divines have conceived 
 that a sacrament, properly, is rather an application of God to men, 
 than of men to God. Mr. Scandret, distinguishing a sacrament, 
 according to its precise formality, from a sacrifice, observes that 
 it is ‘ an outward visible sign of an invisible grace or favour from 
 
 * Burnet’s Expn. Art. 20. + Waterland’s Review Doct. Euch., p. 469. 
 + Homily on the Common-Prayer and Sacraments, 
 
254 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 God to man. * And Dr. Rymer takes notice, that, according to 
 our Church Catechism, ‘ a sacrament is not supposed, in its most 
 essential part, an application made by men to God, but one made 
 by God to man. A gracious condescension of God’s, by which 
 He converses with men, and exhibits to them spiritual blessings, 
 &e. God’s part is indeed the whole that is strictly and properly 
 sacramental: the outward and visible signs exhibited are in effect 
 the voice of God, repeating His promise of that inward and spiritual 
 favour. t Dr. Towerson long before had observed, that there is a 
 difficulty as to ‘ shewing that a sacrament relates equally to that 
 which passeth from us to God, and that it imports our duty and 
 service.” { He conceived no difficulty at all as to God's part in a 
 sacrament; that was a clear point: but he thought it not so easy 
 to prove that the strict and proper sense of the word sacrament 
 includes man’s part at all. However, it is very certain that the 
 whole transaction, in the case of adu/ts, is between two parties, 
 and that the application is mutual between God and man. And this 
 must be acknowledged, particularly in the Eucharist, by as many 
 as do allow of a Consecration-prayer, and do admit that service 
 to be part of our religious worship, as also to be a federal rite. 
 But from hence may appear how widely they mistake who con- 
 sider a sacrament as a bare human performance, a discharge of a 
 positive duty on man’s part, and nothing more, throwing out what 
 belongs to God, and what is most strictly sacramental. It is 
 sinking or dropping the noblest and most essential part of the 
 idea, and presenting us with a very lame and insufficient account 
 of the thing.’§ 
 
 Now, I take this to be a very satisfactory view of the value to 
 be assigned to the elements in the Eucharist. They are visible 
 signs of what the Divine Being who instituted them intends to 
 confer upon the soul; and the effect produced upon the body by 
 the participation of the elements is an exact counterpart to the 
 
 * Scandret, Sacrifice of the Divine Service, p. 54. 
 + Rymer, General Representation of Revealed Religion, pp. 286, 267. 
 1 Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 12. § Waterland, Review Doct. Sac. 469, 70. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 255 
 
 effect produced upon the soul, in the case of the worthy receiver ; 
 and as the benefit to the body is only secured by reception 
 of the visible elements, so the benefit to the soul is only to be 
 obtained by the reception of the thing signified; and, moreover, 
 as the symbol is declared in the institution of the sacrament to be 
 the thing which it represents, so it would seem that, with the 
 reception of the one, the reception of the other is secured; unless, 
 as is always to be remembered, any barrier be opposed by the 
 recipient ; for the participation of the thing signified can no more 
 take place when the mind is incapable, than the elements could 
 be partaken of where there was a physical incapability. When 
 the masticative and digestive organs are in healthy operation, 
 then the body is strengthened and refreshed; and this alone can 
 properly be called the reception of the elements. So, also, when 
 the soul is ina state of penitent dependence upon the Spirit's 
 blessings, or Christ’s grace, then it will be strengthened and 
 refreshed by the spiritual nourishment provided. In short, that 
 opinion seems to be the correct one, which is delivered by Bishop 
 Burnet in the following words : 
 
 “Others think that the Eucharist is a federal act, in which, as 
 on the one hand we renew our baptismal covenant with God; so, 
 on the other hand, we receive in the sacrament a visible con- 
 signation, as in a tradition by a symbol or pledge of the blessings 
 of the new covenant, which they think is somewhat superadded to 
 those returns of our prayers, or of other inward acts. 
 
 “This, they think, answers the nourishment which the body 
 receives from the symbols of bread and wine; and stands in 
 opposition to that of the unworthy receivers being guilty of the 
 body and blood of the Lord; and their eating and drinking that 
 which will bring some judgment upon themselves. This they 
 also found on these words of St. Paul, ‘The cup of blessing that 
 we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The 
 bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of 
 Christ ?’ 
 
 “St. Paul considers the bread, which was offered by the people, 
 
256 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 as an emblem of their unity, that as there was one loaf, so they 
 were one body ; and that they were all partakers of that one loaf: 
 from hence it is inferred, that since the word rendered commu- 
 nion, signifies a communication in fellowship, or partnership, that 
 therefore the meaning of it is, that in the sacrament there is a 
 distribution made in that symbolical action of the death of Christ, 
 and of the benefits and effects of it. The communion of the 
 Holy Ghost, is a common sharing in the effusion of the Spirit: 
 the same is meant by that, if there is any fellowship of the 
 Spirit ; that is, if we do all partake of the Spirit, we are said to 
 have a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ, in which every one 
 must take his share. The communication, or fellowship, of the 
 mystery of the Gospel (2 Cor. xii., last verse ; Phil. u., 1; Eph. 
 iii., 9; Phil. iii., 10), was its being shared equally among both 
 Jews and Gentiles ; and the fellowship in which the first converts 
 to Christianity lived, was their liberal distribution to one another, 
 they holding all things in common. In these and some other 
 places, it is certain that communion signifies somewhat that is 
 more real and effectual, than merely men’s owning themselves to 
 be joined together in a society : which it is true it does also often 
 signify: and, therefore, they conclude, that as in bargains or 
 covenants, the ancient method of them before writings were 
 invented was the mutual delivering of some pledges, which were 
 the symbols of that faith, which was so plighted, instead of which, 
 the sealing and delivering of writings is now used among us: so 
 our Saviour instituted this in compliance with our frailty, to give 
 us an outward and sensible pledge of his entering into covenant 
 with us, of which the bread and wine are constituted the sym- 
 bols.”* 
 
 It must not be thought, that the opinion which makes the 
 elements the channe] of communication, at all sanctions the 
 Popish idea of transubstantiation. It no more does this than the 
 saying that pipes convey water from a cistern asserts that they are 
 
 * Burnet’s Expn. Art. 28. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. PADI! 
 
 the water. ‘The vehicle is not the thing which it conveys. And 
 again, it by no means follows, from this Protestant doctrine, that 
 the wicked receive the body and blood of Christ, because they 
 are in connection with the channel by which these are con- 
 veyed. If the elements were physical, and not moral instru- 
 ments (which the Popish doctrine makes them, and which compels 
 those who believe it to assert, that the wicked as well as the 
 righteous receive the thing signified, together with the em- 
 blems), then without doubt all who received the one would of 
 necessity receive the other, and the Papists would be right. It is 
 not so, however, and the character of the recipient being that 
 which gives its value to the element, and not the element by recep- 
 tion, its character to the recipient, it follows that reprobates are 
 not bettered by uniting with the good in the sacred feast, which 
 is fatness to these, but rather leanness and a blight to those. 
 For, instead of gaining aught from the participation, they become 
 responsible for the abuse of the most solemn of all the ordinances 
 of the Christian religion, and of turning what should be for their 
 health into an occasion of falling. The food of the devout is 
 the poison of the sinner. 
 
 It is well known that Bishop Ridley was of this opinion as to 
 a real connection between the symbols and the effectual grace 
 communicated to true believers ; and it is probable that the Arti- 
 cles, as they have been quoted above, are in his language. When, 
 under the influence of Bucer, the second prayer-book of King 
 Edward VI. was published, ignoring, through the communion 
 service, to a very great extent, such an idea as the above, Ridley 
 wrote to his friend and former chaplain, saying that it ‘‘had chanced 
 him to mislike some things” in recent times; “ for,” says he, 
 “sudden changes, without substantial and necessary cause, and 
 the heady setting forth of extremities, I never did love.”"* Be- 
 sides, we know that, up to the last hour of his life, Ridley retained 
 the same opinion, when he wrote that he believed the elements not 
 
 * Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 578, apud Knox. 
 
258 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 mere memorials alone, but a /ively representation of Christ's body ; 
 not only a figure, but, by means of a sacramental mutation, through 
 the omnipotency of Christ’s word, they were made effectually to 
 represent His body.* 
 
 The change which was intimated in the new service book (for 
 it was hardly more than intimated, it was nowhere explicitly 
 stated, much less insisted upon), is seen as clearly in the change 
 of words made use of in the delivery of the elements as in any 
 alteration. The prayer-book of 1549, on the delivery, appointed 
 these words to be used :—‘‘ The body (blood) of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, which was given (shed) for thee, preserve thy body and 
 soul unto everlasting life.” This was altered, in the form of 1552, 
 into ‘Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, 
 and feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.” 
 “ Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for 
 thee, and be thankful.” It is here apparent that the change was 
 intended to ignore the efficiency of the elements, and to make the 
 sacramental service a purely commemorative rite. On the acces- 
 sion of Elizabeth these words were retained, but the earlier form 
 was prefixed to them. Thus the Church of England returned to 
 the language as well as belief of the primitive Church, and teaches 
 us, to this day, that the elements are effectual signs of grace, as 
 well as commemorative of that which was the sole meritorious 
 cause of blessing to the Church,—viz., the death of Christ upon 
 the cross on Calvary. 
 
 But it is not alone in the communion service that the efficiency 
 
 * ‘CA still later writer, of at least equal weight and celebrity (Bishop Horsley) 
 may, however, be adduced, as strictly agreeing with Ridley. In one of his charges to 
 the clergy of Rochester we find the following passage :—‘ But the frequency of the 
 celebration will be of little use, unless your people are well instracted in the nature 
 and use of this most holy and mysterious ordinance. If they are suffered to consider 
 it as nothing more than a rite of simple commemoration of Christ’s death, a mere 
 external form of thanksgiving on the part of the receiver, they will never come to it 
 with due reverence. You will instruct them, therefore, in the true notion of a sacra- 
 ment; that the sacraments are not only signs of grace, but means of the grace signi- 
 fied, the matter of the sacrament being by Christ’s appointment, and the operation of 
 
 the Holy Spirit, the vehicle of grace to the believer’s soul.’ ”—Knox’s Doct. Sac. pp. 
 109, 10. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 259 
 
 of the symbols is taught, but as before remarked, in the Articles, 
 most strongly. When, as in the twenty-fifth Article, the sacra- 
 ments are said to be “ effectual signs of grace, by the which God 
 doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but 
 strengthen and confirm our faith in Him,” it is impossible to 
 mistake the meaning of such language. Again, in the twenty- 
 eighth Article, it is said that “the body of Christ is given, taken, 
 and eaten in the supper only, after a heavenly and spiritual man- 
 ner,” where it is manifest that something more, and far more 
 specifically, is inculcated than that the receiver feeds upon Christ 
 by faith ; for thus, there would be no meaning in the words given, 
 taken, and eaten. And if the body of Christ be given, and taken, 
 and eaten, it must be with the symbols. 
 
 But the presence and the mode of presence is altogether different 
 in the opinion of the Church of England and that of Rome; and 
 not otherwise conveyed to, and partaken of by, the communicant, 
 than as it pleases God, by His divine grace, to convey blessings 
 to the soul of the spiritual worshipper, as is entirely manifest by 
 the utter reprobation by the Church of any idea of a necessary, 
 corporeal, or physical giving, taking, and eating, as is expressed in 
 the twenty-eighth Article. There it is emphatically denied that 
 the wicked do take, eat, or participate of the body of Christ, but 
 do merely ‘“‘eat the sign or sacrament of so great a thing,” and 
 that, too, “ to their own condemnation.” 
 
 The same idea, as remarked above, runs strongly through the 
 catechism as well as the other parts of the prayer-book. Thus, 
 an outward 
 
 ςς 
 
 that elementary form teaches us that a sacrament is 
 and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, 
 ordained by Christ Himself as a means whereby we receive the 
 same and a pledge to assure us thereof ;” and it is just as expli- 
 citly stated that the inward part is thereby “received by the 
 faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” Thus, while guarding, on the 
 one hand, against Romish heresies by a careful and oft-reiterated 
 declaration that it is the facthful only who partake of “ the gift,” 
 yet our Church seems just as careful to preserve and teach the 
 
260 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 scriptural, primitive, Catholic doctrine, that this solemn and divine 
 rite is not an unmeaning ceremony, nor only a ceremony of some 
 representative significance; but that it is an effectual mode of 
 communication of God’s own appointment between Himself and 
 the pious soul: a channel whereby the Holy Spirit imparts His 
 gifts and graces to the faithful worshipper: an ordinance con- 
 veying, in virtue of its divine appointment, every needful blessing 
 from our heavenly Father, to the heart possessed of a lively faith ; 
 but, in its abuse, heaping up wrath against the day of wrath to 
 those who will presume to rush to it unworthily. This sound 
 doctrine is as scriptural as it is antagonistic to Trent; as Catholic 
 as it is un-Romish; as encouraging and effectual for good to the 
 worthy, as it is awful and productive of evil to the godless and 
 reprobate. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 261 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVING SPECIAL 
 REFERENCE TO THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Havine settled the true view which ought to be taken of the 
 use and value of the sacramental symbols, we will next proceed 
 to consider the texts in which a special reference is made to the 
 Eucharist in the New Testament. It is not to be expected that 
 those who have in their hands the Word of God should be satisfied 
 with the word of man. And, as we are able to read what was said 
 and done at the institution of the Lord’s Supper by the Divine 
 Head of the Church, and what was thought and taught with 
 respect to it by an inspired apostle, we are enabled to exercise our 
 own judgments upon the original transaction and the authoritative 
 comments upon it, with the same advantages for the most part, as 
 have been enjoyed by Christians in every age of the Church since 
 that of the apostles. We will, therefore, now turn our attention 
 to the basis of our faith and practice in this, as in in all other 
 matters ; trusting that the “ Spirit of Truth” which indicted, will 
 also be pleased graciously to “ guide us into all truth” in this matter. 
 As no prophecy of the Scriptures is of any private interpretation, 
 —but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost,—so, as that Spirit is still the instructor of the Church 
 (though now in explaining and unfolding, what once He sug- 
 gested), looking to Him with prayerful dependence, we may also 
 look with the full assurance of faith that He will not fail the 
 sincere inquirer. 
 
 The first passage to consider is evidently that in which the 
 
262 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 evangelists and St. Paul record the institution. St. Matthew's 
 account of the transaction is—‘‘ And as they were eating, Jesus 
 took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disci- 
 ples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And He took the 
 cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all 
 ofit; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
 many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not 
 drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I 
 drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”* The account 
 given by Mark and Luke are very similar, save that the latter, as 
 also St. Paul when reviewing the transaction, gives the command 
 for its perpetuation—“ Do this in remembrance of me.” 
 
 Now, one would imagine that, whatever virtue might be supposed 
 to be imparted to the bread and the wine by the blessing which 
 had been pronounced over them, yet they would be considered 
 to remain in all other respects what they were before ; and that 
 when it was said ‘‘ This is my body,” “ This is my blood,” it was 
 simply a figurative expression, equivalent to the same kind of 
 comparison when made in other instances, as when Jesus said, 
 “T am the door,” “I am the vine,” &c., or, as St. Paul says, 
 “That rock was Christ.” Such, however, has not always been 
 considered the import of the phrase, but the words are considered 
 by some to express rigidly the idea conveyed in their most literal 
 interpretation. It is, therefore, argued, both from the words 
 themselves, and from the construction of the sentence in the 
 Greek, that the expression, “ This is my body,” is a proposition 
 of identity. 
 
 Now, it would appear to be amply sufficient, to secure this 
 passage from a rigid literal interpretation, to remember the flowery 
 and figurative modes in which the oriental nations were wont to 
 express themselves. Τί, in addition to this, that be correct which 
 is so frequently urged, — that the Syro-Chaldaic language had no 
 verb for, ‘‘ to represent,” then was necessitated, to a considerable 
 
 * Matt. xxvi., 26—29. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 263 
 
 extent, the form of speech which we find. If, moreover, the form 
 of distribution at the paschal feast among the Jews was, ‘ This is 
 the bread of affliction, which our fathers ate in Egypt,” &c.; and, 
 with respect to the lamb, ‘‘ This is the body of the passover,” &c. ;* 
 and we recollect that the institution of the Eucharist took place 
 at the time of its celebration, we can see another important reason 
 why Jesus Christ should have adopted the form of words which 
 he did. It appears to me, on each and all of these grounds 
 together, that the words in question do not contain a proposition 
 of “identity,” nor will allow of a literal interpretation. 
 
 But it is said that the construction of the sentence, in the 
 Greek, requires this interpretation. It is argued that τδυτό cor τὸ 
 σῶμά μου cannot mean “ This dread is my body,” for in that case 
 it would have been οὗτος, to agree with ἄρτος, but this by no means 
 follows. Every scholar knows that it is not only optional with 
 which of two nouns to which a relative or demonstrative refers, 
 he shall make it agree; but it is more usual, indeed the rule, to 
 make it agree with the latter. Dr. Williams, bishop of Colchester, 
 reviews this objection as follows : 
 
 * © Ver, 26. ‘This is my body.” What is the full importance of this phrase,— 
 TOUTO εστι TO σῶμά μου, ‘ This is my body,’—is ἃ difficulty, which may, perhaps, be 
 cleared by degrees, by premising these few observations: First, from the Jewish phrases 
 and customs, that the Lamb, dressed in the paschal supper, and set upon the table as 
 a sacrificial feast or festival sacrifice, was wont to be called mpb “yw 151} (the body 
 of the passover), or ΠΟΘΙ was w rsa (the body of the paschal Lamb). So, in the 
 Talmud, De Pasch. ec. ult. ἢ. M. Maim: in Hilchos Camets umatzah, ec. viil. ss. 1, 7. 
 So in Mekilta, fol. 4. col. 1. To which phrase or form of speech among them Christ 
 may probably allude when he saith, ‘ This is my body ; making Himself, that was now 
 to be slain for them, answerable to that paschal Lamb—as by Paul he is called our 
 passover, that is sacrificed for us— and so mentioning this crucifixion of His, in that 
 form by which tie presentation of the Lamb on the table in the Jewish feast, whereof 
 they were to eat by God’s appointment, was wont to be expressed. ‘his for the words 
 σῶμά μου--- My body,’ Secondly, for the T6vT0 €aT1—‘ This is;’ or the whole 
 phrase, TOUTO εστι TO σῶμά μου ----ἰ This is my body.’ This seems to be by Christ 
 substituted instead of the paschal form, ΡΛ) NA mond, ‘ This is the bread of afflic- 
 tion, which our fathers eat in Egypt; or, ‘This is the unleayened bread, &c, or, 
 ‘ This is the passover.’ Where it is evident that that is not the identical bread which 
 their fathers in Egypt eat, but only the transcript of it, the commemoration of that 
 Egyptian state of slavery, from which they had been delivered, and the celebration 
 of that annual feast which, in Egypt, was first instituted..—Hammond’s Par. and Ann. 
 New Test. p. 131. 
 
264 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 “1. As it is ordinary in Latin and Greek, when the substantive is 
 understood, or the antecedent is going before, to put the relative (what- 
 ever gender the substantive is of) in the neuter gender, as John vi., 61, 
 τοῦτο, ‘ Doth this offend you?’ that is, Christ’s coming from heaven ; 
 so 1 Cor. xi., 24, 25, τοῦτο, ‘this ;’ that is, take and eat. 
 
 «Ὁ When the substantive, properly belonging to the adjective, is 
 not immediately repeated with the adjective, the adjective may be in 
 the neuter gender, as Gen. il., 39, τοῦτο ὀστοῦν, ‘ this is bone,’ where 
 the word γυνὴ, ‘woman,’ is the antecedent. 
 
 «¢3, It is common, again, in Greek and Latin, to put the relative in 
 the same gender with the consequent, as in the foregoing instance, τοῦτο 
 ὀστοῦν, which the vulgar Latin reads hoc est os. And so, when the 
 sentence going before, was the autecedent, yet we find the relative is in 
 the feminine, if the consequent substantive be so, as Hzek. v., 5, αὐτὴ 
 ἡ Ἱηρουσαλὴμ, ‘this is Jerusalem.’ So St. Cyprian, ‘hee est caro 
 mea.’* 
 
 «‘ Now, it happens that there is none of these but what is applicable 
 to our case. For, (1.) The antecedent may be the sentence going 
 before, and the bread, and the breaking, giving, taking, eating, may be 
 the body of Christ by signification; as the lamb, the taking, killing, 
 dressing, and eating, is said to be the Lord’s passover, Exod, xii., 11. 
 And the hair, the burning, smiting, and scattering it, is said to be 
 Jerusalem, Ezek. v., 5. (2.) The substantive is not repeated with, nor 
 immediately connected to the adjective. (8.) And the noun consequent 
 to τοῦτο, this, is σῶμα of the neuter gender; and consequently in all 
 points, nothing more regular and grammatical.’} 
 
 Indeed, irrespective of these incontrovertible proofs that there 
 is nothing in the Greek to prevent this referring to the bread, it 
 is proved by the Romanists that it is easier to make objections 
 than to find solutions; for when they are asked, to what τὄυτο, 
 this, can refer, they are all at sea, and not more at variance with 
 Protestants than among themselves. Thus it cannot, with safety, 
 be affirmed to refer strictly to σῶμα, body, because, until the words 
 have all been pronounced, the transubstantiation has not taken 
 place. ‘These words are the charm which, being spoken, work 
 the change; and, before they have been spoken, the change has 
 not been wrought. This is acknowledged by many Romanists, 
 
 * De Cena Dom. 4 See Gibson’s Pres. from Pop. vol. ix. p. 380. Ref. Soc. Ed. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 265 
 
 of whom some writers say, that the this refers to the bread which 
 is as yet unchanged ; others, to the species ; others explain it by 
 this thing, though what they mean by the expression they are 
 unable to say. It is thus seen that the idea of taking our Lord's 
 words, in their simplest acceptation, only leads to difficulties, 
 where a figurative interpretation allows of none whatever. In 
 fact, a literal interpretation of this expression creates not only 
 difficulties of explanation, but of a physical character. A miracle 
 is asserted, which is a stumbling-block to faith and a laughing- 
 stock to reason—which cannot convince, because it is unseen ; 
 which cannot convert, because it is uninfluential. In no other 
 instance have we ever heard of an unmeaning, objectless, ineffec- 
 tual exercise of power divine ! 
 
 The following clear reasoning of Bishop Kidder will at once 
 dispose of the pretence that there is a proposition of “ identity” 
 enunciated in the expression ‘‘ This is my body:” 
 
 “This. If by this be meant ‘this bread,’ here will be no strength 
 to be had from it for supporting those doctrines of the Church of Rome. 
 And by this must be meant Christ’s body, or bread, or nothing at all, 
 To say that by this Christ meant His body, is to suppose Him to say 
 that His body is His body; but if He said that this bread was His body, 
 then is not our Protestant interpretation of the words to be rejected, 
 nor the sense of the Romanists to be admitted. And that by this our 
 Saviour meant ‘this bread,’ is infinitely plain to any that are unpre- 
 judiced. What did He take? The text tells us that He “ took bread ;’* 
 what he took he also blessed and brake, and gave; of this he said, 
 ‘Take, eat,’ and then adds, ‘This is my body.’ This will be put out 
 of doubt if, by the following this, in those words, ‘This is my blood,’ 
 by this be meant ‘ this cup,’ no reason can be assigned why this (Matt. 
 xxvi., 26) should not denote ‘this bread,’ if this (ver, 28) denote ‘ this 
 cup.’ It is true St. Matthew and St. Mark, having mentioned the cup 
 which Jesus took and blessed, and gave, tell us that Jesus said, ‘This 
 is my blood.’+ And though it be plain, from what goes before, that by 
 this is meant ‘this cup,’ yet we have further proof of it still. For 
 whereas St. Matthew and St. Mark say only this, St. Luke and St. 
 
 * Matt. xxvi., 26, with ver. 28. 
 + Matt. xxvi., 28; Mark xiy., 24; with Luke xxii., 20, and 1 Cor. x., 16 and chap. 
 SAU ΘΒ, 
 ΜΝ 
 
266 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Paul say ‘this cup.’ And having this warrant by this in the latter 
 words to understand ‘this cup,’ where lies the blame when, by this in 
 the former, we understand ‘this bread ?’ I proceed: 
 
 ‘Ts, This verb is interpretable according to the subject matter ; but 
 where it is used of a sacrament, and enjoins the sign and thing signified 
 together, and where another sense contended for is destructive to our 
 senses and against reason and other Scripture, it is reasonable to under- 
 stand it to import the same with the word signijieth ; and that is the 
 present case. Nor is there any more common than this way of speaking 
 in the Holy Scriptures, in other authors and common conversation. 
 This verb here cannot be understood in the sense of the Church of 
 Rome, as implying transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass ; 
 because that change of substance they speak of is not effected till these 
 words, ‘This is my body,’ are fully pronounced; and, therefore, this 
 not being effected till the last syllable be pronounced (according to our 
 adversaries), it cannot be said to be before it hath received its being. 
 The pronunciation of the words must be precedent to the being of the 
 thing ; and therefore cannot be true before they are fully pronounced. 
 According to our adversaries, the real presence of Christ in the sacra- 
 ment (which they contend for) must be the cause and effect of the truth 
 of this proposition, ‘This is my body.’ If their doctrine be not true, 
 the proposition is false in the sense they take it in. Again, if their 
 doctrine be true, the proposition pronounced by a priest makes it so. 
 And whereas, elsewhere, the existence of a thing makes good the pro- 
 position, here the proposition makes good the thing. 
 
 « My body. By His body, our Lord must mean what was known to 
 be so, and what had the properties of a human body. The disciples 
 were gross, and apt enough to take spiritual things in a carnal sense, 
 when the letter gave them any occasion so to do.* They had not so 
 quick an apprehension as to conquer all the difficulties of the Romish 
 doctrine. They could not comprehend the miracle said to be wrought 
 by the words of consecration. They were not easily convinced that 
 Christ was risen from the dead, even after many proofs of it and pre- 
 dictions to that purpose. It is not to be imagined that they would eat 
 human flesh and drink blood, and believe Jesus sacrificed and alive at 
 the same time; at the same entire, and yet consumed; and eaten 
 entirely by each of them, and in every the least crumb of bread that 
 was taken.’”’} 
 
 But it is not modern Protestants alone who assert that the 
 
 * Matt. xvi., 6, 11, 12. John vi., 32, 33. + Bishop Kidder’s “ Texts Hxamined.” 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 267 
 
 reference of ¢his, in the words of tradition, is to the bread. The 
 Fathers as expressly declare, that that which was given, taken, 
 and eaten by the apostles, at the institution, was bread, although 
 they do not hesitate to use our Lord’s words with respect to it 
 very freely, wherein He declared it was His body. 
 
 It must be remembered that the leading advocates of the Romish 
 Church acknowledge that, if the words of our Lord had been “This 
 bread is my body,” they would have been at once decisive of the 
 question and against transubstantiation. The Council of Trent 
 says, that these words respect the whole substance of what is 
 present ; but if the substance of bread remain, it seems no way 
 possible to be said, ‘‘ This is my body.” So, also, Bellarmine 
 says, “‘ This breadis my body” must be taken figuratively. “ For,” 
 he adds, “it cannot be a true proposition, in which the subject is 
 supposed to be bread, and the predicate the body of Christ ; for 
 bread and Christ’s body are res diversissime, things most diverse. 
 ... If we affirm disparata de disparatis, different things of one 
 another, you might as well affirm and say, that something is 
 nothing, and nothing something ; that light is darkness, and 
 darkness light; that Christ is Belial, and Belial Christ ; neither 
 does our faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently 
 imply a contradiction. * 
 
 So, also, Vasquez: “If the pronoun ¢his, in Christ’s words, 
 pointed at the bread, then we confess it would follow, that no 
 conversion could be made by virtue of these words, because the 
 bread, of which it is affirmed (sc. that it is Christ's body) ought 
 to remain.”’t 
 
 Now, the early Christian writers nowhere hesitate to call that 
 which was handed by our Lord to, and received by, the apostles 
 “bread” and “wine; thus clearly shewing, according to Romish 
 concessions, that they did not believe in the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation. The following authorities, chiefly from Mr. Patrick's 
 collection in his work, ‘‘ A Full View of the Doctrines and Prac- 
 
 * De Euch. lib. iii. cap. 19. + Disp. 180, cap. 9, n. 91. 
 
268 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 tices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist,” &ec., will 
 prove this point to the perfect satisfaction of every reasonable 
 mind : 
 
 “St. Irenzeus: ‘Our Lord confessed the cup which is of the crea- 
 ture to be His blood ; and the bread which is of the creature, He con- 
 firmed it to be His body,”* 
 
 «Clement of Alexandria: ‘ Our Lord blessed the wine, saying, Take, 
 drink, this is my blood, the blood of the grape. For the holy river of 
 gladness (so he calls the wine) does allegorically signify the Word (1.6. 
 the blood of the Word) shed for many for the remission of sins.’+ 
 
 «Tertullian : ‘ Calling bread His body.’t 
 
 “And against Marcion he says the same : ‘ Calling bread His body, 
 that thou mayest know that He gave to bread the figure of His body, &e.’§ 
 
 “And in the next book: ‘ The bread that He took and distributed 
 to His disciples, He made it His body, saying, This is my body, that 
 is, the figure of my body.'| 
 
 «St. Cyprian: ‘ When our Lord called the bread, which is made up 
 of many united grains, His body, &c."4 
 
 “Tatianus Syrus: ‘ Christ taking the bread, and after that the cup 
 of wine, testified that they were His body and blood, &c.’** 
 
 “Origen : ‘That bread which our Lord confessed to be His body.’t} 
 
 * Ady. Heres, 1. v.,c. 2. To ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον αἷμα ἰδιον ὡμολο- 
 ηησε, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ κτίσεως ἄρτον ἴδιον σῶμα διαβεβαιώσατο. [το]. i., p. 
 294. Venet. 1734], 
 
 + Pedag., 1. ii, 6.9. Εὐλόγησέν ye τὸν οἴνον, εἰπὼν, Λάβετε, πέετε, 
 τοῦτο μού ἐστι τὸ αἷμα, αἷμα τῆς ἀμπέλου * σὸν λόηον τὸν περὶ πολλῶν 
 ἐκχεόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εὐφροσύνης ἅγιον ἠλληηόρει νᾶμα. 
 [p. 186. Venet. 1757]. 
 
 t Adv. Judeeos, c. 21. Panem corpus suum appellans. 
 
 § Idem ady. Marcion. 1. iii., cap. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans, ut et hine 
 eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, &c. [Ibid. p. 405]. 
 
 || Lib. iv., advers. Mare.,c.40. Acceptum panem et distributum Discipulis, corpus 
 suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. (Ibid. 
 pp. 457, 458]. 
 
 q Epist. 76. ad Magnum. Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum 
 sranorum adunatione congestum, ἕο, [p. 318. Venet. 1728]. 
 
 ** Harmon. in Bibl. Patrum, 1624. tom. vii. Accepto pane, deinde vini calice, 
 corpus esse suum ac sanguinem testatus, ὅσο, [Max. Biblioth. Vet. Patr., vol. ii., p. 
 210. col. 1. Lugd. 1677]. 
 
 ++ Hom. 35. in Matth, Panis iste quem Dominus corpus suum esse fatetur. [vol. 
 iii., p. 898. Par. 1740]. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 269 
 
 ‘“‘ Eusebius: ‘ Christ appointed them (or delivered to them) to make 
 use of bread for a symbol of His body Ἢ 
 
 “ΟΥ̓ of Jerusalem: ‘ When Christ affirms, and says of the bread, 
 This is my body, who will dare to doubt further of it ?’} 
 
 «St. Jerome: ‘Let us hear, that the bread which our Lord brake 
 and gave to His disciples, is the body of our Saviour.’t (Which he 
 explains further elsewhere): ‘'That as Melchisedec prefiguring Him 
 had done, when He offered bread and wine, so He also represented the 
 truth of His body and blood.’§ 
 
 «St. Chrysostom : ‘ What is the bread ἢ The body of Christ. What 
 do they become that receive it? The body of Christ. Not many bodies, 
 
 «St. Austin : ‘ What your faith is to be instructed in is, That the bread 
 is the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ.’ 4] 
 
 «* And elsewhere: ‘Our Lord doubted not to affirm, This is my body, 
 when He gave the sign of His body.’*+ 
 
 “‘Gaudentius: ‘When our Lord reached the censecrated bread and 
 wine to His disciples, He said thus, This is my body.}} 
 
 ““ Cyril of Alexandria: ‘ Christ, when He had broken the bread, as it 
 is written, distributed it, saying, This is my body.’tt 
 
 * Demonstr. Evang., lib. viii. “Ap7w δὲ χρῆσθαι, συμβόλῳ τοῦ ἐδίου σώμα- 
 τος παρεδίδου. 
 
 + Catech. Mystag. 4. Αὐτοῦ ἀποφηνομένου καὶ εἰπόντος περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου, 
 Τοῦτο μου ἐστὶ τὸ σώμα, τίς τολμήσει ἀμφιβάλλειν λοιπὸν ; [p. 890. Venet. 
 1763]. 
 
 1 Epist. ad Hedibiam. Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus, deditque dis- 
 cipulis suis, esse corpus salvatoris, &c. [vol. i., p. 818. Veron. 1734]. 
 
 § Comm. in 26. Matt. Quomodo in prefiguratione ejus Melchisedek . . . panem 
 et vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis et sanguinis representaret. 
 (Ibid. vol. vii., p. 216]. 
 
 || In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Td yap ἐστιν ὃ ἄρτος; Σώμα Χριστοῦ. Ti δὲ 
 
 > \ , A 
 γίνονται οἵ μεταλαμβάνοντες; Σώμα Χριστοῦ, Οὐχε σώμωτα πολλα, 
 ἀλλὰ σώμα ἕν. [vol. χ., p. 250. Par. 1837]. 
 
 4 Serm, ad recens baptizat. apud Fulgentium, Bedam, &c. Quod fides vestra pos- 
 tulat instruenda, Panis est corpus Christi, Calix sanguis Christi. [Serm. 272. vol v., 
 p- 1614. Par. 1837]. 
 
 ** Contr. Adimantum, c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoe est corpus 
 meum, cum daret signum corporis sui. [Tbid. vol. viii., p. 224}. 
 
 ++ In Exod, tract. 2. Cum panem consecratum et vinum discipulis suis porrigeret 
 Dominus, sic ait, Hoc est corpus meum. [Max. Bibl. Vet. Patr. vol. v., p. 947. col. 2 
 Lugd. 1677]. 
 
 tt In Joan. xx., 26.27. Διακλάσας τὸν ἄρτον, καθ᾽ ὃ γέγραπται, διεδίδου, 
 λέγων, Τοῦτο ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, &e. [vol. iv., p. 1106. Lut. 1638. ] 
 
270 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 “ Theophilus Antioch, or the author under his name upon the Gospel, 
 speaks just St. Cyprian’s language: ‘When Jesus said, This is my 
 body, He called the bread His body, which is made up of many grains, 
 by which he would represent the people, ἄο. 
 
 «‘Theodoret : ‘In the delivery of the mysteries, He called the bread 
 His body, and that which is mixed (wine and water in the cup) blood. 
 
 . And afterwards, He honoured the visible symbols with the appel- 
 lation of His body and blood, &c.’} 
 
 « Facundus Hermian: ‘ Our Lord Himself called the blessed bread 
 and cup which He delivered to His disciples, His body and blood.’t 
 
 “‘Maxentius, speaking of the Church, that is called Christ’s body, 
 adds, ‘also the bread, which the whole Church partakes of in memory 
 of the Lord’s passion, is His body.’§ 
 
 “ Isidore of Seville says, ‘ We call this, by His command, the body and 
 blood of Christ, which, being made of the fruits of the earth, is sanctified 
 and made a sacrament, by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God.’| 
 
 “Bede: ‘ Christ said to His disciples, This is my body, &c., because 
 bread strengthens the body, and wine produces blood in the flesh; this 
 relates mystically to Christ’s body, and that to His blood.’ 
 
 “The seventh general council at Constantinople, after reciting the 
 words of the institution, ‘This is my body,’ after His taking, and 
 blessing, and breaking it, adds, ‘Behold the image of His life-giving 
 body made preciously and honourably.’ And afterwards, ‘ It pleased 
 Him that the bread of the sacrament, being the true figure of His 
 natural flesh, should be made a divine body, being sanctified by the 
 coming of the Holy Ghost upon it, &c.’* * 
 
 * Com. in Matt. 26. 
 
 + In Dialog. 1. Ἔν δέ ye τῶν μυστηρίων παραδόσει, σῶμα τὸν ἄρτον 
 ἐκάλεσε, καὶ αἷμα. τὸ κρᾶμα. Τὰ ὁρώμενα σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ σιώματος καὶ 
 ae: προσηγορίᾳ τετίμηκεν, &c. [vol. iv., p. 26. Hal. 1733]. 
 
 } In Defens. 3. capit. lib. ix., c. ult. Ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem 
 chien discipulis tradidit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. 
 
 § Dialog. ii.,c. 13. Sed est panis ille, quem universa Keclesia in memoriam Do- 
 minice passionis participat, corpus ejus. 
 
 || Originum, lib. vi., cap. 19. Hoc, eo jubente, corpus Christi et sanguinem dici- 
 mus, quod dum fit ex fructibus terre, sanctificatur et fit sacramentum, operante invisi- 
 biliter Spiritu Dei. [p. 52. col. 1. Colon. Agr. 1617]. 
 
 4 Comm. in Marc. 14.—Quia panis corpus confirmat, vinum vero sanguinem 
 operatur in carne, hic ad corpus Christi mysticé, illud refertur ad sanguinem. 
 
 Ἐκ Extat. in Cone. Nicen ii. Art. 6. Ἰδοὺ οὖν ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σώμα- 
 τος αὐτοῦ ἡ ἐντίμως καὶ τετιμημένιως πραττομένη. Τὸν τῆς εὐχαριστίας 
 ἄρτον, Ws ἀψευδῆ εἰκόνα τῆς φυσικῆς σαρκὸς, διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος 
 ἐπιφοιτήσειωος ἁγιαζόμενον, θεῖον σῶμα εὐδόκησε γίνεσθαι. [Labbe, Concil., 
 vol. vii., pp. 446, 447. Lut. Par. 1761.] 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. at I 
 
 “Druthmarus: ‘This is my body, that is to say, in a sacrament; 
 because, among all things that are the food of life, bread and wine serve 
 to strengthen and refresh our weaknesses, it is with great reason that 
 He would in these two things establish the mystery of His sacrament. 
 For wine both cheers us and increases blood, and therefore very fitly 
 the blood of Christ is figured by it; because whatsoever comes to us 
 from Him, cheers us with true joy, and increaseth all good in us.”* 
 
 ‘‘ Rabanus Maurus, explaining the words of institution, says, ‘ Be- 
 cause bread strengthens the body, therefore it is fitly called the body of 
 Christ ; and wine, because it produces blood in our flesh, is therefore 
 referred to the blood of Christ.’+ 
 
 “Τὴ the Aithiopic churches they use this phrase (which the Church 
 of Rome is so shy of), ‘ This bread is my body.’} 
 
 * Bertram: ‘I am confident, no Christian doubts but that bread was 
 made the body of Christ which He gave to His disciples, saying, This 
 is my body,’ &c. ; and he there shews that this is made by the same 
 change, whereby the manna and the water of the rock in the wilderness 
 were turned into His body and blood.§ 
 
 «To conclude this head: it is plain that there is a general consent 
 of Fathers on the Protestant side in this particular, that the bread and 
 wine are Christ’s body and blood. And it is the more remarkable, 
 because they give us this sense when they are explaining Christ’s words, 
 and in their commentaries upon the gospels where the words of institu- 
 tion are recorded.” 
 
 It is perfectly useless to comment on testimonies so numerous, 
 clear, and explicit. It is manifest that, in consenting to Protes- 
 tant modes of speech, the Fathers held Protestant doctrines. Nor 
 is it necessary to adduce any passages from the Fathers to shew 
 
 * Comm. in Matt. xxvi. Hoc est corpus meum ; id est, in sacramento.—Quia inter 
 omnes vite alimonias cibus panis et vinum valent ad confirmandam et recreandam 
 nostram infirmitatem, recte per heec duo mysterium sui sacramenti confirmare placuit. 
 Vinum namque et letificat et sanguinem auget:; et idcirco non inconvenienter sanguis 
 Christi per hoc figuratur, quoniam quicquid nobis ab ipso venit leetificat letitia vera, et 
 auget omne bonum nostrum. 
 
 + Comm. in Matt. xxvi. Quia panis confirmat corpus, ideo corpus ille Christi con- 
 gruentur nuncupatur, vinum antem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad san- 
 guinem Christi refertur. 
 
 + Ludolphi Athiop. Hist., lib. iii. c. 5. ἢ. ὅθ. Hic panis est corpus meum. 
 
 § De Corp. et Sang. Dom. p. 40. late Eng. et. Lat. Translation. Non putamus 
 ullum fidelium dubitare, panem illum fuisse corpus Christi effectum, quod Discipulis 
 donans dicit, Hoe est corpus meum, &e. [p. 166. Lond. 1688}. 
 
Dike THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 that they held the efficacy of the elements in the case of pious 
 receivers. Indeed, it is the strong and unguarded expressions 
 which they have made use of on this subject, which are now often 
 quoted as proofs of their belief in the peculiar doctrines of Rome. 
 To transcribe their testimony on this head, would be to transcribe 
 a great portion of their writings; and as it is entirely a work 
 of supererogation to prove that which no one disputes, I shall 
 pass on to consider, in the next place, the conversation of our 
 Lord with the people of Capernaum, recorded in the sixth chapter 
 of the Gospel of St. John. 
 
 The next alleged Scripture authority for the peculiar views of 
 the Romish Church on the doctrine of the Eucharist, is the latter 
 portion of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John. It is true, 
 indeed, that, of late years, many of the most eminent of the con- 
 troversial writers of that Church have denied all reference to this 
 sacrament in the chapter ;* and this they do in order to get rid of 
 the very serious difficulty into which they otherwise fall, in con- 
 sequence of denying the cup to the laity, and all except the 
 officiating priest. Our Lord declares so emphatically in this 
 chapter, that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
 drink his blood, we have no life in us, that it is felt there is no 
 evading the heaviest and most decided condemnation of ‘‘ com- 
 munion in one kind,” but by abandoning the chapter. This has 
 not always been done; and, indeed, it must be felt a tremendous 
 sacrifice of Scripture proof for other parts of the Romish doctrine, 
 thus to give up this conversation at Capernaum. But as sailors 
 throw overboard all their cargo and stores to save their lives, so 
 
 * They are thus ranged by Albertinus de Euch. lib. i., cap. 30, p. 299. Two Popes 
 —Innocent III., Pius IJ. Four cardinals—Bonayenture, D’Alliaco, Cusan, Cajetan. 
 Two archbishops—Richardus Armachanus, and Guererius Granatensis. Five bishops 
 —Stephanus Eduensis, Durandus Mimatensis, Gulielmus Altisiodorensis, Lindanus 
 Ruremondensis, and Jansenius Gandavensis. Doctors and professors of divinity in 
 great abundance—Alexander Alensis, Richardus de media villa. Jo. Jerson, Jo, de 
 Ragusio, Gabriel Biel, Thomas Waldensis, Author. tract. contr. perfidiam quorundam 
 Bohemorum, Jo. Maria Verratus, Tilmannus Segebergensis, Astesanus, Conradus, Jo. 
 Ferus, Conradus, Sasgerus, Jo. Hesselius, Ruardus Tapperus, Palatius, and Rigaltius 
 Here are thirty of the Roman Church, who reject this application of this chapter. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 273 
 
 these, to keep the ship from absolutely foundering, throw over- 
 board what they must feel to be most precious treasure. 
 
 Bishop Cleaver, in his three sermons, has undoubtedly con- 
 structed a very plausible parallelism between the third and sixth 
 of John as to the doctrine of the two sacraments, and gives it as 
 his opinion that the holy communion was the thing in our Lord’s 
 mind during the whole discourse with the Capernaites. But it is 
 still not so clear that there is any reference intended to the sacra- 
 ment in the latter as in the former chapter ; for of the Eucharist 
 men knew nothing, but with baptism they were well acquainted. 
 It was not at all in unusual language, nor on an unknown subject,* 
 that Jesus discoursed with Nicodemus; but with the Jews at 
 Capernaum it was very different, if the allusion was intended which 
 is insisted upon. It was wholly impossible that our Lord could 
 have been understood had such been the case, and there would 
 
 ‘have been a greater barrier in the way of understanding Him, 
 than if we suppose Him speaking of receiving His doctrine, and 
 equal to what would have existed had He spoken of participating 
 in the merits of His death. With the explanation afforded, either 
 of the latter was, possibly, capable of being understood, the former 
 of the two certainly. The shadow of the idea of sacramental 
 eating could not by possibility have once entered the thoughts of 
 the auditory. 
 
 But, if it were admitted that the discourse recorded in John vi. 
 had reference to the Eucharist, it would be as far off as ever from 
 supporting the doctrine of transubstantiation. There is no such 
 
 * There are but few who are not aware that, when Jesus Christ instituted baptism 
 as the rite of admission into His Church, he but adopted what the Jews had long 
 practised. The following quotation from Maimonides shews the universality of the 
 practice :—“ And so, in all ages, when an ethnic is willing to enter into the covenant, 
 and gather himself under the wing of the majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke 
 of the law, he must be circumcised and baptized and bring a sacrifice ; or if it be a 
 woman, be baptized and bring a sacrifice. As it is written, ‘As you are, so shall the 
 stranger be’ (Num. xy., 15). How are you? By circumcision, and baptism, and 
 bringing of a sacrifice. So, likewise, the stranger (or proselyte) through all genera- 
 tions—by circumcision, and baptism, and bringing of a sacrifice.’”—TIsuri Bia, ὁ. 19, 
 apud Wall’s Infant Baptism. 
 
 NUN 
 
Q74 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 idea in any one verse of the chapter. The change is, through the 
 whole discourse, in the wrong direction to give any countenance 
 to Rome. It might be argued from it, that the Eucharist was 
 the impanation of Christ, but not transubstantiation. In no case 
 does Jesus say that He would make bread His body, but always 
 that His flesh was bread. 
 
 Now, surely no one could say that these are the same thing. 
 Yet the advocates of Paschasius’s doctrine say that the latter is 
 what is taught, in direct contravention of the words, many times 
 repeated. Would any one have the hardihood to assert, that the 
 change effected at Cana, and recorded in the second of John, was 
 the change of wine into water? Yet their daring is not less who 
 prove transubstantiation by the sixth chapter. A drowning man 
 will catch at straws. 
 
 But our Lord’s own explanation, given more than once in the 
 chapter itself, will afford the best clue to the meaning. “ And 
 Jesus said, 1 am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall 
 never hunger, he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (ver, 
 35). Now, this is as plain as though it were said, I am the 
 bread of life; he that cometh to me eateth me, he that believeth 
 on me drinketh me. For it differs nothing but in emphasis, to 
 put the effect of eating, never hunger, and the effect of drinking, 
 never thirst, for the operations themselves. The expressions 
 actually used, are only stronger than what I have substituted, and 
 give a key to unlock every difficulty of the discourse which follows 
 them. 
 
 Yet this is not all. Not only did the Divine Instructor suggest 
 the solution of His figurative discourse as He began it, but He 
 also intimated its. solution when He had finished. When He heard 
 that some murmured, He asked the question, “ Doth this offend 
 you ?” and, not to allow them to depart under misapprehension, 
 He adds, “It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth 
 nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and 
 they are life.” 
 
 Now, all these considerations compel us to the conviction, that 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. ΟἿ 
 
 not only did our Lord not allude to the Eucharist at all in this 
 discourse, but that the whole was strictly figurative. It is, indeed, 
 a matter of no very great moment as to which view a man takes, 
 and many will no doubt always hold that there is a reference to 
 the Eucharist in this chapter, while as many will hold the contrary. 
 Neither party will be a whit nearer the Popish doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation, because of such belief. Indeed, it is a remarkable 
 fact that Protestant doctors, properly so called, should argue for 
 the sacramental allusion; while Papists, who would seem to be 
 more interested in such an application, should, in large numbers, 
 repudiate the connection. But while Protestant writers are thus 
 divided, it by no means at all follows that even those, who consider 
 no reference intended, should themselves not allude to the one, 
 while speaking or writing of the other. For as the phraseology 
 of the Saviour, as recorded by the beloved disciple, tallies with 
 the ordinance, as far as i 
 
 “eating” and “drinking” are concerned, 
 it Im no respect seems unsuitable to refer to the evangelist when 
 discoursing on the Holy Supper. This led to the use of the 
 words which express the physical act, when no idea of that is 
 implied, nay, when in the words themselves denied. Quidam non 
 manducantes, manducant: quidam manducantes, non mandu- 
 cant. It is not at all strange, therefore, that even those who 
 imagine no reference intended, should quote John vi. as a sanction 
 and support to the Eucharistic celebration. The sentiment of 
 Dr. Claggett is that of sober sense :—‘‘ For, as I have already 
 told you, the Eucharist represents the death of Christ, and our 
 spiritual feeding thereupon; and these words in St. John signify 
 what the Eucharist represents. No wonder, therefore, if Christian 
 writers, in speaking of the Eucharist, produce these words, which 
 have so near an affinity with it. And this I think they may do 
 pertinently enough, without supposing that these passages in St. 
 John signify the Eucharist, because they signify some of the same 
 things which the Eucharist signifies."* What we know to be 
 
 * See this same author's searce and valuable “ Paraphrase on the Sixth Chapter of 
 John,” Appendix J., p, Ixxxix. 
 
276 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 true of ourselves, we can find no difficulty in believing of the 
 
 Fathers. 
 
 The following authorities, from the early Christian writers, are, 
 for the most part, taken from those collected by the above-named 
 author, whose sensible comments I have allowed to accompany them. 
 They will be found wholly to set aside the pretence that the inter- 
 pretation put upon John vi. by Archdeacon Wilberforce and others, 
 is supported by “the general judgment of the ancient Church :᾿ ἢ 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus supposes these expressions, to “‘ eat the flesh 
 of Christ,” and to “drink His blood,” to be as figurative as that of 
 
 * T had intended not further to notice, in this second book, the erroneous interpre - 
 tations of Scripture, and the misappropriations of passages from the Fathers, made in 
 e “ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.” I may, however, here remark, that all reasoning 
 about the impropriety and unusual character of the expressions “eat my flesh” and 
 “drink my bloed,” to signify “receive my doctrine,” is silenced at once by our Lord 
 Himself saying that this was His meaning, “ He that cometh to me shall never hunger ; 
 he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (ver.35). This ought to satisfy and silence 
 Bishop Cleaver, Gesenius, and Archdeacon Wilberforce. And, as neither Ignatius nor 
 Treneus quotes the words of St. John, it is quite gratuitous, to say the least, to assume 
 that they connect them with the Eucharist in any way.—Doct. H. Euch., p. 165, &e. 
 Hear Dr. Waterland :—* The passage of Ignatius, to which reference is made, is this}: 
 “Ζῶν γὰρ ράφω ὑμῖν, ἐρῶν τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν" ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως ἐσταύρωται" καὶ οὐκ 
 ἔστιν ἐν ἐμοὶ πῦρ φιλόδλον" ὕδωρ δὲ ζών, καὶ λαλοῦν ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐσωθὲν μοι 
 λέγον᾽ δεῦρο πρὸς τὸν πατέρα᾽ οὐχ ἥδομαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς, οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς 
 τοῦ βίου τούτου ἄρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, ἄρτον οὐράνιόν, ἄρτον ζωῆς, ὅς ἐστιν 
 σὰρξ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ υἱοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐν ὑστέρῳ ἐκ 
 σπέρματος Δαβὶδ καὶ ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ πόμα Θεοῦ θέλω τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐστιν 
 ἀηάπη ἄφθαρτος, καὶ ἀένναος ζωή. Οὐκ ἐτι θέλω κατὰ eee ζῆν" 
 τοῦτο δὲ ἔσται, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς θελήσητε.᾽ [Ignat. ad Roman. cap. 7, 8.] “1 am 
 alive at this writing, but my desire is to die. My love is pee ada I have no 
 secular fire left; but there is in me living water, speaking to me within, and saying, 
 Come to the Father. I delight not in corruptible food, nor in the entertainments of 
 this world. The bread of God is what I covet; heavenly bread, bread of life—namely, 
 the flesh of Christ Jesus the Son of God, who in these last times became the Son of 
 David and of Abraham; and I am athirst for the drink of God, namely, his blood, 
 which is a feast of love that faileth not, and life everlasting. I have no desire to live 
 any longer among men; neither shall I, if you will but consent.’ Upon which Water- 
 Jand remarks—‘ Here we may take notice of heavenly bread, bread of God, bread of 
 life, our Lord's own phrases in John vi. And Ignatius understands them of spiritual 
 food, of feeding upon the flesh of Christ, the Son of God incarnate. Drink of God, he 
 interprets in like manner, of the blood of Christ; which is the noblest feast, and life 
 eternal. Learned men have disputed whether he intended what he said of sacramental 
 food, or of celestial; whether of enjoying Christ in the Eucharist, or in heayen. To 
 me it appears a clear point, that he thought not of communicating, but of dying ; and 
 that the Eucharist was not the thing which he so earnestly begged to have (for who 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Pay 
 
 St. Paul, “to feed with milk;”* and tells us, upon this occasion, that 
 the word is variously allegorized, being called meat, and flesh, and 
 nourishment, and bread, and blood, and milk; and that “ our Lord is 
 all those things for our enjoyment who believe in Him.” Now, I am 
 persuaded you will not say that this Father interpreted the words under 
 debate of the Eucharist. 
 
 Tertullian, to shew that these words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” 
 do not make against the resurrection of the flesh, saith,+ ‘* that we are 
 to be directed to the sense of what is said by the subject matter of it. 
 For because they thought His saying hard and intolerable, as if He 
 intended His flesh should be truly eaten by them; He, to shew that 
 the cause of life and salvation was spiritual, premised this—‘ that the 
 spirit quickeneth ;’ and then added, ‘ the flesh profiteth nothing ;’ that 
 is, in respect of qnickening. And then he shews what He means by 
 the spirit—‘ The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they 
 are life.’ As He had said also before, ‘ He that heareth my words, 
 
 would refuse it ?), but martyrdom, which the Christians might endeavour to protract, 
 out of an over-officious care for a life so precious.’ ‘ The case is worse with respect to 
 Trenzeus, because he manifestly did found his doctrine on 1 Cor. x., 16, and expressly 
 quoted it for that very purpose :—‘ Vani aufem omnimodo, qui... carnis salutem 
 negant, et regenerationem ejus spernunt, dicentes, non eam capacem esse incorruptibi- 
 litatis. Si autem non salvetur hec, nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, neque 
 calix Eucharistiz communicatio sanguinis ejus est, neque panis quem frangimus, com- 
 municatio corporis ejus est.’ [Iren. lib. v. cap. 2, p. 293, ed. Bened.] He judged, as 
 every sensible man must, that if the Eucharist, according to St. Paul, amounts to a 
 communion, or communication of our Lord’s body and blood to every faithful receiver, 
 that then such receiver, for the time being, is therein considered as symbolically fed 
 with the crucified body, and of consequence entitled to be fellow-heir with the body 
 glorified.” Much more may be found in Waterland in loco.—Review Doct. Saer., &c 
 
 * Θύὕτως πολλακῶς ἀλληγορεῖται ὃ Λόγος, καὶ βρῶμα, καὶ σὰρξ, καὶ 
 τροφὴ, καὶ ἄρτος, καὶ αἷμα, καὶ ηάλα. “Avavta o Κύριος εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν 
 ELS τς eile tee , 
 ἡμῶν τῶν εἰς αὑτον πεπιστευκότων. Peedag. 110. 1... 6. 6. p, 105. Paris, [p. 126. 
 Venet. 1757]. 
 
 + Sic etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus. 
 Nam quia durum et intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, quasi vere 
 Carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, ut in Spiritum disponeret statum 
 salutis, preemisit. Spiritus est qui vivificat, atque ita subjunxit, Caro nihil prodest, 
 ad vivificandum scilicet. Exequitur etiam quid velit intelligi spiritum. Verba 
 que locutus sum vobis, Spiritus sunt, Vita sunt. Sicut et supra, Qui audit ser. 
 mones meos et credit in eum qui, &c. Itaque Sermonem constituens vivificatorem, 
 quia Spiritus et Vita Sermo, eundem etiam Carnem suam dixit, quia et Sermo Caro 
 crat factus proinde in causam Vite appetendus et devorandus auditu, et ruminan- 
 dus intellectu, et fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante Carnem suam Panem quoque 
 colestem pronunciarat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam, &c. Tertul.de Resur. 
 Carnis, ο. 36, 87. [p. 317. Par. 1695]. 
 
278 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 and believeth in him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come 
 into condemnation, but hath passed from death to life.’ Therefore, 
 making His word to be the quickening principle: since His word is 
 spirit and life, He called His word also His own flesh ; for the Word 
 was also made flesh ; and therefore, in order to life, it is to be hungered 
 after, and devoured by hearing, and to be chewed again by the under- 
 standing, and to be digested by faith.” And afterwards he affirms, that 
 our Lord all along urged His intent by an allegory. So that Tertul- 
 lian was so far from thinking these passages to refer to the Eucharist, 
 that I am in some doubt whether he understood them with any special 
 reference to the death of Christ. 
 
 Origen also interprets flesh and blood in like manner: for, says he, 
 « By the flesh and blood of His word, as with pure meat and drink, He 
 refresheth all mankind.”* And elsewhere he speaketh to the same 
 purpose.’ 
 
 St. Athanasius likewise seems to me to be of the same opinion, who, 
 speaking of the literal sense in which the Jews understood our Saviour, 
 hath these words :—‘ For how could His body suffice for so many to 
 eat of, that it should become nourishment for the whole world ? It is,” 
 says he, “ for this reason that he mentioned the Son of Man’s ascend- 
 ing into heaven, that he might draw them off from the corporeal 
 notion.” { Which testimony, as it manifestly shewed his judgment to 
 be, that our Saviour did not require the proper eating of His natural 
 body: so it contains a very probable argument, that He did not under- 
 stand those words of eating His sacramental body. For if He had so 
 understood them, it had been very accountable that the body of Christ 
 —i.e., His sacramental body—was sufficient for the nourishment of the 
 whole world. And by removing all corporeal notions of eating and 
 drinking, He seemed to establish only a spiritual notion. 
 
 But St. Jerome is plain and full to this purpose, beyond all contra- 
 diction, as 1 am persuaded. Jor thus he speaks :—‘‘ When Jesus 
 saith, ‘ He that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood,’ 
 although it may be understood in a mystery (.6., as I think, of the 
 Eucharist), yet the truer sense is, that the body of Christ, and His 
 
 * Carnibus enim et sanguine Verbi sui tanquam mundo cibo atque potu reficit 
 omne hominum genus. Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7. [vol. il., p. 225. col. 2. Par. 1799]: 
 + Vide in Matt. Tract. 12. [Ibid. vol. iii., p. 898. col. 2]. 
 t ͵ τ 5) Ν an bs a “ \ n , ‘ 
 Ilocos γάρ ἤρκει τὸ σῶμα πρὸς βρῶ σιν, ἕνα καὶ τοῦ κοσμοὺῦ παντὸς 
 TOUTO τροφὴ γένηται 3 ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβάσειος ἐμνημο- 
 μνευσε τοῦ υἱοῦ Tou ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα τῆς σωματικῆς ἐννοίας αὐτοὺς ἀφελκύση, 
 &e. Athan in illud Eyangelii, Quicunqne dixerit, &c. [vol. i., p. 771. Heidel. 1601]. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 279 
 
 blood, is the word of the Scriptures—is divine doctrine.”* And there- 
 fore, he continues, not long after, in this manner: “ If, when we hear the 
 word of God—the word of God, and the flesh of Christ, and His blood 
 is poured into our ears, and we think of something else, into how great 
 a danger do we run!” Afterwards comparing it to manna, which was 
 said to give that taste to every man which he liked best: “ So,” saith 
 he, ‘ in the flesh of Christ, which is the word of doctrine—that is, the 
 interpretation of the holy Scriptures—as we would have it, so we receive 
 food. If thou art holy, here thou findest comfort.” St, Jerome could 
 not have been more express, if he had been to maintain this interpreta- 
 tion against an adversary. 
 
 Nor does the paraphrase of Kusebius come much behind St. Jerome’s 
 interpretation. For he makes our Saviour’s explication (ver. 63) to run 
 as if He had said, ‘ Do not think that I speak of that flesh which I 
 carry about me, as if you ought to eat that, or that I command you to 
 drink my sensible and corporeal blood. You well understand that the 
 words which I speak to you are spirit and life. So that,” as Eusebius 
 goes on, “ His words and doctrines are flesh and blood, of which who- 
 ever constantly partakes, he being nourished with heavenly bread, as 
 it were, shall partake of the heavenly 116. He that says this, and 
 knows what he says, could hardly suppose that the Eucharist was par- 
 ticularly intended by our Saviour in these passages. 
 
 I shall trouble you with no more instances of this kind, these being 
 sufficient to shew, that all the ancients did not understand those words 
 of the Eucharist. And now I will make no difficulty to grant, that the 
 other opinion is not destitute of all authority, but has the countenance 
 of some Fathers to support it. F'or we do not pretend to any such 
 
 * Quando dicit, Qui non comederit Carnem meam et biberit Sanguinem meum, 
 licet et in mysterio posset intelligi, tamen verius Corpus Christi et Sanguis ejus 
 Sermo Scripturarum est, Doctrina divina est.—Si quando audimus sermonem Dei ; 
 Sermo Dei, et caro Christi, et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud 
 cogitamus, in quantum periculum incurrimus?—Sic et in carne Christi, qui est 
 sermo doctrine, hoc est Scripturarum sanctarum interpretatio, sicut volumus ita et 
 cibum accipimus. Hieron. Comment. in Psal. 147. [vol. vii, Append. p. 385. 
 Veron. 1735]. 
 
 + Μὴ γὰρ τὴν σάρκα ἣν περέκειμαι νομιέσατέ με λέγειν, ὡς δέον, αὐτὴν 
 ἐσθίειν, μηδὲ τὸ αἰσθητὸν καὶ σωματικὸν αἷμα πίνειν ὑπολαμβάνετέ με 
 προστάττειν, ἀλλὰ εὖ ἴστε ὅτι τὰ ῥήματά μου ἃ λελάληκα ὑμῖν, πνεῦμά 
 ἐστι καὶ ζωή ἐστι. ὥστε αὐτὰ εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ τὴν 
 σάρκα καὶ τὸ αἷμα. ὧν ὁ μετέχων ἀεὶ, ὡσανεὶ ἄρτῳ οὐρανίῳ τρεφόμενος 
 τῆς οὐρανίου μεθέξει ζωῆς. Euseb. Cesariensis contra Marcel. de Eccles. Theol, 
 lib. iii., c. 12. [p. 181. Colon. 1688]. 
 
280 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 privilege of speaking as to say, we have all the Fathers, in a case where 
 we have not every one. 
 
 But this I must needs say, that those Fathers, who, as far as I have 
 yet discovered, seem to speak most expressly in favour of the sacra- 
 mental sense, do not come up to the peremptoriness and clearness of 
 those who are for the spiritual sense. 
 
 St. Cyprian, understanding the daily bread which we pray for, not 
 only of common food, but of the Eucharist, applies those words to it: 
 “ΤΙ any man eateth of this bread, he shall live for ever.”’* And, says 
 he, ‘‘ as it is manifest that they who belong to His body (or family), 
 and having a right thereunto, communicate in the Kucharist, do live ; 
 so it is to be feared, and we are to pray, lest any of us being excom- 
 municated and separated from the body of Christ, should be far removed 
 from salvation, since Himself uttered this threatening, Except ye eat 
 the flesh, and drink the blood,” &c.+ 
 
 Now, I desire not to make less of these words than they imply. But 
 yet I must say, that St. Cyprian seems, in these and in the foregoing 
 words, which are to the same purpose, to interpret that bread, which 
 he that eateth of shall live for ever, and the flesh and the blood of 
 Christ, not only of the Eucharist, but of all the means of grace that are 
 afforded to His members in the communion of His body; whereof, as 
 he had reason, he thought the Eucharist to be the principal, to which 
 no excommunicated person had right. Not to say that the Kucharist 
 might be here particularly mentioned ; because those words, “ Except 
 ye eat,” &c., have a more clear allusion to the Kucharist than to any 
 other means. Nor am I alone in this interpretation of St. Cyprian ; 
 for thus saith Priorius: “ The explication of this place is taken from 
 Tertullian, cap. 6. de Orat. Therefore, by desiring daily bread, we 
 pray for a perpetual continuance in Christ, and to remain undivided 
 from His body.”t Thus also Rigaltius upon the place: “ The words 
 of God the Father, which Christ in the fiesh brought for our salvation, 
 are here to be understood. ‘lherefore, all that time in which Christ 
 lived amongst us in the body, His preaching, His Gospel, is the body 
 and flesh of Christ. It is the cross of Christ, it is the blood of Christ. 
 With this meat and drink, we Christians are nourished to eternal life.” 
 By which it is manifest, that Rigaltius did not understand St. Cyprian 
 in that manner, as to abate at all of his judgment, that the spiritual 
 sense of eating and drinking, is to be understood throughout in the 
 sixth of St. John. 
 
 * Cypr. de Orat. Dom. [p. 147. Oxon. 1682]. + Qui corpus ejus attingunt. [Tbid }. 
 | Note in Cypr. Paris. § Obsery. Rigalt. in Cypr. Id. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 28] 
 
 St. Basil is another who applies these words to the sacrament; not 
 where he undertakes to give their proper meaning, but in his moral 
 collections, under the head of receiving the Eucharist ; which I do not 
 see but he might do, and yet believe that the spiritual sense of eating 
 and drinking Christ was directly intended. Tor, as I have already told 
 you, the Eucharist represents the death of Christ, and our spiritual 
 feeding thereupon ; and these words in St. John signify what the 
 Eucharist represents. No wonder, therefore, if Christian writers, in 
 speaking of the Eucharist, produce these words, which have so near an 
 affinity with it. And this I think they may do pertinently enough, 
 without supposing that these passages in St. John signify the Eucharist, 
 because they signify some of the same things which the Eucharist sig- 
 nifies. * 
 
 St. Augustine, indeed, brings forth that saying, ‘“‘ Except ye eat the 
 flesh,” &c. in his disputations against the Pelagians, supposing there, 
 as it should seem, that it was a direct and proper command to receive 
 the Eucharist, under the penalty of damnation ; and I remember that, 
 in one place, he urges it for the necessity of communicating infants. 
 But there is this very great prejudice against his authority in this 
 matter, that elsewhere (viz. out of the heat of that controversy) he gives 
 clearly another sense of these words, and speaks of them as if they were 
 reductive only to the Eucharist. Mark, therefore, what He says: 
 ‘*« Therefore, by this meat and drink, He would have us to understand 
 the society of His body and members, that is, the holy Church, con- 
 sisting of His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified 
 saints and faithfnl.”+ And presently after: ‘‘'The sacrament of this 
 thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is in some 
 places every day, in other places upon certain days prepared upon the 
 Lord’s table, and received from the Lord’s table; by some to life, by 
 some to destruction, But the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, 
 is for life to every man, for destruction to no man, whosoever he be that 
 partakes of it.” By which words it is evident that St. Austin did not 
 here understand that eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of 
 Christ, to which salvation is promised, of sacramental eating, but of 
 
 * Basil. Moral. Reg. 21. [vol. ii. p. 354, 355. Par. 1839. ] 
 
 + Hune itaque cibum et potum, societatem vult intelligi corporis et membrorum 
 suorum, quod est sancta ecclesia in preedestinatis et vocatis, et justificatis, et glorificatis, 
 sanctis, et fidelibus ejus. Tlujus rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis 
 Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum in Dominica mensa preeparatur, 
 et de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero 
 ipsa cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus 
 particeps fuerit. Aug. Tract. 26, in Johan. (vol. iii. par. 2, p. 500. Par. 1680.) 
 
 00 
 
282 % THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 being incorporated into the invisible Church of Christ; and this because 
 he says, “the sacrament of this thing may be received to destruction ;”’ 
 and because he expressly says, that “ this meat and drink is the society 
 of the body of Christ, consisting of His predestinated, &c. members.” 
 
 And that, therefore, he would not have scrupled to interpret eating 
 by believing; since it is faith by which we are united to the body of 
 Christ, no reasonable man will question. However, we have his own 
 word for it, who, upon that saying of our Saviour, “This is the work 
 of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent,” goes on thus, 
 ‘« This, therefore, is to eat that food which perisheth not, but endureth 
 to everlasting life. ΤῸ what purpose dost thou make ready thy teeth 
 and thy belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.”* Afterwards he puts 
 both together: “ Let him come and believe, and be incorporated, that 
 he may be quickened.” + 
 
 Which words of his are the more remarkable, because in that place 
 he professedly treats of the exposition of this chapter. Where, also, 
 upon that saying, “ He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
 dwelleth in me and 1 in him,” he discourseth thus: ‘ This it is to eat 
 that food, and drink that drink—viz., to dwell in Christ, and to have 
 Christ dwelling in me. And, therefore, he that dwelleth not in Christ, 
 and in whom Christ dwelleth not, undoubtedly doth not spiritually eat 
 His flesh, nor drink His blood, although he doth carnally and visibly 
 press with his teeth the sacrament of His body and blood ; but he rather 
 eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation ; 
 because, being impure, he hath presumed to come to Christ’s sacra- 
 ments, which none worthily receives who is not pure; of whicli it is 
 said, “ Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.t” Whence 
 it is manifest that, in St. Austin’s judgment, to eat the flesh of Christ, 
 and to drink His blood, was to eat and drink it spiritually, so as good 
 and holy men only do partake thereof, not all that do press the sacrament 
 thereof with their teeth. And it is further observable, that if ‘ to eat 
 
 * Hoc est ergo manducare cibum, non qui perit, sed qui permanet in vitam eter- 
 nam. Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede et manducasti. In Tract. 25. | Ibid. 
 p. 489.] 
 
 + Accedat, credat, incorporetur ut vivificetur. Jd. Tract. 26. [p. 499. ] 
 
 1 Hoc est manducare escam illam et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum 
 manentem in me habere. Ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo et in quo Christus 
 non manet, procul dubio nec mavducat spiritualiter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus san- 
 euinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis 
 Christi, sed magis tante rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia im- 
 mundus presumpsit ad Christi accedere sacramenta, quee aliquis non digne sumit, nisi 
 qui mundus est, &e. Tract. 26 in Joh. [Ibid. p. 501. ] 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 288 
 
 that food and drink that drink”’ be, as St. Austin says, “ to dwell in 
 Christ and to have Christ dwell in us;” then all holy persons do con- 
 stantly eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, because they still 
 dwell in Christ and Christ in them; but they are not always receiving 
 the sacrament, and therefore St. Austin could not understand these 
 words properly of the Eucharist. 
 
 And that these were not sudden notions of his, appears from this, 
 that we find them elsewhere, and particularly in his book of ‘“ The City 
 of God,” towards the end; which book he finished just before his death. 
 There he hath these words: “ for neither are they to be said to eat the 
 body of Christ, because neither are they to be accounted amongst His 
 members. For to omit other things, they cannot be both the members 
 of Christ and the members of an harlot. Lastly, Himself saying, He 
 that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in 
 him, sheweth what it is to eat the body of Christ and drink His blood, 
 not by the sacrament, but verily and indeed; for this is to dwell in 
 Christ, so as that Christ dwelleth in him.”* For His speaking this 
 was as if He had said: “Ηρ that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I 
 dwell not, should not say or think that he eateth my flesh or drinketh 
 my blood.” Now, the persons here spoken of were Christians of vicious 
 lives, who yet received the sacrament, and continued in the communion 
 of the Church to the last. But since St. Austin, denying that they eat 
 the body of Christ in truth, even when they received the sacrament, 
 does also affirm that Christ spake of receiving His body in truth only 
 when He said, “‘ He that eateth my flesh,” &c., it seems evidently to 
 follow that, when St. Austin wrote these passages, he did not understand 
 those places in St. John of sacramental eating. Finally, by comparing 
 this place with the former, it is plain, also, that to eat and drink Christ 
 spiritually, and to eat and drink Him in truth and reality, was, in 
 St. Austin’s judgment, all one; and, consequently, that we may really 
 eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood, though we do it not cor- 
 poreally. 
 
 Observe, therefore, these words of his, concerning the general exposi- 
 
 * Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris 
 computandi sunt Christi. Ut enim alia taceam, non possunt simul esse, et membra 
 Christi, et membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicens, qui manducat carnem meam, et 
 bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eo: ostendit quid sit non sacramento 
 tenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare et ejus sanguinem bibere ; hoc est enim in 
 Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic enim hoc dicit tanquam diceret, 
 qui non in me manet, et in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare 
 corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum. De Civit. Dei, lib. xxi., c. 26. [vol. vii., 
 p. 646. Par. 1685.] 
 
284 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 tion of Scripture phrases : “ If the saying be preceptive, either forbidding 
 a wicked action, or commanding to do that which is good, it is no figura- 
 tive saying. But if it seems to command any villainy or wickedness, or 
 to forbid what is profitable and good, it is figurative. This saying, Ex- 
 cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have 
 no life in you, seems to command a villanous or wicked thing. It is, 
 therefore, a figure, enjoining us to communicate in the passion of our 
 Lord, and to lay it up in dear and profitable remembrance, that His flesh 
 was crucified and wounded for our sakes.’”* 
 
 When we are thus told that “ the sixth chapter of St. John is 
 referred to the Eucharist by ancient writers, and by all the earliest 
 commentators on Scripture,” we withhold our assent; and, not- 
 withstanding that Chrysostom and Cyril Alexandrinus+ do so 
 interpret it; yet this really makes but little, if anything, for the 
 Church of Rome. The figurative nature of the discourse still 
 remains, and demonstrably so; as the words, taken literally (as 
 Romish writers sometimes persuade us they take them), teach us, 
 as before remarked, impanation, and not transubstantiation. The 
 change indicated, if it be a change, is in the wrong direction for 
 our opponents. Nor do the words of Chrysostom, which are 
 quoted on page 176 of the ‘‘ Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,” create 
 any difficulty. For no question it cannot be said of Christ's ftesh 
 absolutely, that it is of no profit. ‘‘ How can it be said that the 
 flesh profiteth nothing, without which we cannot live?” inquires that 
 Father ; and adds,—‘‘ You see that the words, ‘ the flesh pro- 
 fiteth nothing, are not spoken of His flesh, but of hearing Him 
 in a fleshly manner.” Doubtless, to assert that the flesh of Christ 
 profiteth nothing, would be to make the Incarnation a nullity. It 
 
 *« Si preceptiva est locutio, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut beneficentiam 
 jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem 
 aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducayeritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis 
 et sanguinem biberitis, vitam in vyobis non habebitis, facinus vel flagitium videtur ju- 
 bere; figura ergo est preecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, et suaviter 
 atque utilicer in memoria recondendum, quod caro ejus pro nobis crucifixa et vulnerata 
 sit. De Doctrina Christiana, lib. iii., ὁ. 16. [vol. iii., par. 1, p. 52. Par. 1680.] 
 
 + It cannot be truly asserted, as by Mr. Wilberforce, that Augustine explained this 
 chapter with special reference to the Eucharist, notwithstanding an occasional allusion 
 to it. See his commentary on it, Appendix H., p. Ixxxiii. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 285 
 
 is through that, that the blessings of life and immortality have 
 been secured to the Church. In his commentary on the same 
 verse, St. Augustine makes similar remarks ; but more plainly 
 than does Chrysostom. ‘The words of the bishop of Hippo are: 
 
 “ For if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made 
 flesh, that it might dwell in us. If, by means of the flesh, Christ hath 
 much profited us, how profiteth the flesh nothing ? But the flesh was 
 the means whereby the spirit acted for our salvation. The flesh was a 
 vessel : mark what it had, not what it was. The apostles were sent : 
 did their flesh nothing profit us? Ifthe flesh of the apostles profited 
 us, can it be that the flesh of the Lord profited nothing ? For whence 
 came to us the sound of the Word but by the voice of the flesh ? 
 Whence the pen of the writer, whence the writing ? These all are 
 works of the flesh, but by the spirit actuating, as one may say, His 
 organ. ‘It is the spirit,’ then, ‘that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth 
 nothing :’ so as those Jews understood the flesh, not so give I my flesh 
 to be eaten.” 
 
 The next passage to which I shall refer is that of St. Paul, in 
 the tenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians : 
 
 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
 blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of 
 the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: 
 for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the 
 flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ? 
 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered 
 in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which 
 the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I 
 would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink 
 the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of 
 the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord 
 to jealousy ? are we stronger than He ?”* 
 
 * These verses are somewhat differently rendered by Waterland, for the reason 
 assigned. “ Ver. 16. ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of 
 the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of 
 Christ? 17. For since the bread is one, we, being many, are one body: for we are 
 all partakers of that one bread. 18. Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they who 
 eat of the sacrifices communicants of the altar? 19. What say I, then? that the idol 
 is anything, or that what is offered in sacrifice to the idol is anything? 20. But I 
 say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to 
 God: and I would not have you become communicants of devils. 21. You cannot 
 
286 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Now, while we refuse to acknowledge that the apostle meant 
 here to inculcate the reception of Christ's natural flesh and blood, 
 whether naturally or sacramentally, in the Eucharist, we do 
 imagine that he meant much more than many Protestants believe. 
 There is great danger in sinking the meaning of Scripture 
 too low, as well as in raising it too high—in making it mean 
 too little, as in attributing to it too much. ‘‘ Some interpret com- 
 munion here,” says Waterland, ““ to mean no more than a joint 
 partaking of the outward signs, symbols, or memorials, of Christ's 
 body and blood. But St. Paul must undoubtedly mean a great 
 deal more, by his emphatical expressions ; and his argument also 
 requires it, as shall be shewn in due place. He does not say, that 
 the service is a commemoration of Christ's body and blood, but a 
 partaking or communion of them. So, likewise, with respect to 
 the Jews, he does not say that they commemorated the altar, but 
 they were partakers of the altar: and the idolaters whom he speaks 
 of did not barely commemorate devils (if they did it at all), but 
 they were partakers of devils. Besides, to interpret the commu- 
 nion as a joint partaking of the symbols, or memorials, is invent- 
 ing a sense too flat and jejune to be fathered upon the apostle; 
 for, indeed, it is mere tautology. It is no more than saying, that 
 partaking of the bread and wine is partaking of the bread and 
 wine. There is good sense in saying, that the partaking of one 
 thing is, in just construction, the partaking of some other thing: 
 
 drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Lord’s 
 table, and of the table of devils. I have varied a little from the common rendering, 
 partly for better answering the difference of phrase in the Greek, between μετέχειν 
 and κοινωνεῖν (be they equivalent or otherwise), and partly for the better expressing 
 the three communions, here brought in as corresponding to each other in the analogy ; 
 namely, that of Christ’s body and blood in the first place; next, that of the Jewish 
 altar; and lastly, of devils. Our translation has, in some measure, obscured the 
 analogy, by choosing, in one place, the word partakers (though it means the same 
 thing) instead of communicants; and, in another place, by | saying communion with 
 devils, instead of saying of devils : κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων, νυ. 90. Dr. Water- 
 terland adds in ἃ note,—‘“ In strictness, μετέχειν signifies the taking a part or parcel 
 of anything, with others, who have likewise their separate shares or parcels of it; but 
 κοινωνεῖν is the partaking with others, in common, of the same whole, undivided 
 thing. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 287 
 
 but to make all sign, and nothing signified, or to reckon the out- 
 ward signs twice over, dropping the inward things signified, is 
 unsuitable to the turn of the whole passage, and entirely defeats 
 the apostles argument. The eating of the sacrifices was not again 
 mere eating of sacrifices, but it was, by interpretation, communi- 
 cating with idolators; and communicating with idolaters was not 
 again communicating with idolaters, but it was, in just construc- 
 tion, partaking of devils. Thus we find strong and admirable 
 sense in the apostle’s discourse; but in the other way all is dull 
 and insipid. Take we the next parallel instance: the jomt par- 
 taking of the Jewish sacrifices was not again the joint partaking 
 of the same sacrifices ; but it was partaking of the altar, whatever 
 that means. In like manner, a joint partaking of the symbols or 
 memorials of bread and wine is not again a joint partaking of the 
 same symbols or memorials, but of something else (by the apostle’s 
 argument) which they represent, and call to our mind, and which, 
 in just construction, or in effect, they are. Had St. Paul meant 
 only, that the bread which we break is the joint eating of the 
 bread, and the cup which we bless is the joint drinking of the 
 cup, why should he have changed the terms bread and cup into 
 other terms, body and blood, instead of using the same over 
 again? Or if body and blood mean only bread and cup, then 
 see what sense can be made of chap. xi. 27, which must run thus: 
 Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord 
 unworthily, shall be guilty of the bread and cup of the Lord. It 
 is not using an inspired apostle with any proper respect, to put 
 such an odd (not to say ridiculous) sense upon him. The case is 
 plain, that the four terms, bread, wine, body, and blood, have 
 severally their respective meanings, and that the first two express 
 the signs, to which the other two answer as things signified ; and 
 so allis right. Add to this, that the eating and drinking in the 
 Eucharist, upon the foot of the other construction, would be ren- 
 dered insignificant ; for the breaking of the bread, and the pour- 
 ing out of the wine, would be sufficient for a bare representation 
 or memorial of our Lord’s death. The feeding thereupon adds 
 
288 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 nothing to the representation, but must either signify our receiving 
 something spiritual under that corporeal symbol, or signify nothing. 
 And it would appear very strange, if the feeding itself should not 
 be symbolical, some way or other, as well as the rest; especially 
 considering that other places of Scripture (particularly John vi.), 
 do insist very much upon spiritual feeding, and that the quantity 
 of meat and drink in the Eucharist has all along been so small, 
 that it might be difficult to say what use it could be of as a ban- 
 quet, unless allowed to be significative or symbolical of some 
 spiritual entertainment received by the communicants. Upon the 
 whole, this interpretation must be rejected, as being altogether 
 low and lame; or, rather, totally repugnant to all the circum- 
 stances of text and context.” 
 
 The following remarks of Dr. Pelling, on the Sacrament of the 
 Lord’s Supper, go far towards elucidating the full import of the 
 words, “* partakers of the altar,” and their application to the Eu- 
 charist : 
 
 ‘“‘ But, in my opinion, St. Paul hath said enough to this purpose, 
 if men will but attentively listen to what he saith in 1 Cor. x., where 
 part of his business is to shew how unlawful it is for Christians to eat 
 of things that are offered unto idols. And this he doth by shewing the 
 incongruity and inconsistency of the thing, and the evil effects of it; 
 because every professor of Christianity doth hereby make himself a 
 most wretched bankrupt, and undoes all his interest in Christ, and 
 throws away an inestimable stock and treasure of blessings by his 
 sitting at meat in the idol’s temple. To make this out he shews, in 
 few words, what those blessings are: ‘The cup of blessing which we 
 bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread which 
 we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?’ (ver. 16), 
 where part of the apostle’s meaning is this,—that by rightly receiving 
 the symbols of Christ’s body and blood, we have a share in all those 
 blessings for which His body was broken and His blood was shed. 
 We have a title, claim, and right thereby to ail the mercies of the new 
 covenant; we receive the virtues and wonderful effects of His passion, 
 and so we are understood, in a mystical sense, to participate of Christ’s 
 body and blood. It is true we do here partake of Christ, not mystically 
 only, but really too; we participate not only of His bruised and cruci- 
 fied, but also of His most blessed and glorified body, as I shall shew 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 289 
 
 at large hereafter in its proper place; but that is not to our purpose 
 now. Though we do communicate of Christ now, while He is in heaven, 
 yet, in the place before quoted, St. Paul doth directly point to those 
 blessings which, by means of this sacrament, accrue to us from His 
 sufferings on the cross. And to convince us that we do hereby receive 
 many such blessings, and that we are entitled to the love and favour of 
 God in particular (which is the fountain and original of all other bless- 
 ings); to convince us of this, I say, he draws a parallel between this 
 sacrificial feast of ours and those others which were used among the 
 Jews. Behold Israel after the flesh, saith he; are not they which eat 
 of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ?* That is, do they not partake 
 of those sacrifices which are offered upon the altar? His plain meaning 
 is, that the Jews did partake of those effects which, by the sacrifices, 
 were procured ; their feasting upon the sacrifices was a token and 
 pledge to them, that their desires were answered ; that what they had 
 offered and sacrificed for was granted them ; that their oblations returned 
 into their own bosom, that they had the benefit of them, and were enti- 
 tled to those blessings which they were intended for. There is an 
 expression which will make this matter clear, in Lev. vii., 18: “ If any 
 of the flesh of the sacrifice of His peace-offerings be eaten at all on the 
 third day, it shall not be accepted; neither shall it be imputed unto 
 him that offereth it. When those sacrificial feasts were regularly cele- 
 brated, they were imputed to the guests for their good, they were 
 reckoned advantageous to them, they were favourably accepted at God’s 
 hand in order to the ends for which the sacrifice was designed, they 
 served to make an atonement, they were effectual to their purposes, 
 they were good to all intents, they were available to the offerers (as the 
 Hebrew doctors expound the phrase).t This is the true meaning of 
 being partakers of the altar, in St. Paul’s language; when, by eating 
 duly of the sacrifices of the altar, they turned to a good account, and 
 men were profited, benefited, and blessed by so doing, being in com- 
 munion with God (whose altar it was), and receiving the pledges of 
 His favour, which was obtained by the things that were offered upon 
 the altar. Was the grace of God to be begged and sought for by an 
 holocaust ? Why, eating of the oblations, which were annexed to it, 
 was a pledge to assure them that their prayer was heard, and that God 
 would be gracious unto them. Was the wrath of God to be appeased 
 by a sin-offering? Why, the feeding upon those oblations, which 
 attended it, was appointed as a pledge to certify them, that an atone- 
 ment was made. Were peace-offerings presented, that people might 
 
 * Clarius in Loc. + Ainsworth on Lev. xvii., 18. 
 15 τ 
 
290 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 be delivered from dangers and ill changes, and that God would give 
 them peace, prosperity, and plenty, and continue his goodness to them ? 
 Why, the feasting upon the peace-oflerings was intended as a pledge to 
 satisfy them ; that God’s good providence and care of them should not 
 be wanting, as long as they would not be wanting to themselves. Thus 
 they were partakers of the altar, by being assured of the effects of their 
 offerings. 
 
 «To return now to our apostle’s argument: As the Jews were par- 
 takers of God’s altar, so are we partakers of the Lord’s table. Their 
 sacrificial feasts were intended as pledges of God’s manifold mercies to 
 them ; and this Christian feast is intended as a pledge of God’s mani- 
 fold mercies to us, but to better purposes, and in a far higher degree. 
 God covenanted with them for things temporal ; with us He covenants 
 for spiritual and heavenly things chiefly. Christ, our sacrifice, was 
 slain, to purge our very consciences from sin; to endue us with the 
 Holy Ghost; and with power, from on high, to deliver us from the 
 danger of eternal damnation ; to make us sure of heaven, and to make 
 God and us one. And this, our sacrificial feast, is intended as a pledge 
 to certify and assure us, that his friendship and dearest love shall never 
 fail us, if we be but true friends to our own souls Thus we partake 
 and communicate of our Saviour’s body that was crucified, and of the 
 streams of that blood He shed for us, by receiving at this sacrament 
 the virtues and effects of His passion, as the Jews received the virtues 
 and effects of their sacrifices. This sacrament is a token to us, that 
 Christ’s sacrifice is imputed to us (in a comfortable sense)—that is, 
 here God assures all faithful communicants, and, as it were, sets His 
 seal to it, that Christ’s offering up Himself shall infallibly turn to a good 
 account to them, that it is an effectual atonement on their behalf; that 
 it shall be available for them to all intents and purposes; and that, 
 though they do not eat of the very flesh of our sacrifice, as the Jews 
 did of their peace-offerings, but of bread in the room of it, yet it shall 
 be all one to them in effect, and that they shall ever be the biessed of 
 the Lord. 
 
 “1 have been the more prolix and exact in this matter, that I might 
 clear and vindicate the doctrine of the Church of England, whose 
 notion of a sacrament in general is this, that it is an outward and visible 
 sign, ordained as a means whereby we receive, and as a pledge to 
 assure us of, an inward and spiritual grace. And of this sacrament in 
 particular the faith, that Christ hath instituted and ordained these holy 
 mysteries as pledges of His love; and that God doth assure us thereby 
 of His favour and goodness towards us. For it is senseless to imagine, 
 that Christ should intend the absolution of so many Mosaical rites, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 291 
 
 because they. would be useless and insignificant, or of very small 
 account under the Gospel, and yet should institute Himself another 
 ceremony, that would be of very mean and inconsiderable importance.” 
 
 We see here not only what is the sense of the apostle, but also 
 the benefits which pious communicants receive from being par- 
 takers of the Christian altar. It appears to me that Waterland 
 rightly enunciates the true doctrine of this passage, when he says, 
 “The Eucharist, in its primary intention, and in its certain effect 
 to all worthy communicants, is a communion of Christ's body 
 broken, and blood shed; that is to say, a present partaking of, or 
 having a part in, our Lord's passion, and the reconcilement therein 
 made, and the blessed fruits of it. This is plain good sense, and 
 undeniable truth. . . . It is observable, that St. Paul (his own 
 best interpreter), instead of saying, Ye do shew the Lord’s body 
 and blood, broken and shed, says, ‘ Ye do shew the Lord’s death 
 till He come.’ Which makes it plain, that body broken, and 
 blood shed, are, in this case, equivalent to the single word death, 
 with its fruits; and that is the thing signified in our sacra- 
 mental service. And if that be the thing signified, it is that 
 which we partake of, or spiritually receive: and we are in this 
 sacrament ingrafted, as it were, into the death of Christ, in much 
 the same sense, and to the same effect, as in the other sacrament 
 we are said to be ‘ baptized into his death,’ and ‘ planted 
 together in the likeness of his death.’ All the difference is, that 
 the same thing is represented and exhibited, here and there, under 
 different signs or symbols.” 
 
 I shall give but one other quotation, to shew the sense of our 
 own divines on this passage, which I take from Waterland, the 
 original not being within my reach at present. It is from Locke's 
 commentary on the text, and is as follows :—‘‘ They who drink 
 of the cup of blessing, which we bless in the Lord’s Supper, do 
 they not therefore partake of the benefits purchased by Christ’s 
 blood, shed for them upon the cross, which they here symbolically 
 drink ? and they who eat of the bread broken there, do they not 
 partake in the sacrifice of the body of Christ, and strengthen their 
 
292 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 union with Him, as members of Him, their head? For by eating 
 of that bread, we, though many in number, are all united, and 
 make but one body under Christ, our head, as many grains of 
 corn are united into one loaf. See how it is among the Jews, 
 who are outwardly, according to the flesh, by circumcision the 
 people of God. Among them, they who eat of the sacrifice are 
 partakers of God's table, the altar; have fellowship with Him, 
 and share in the benefit of the sacrifice, as if it were offered for 
 them. Do not mistake me, as if I hereby said, that the idols of 
 the Gentiles are gods in reality, or that the things offered to them 
 change their nature, and are anything really different from what 
 they were before, so as to affect us in our use of them. No; but 
 this I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri- 
 fice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that you should 
 have fellowship with, and be under the influence of devils, as they 
 who, by eating of things offered to them, enter into covenant, 
 alliance, and commerce with them. You cannot eat and drink 
 with God, as friends at His table in the Eucharist, and entertain 
 familiarity and friendship with devils, by eating with them, and 
 partaking of the sacrifices offered to them.” 
 
 The next passage to which I shall refer, and the last, is that of 
 the apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xi., 20 to 29. It is as follows: 
 
 ““When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat 
 the Lord’s Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his 
 own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? 
 have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the Church 
 of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say unto you? 
 shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of 
 the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus 
 the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when He 
 had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, 
 which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the 
 same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This 
 cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, 
 in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink 
 this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come. Wherefore who- 
 soever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 293 
 
 shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man 
 examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that 
 cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 
 damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” 
 
 Now, this whole passage is most important, not only as giving 
 us another and independent account of the institution, but also 
 as affording us an insight into the conduct of one of the most 
 important early Christian Churches, its abuse of the most solemn 
 rite of our holy religion, the tone and style of rebuke adopted by 
 the apostle, and an exposition of his own views of the signi- 
 ficance of the Eucharistic observance. It will be found that 
 we should seek herein in vain for Popish doctrine, while, without 
 any question, the apostle’s idea is not that of mere memorial : 
 the true view in this, as in most other cases, lying midway between 
 the extremes of superstition and profanity. 
 
 There is but little to remark upon in this passage as concerning 
 the controversy, till we come to the twenty-sixth verse. Upon 
 this is built, not only the legitimate conclusion that the Eucharist 
 is a commemorative ordinance, but, what by no means follows, 
 that it is nothing more. Itis not necessary to go over the ground 
 already traversed, in which it has been shewn that the ordinance 
 is, and was intended to be, much more than commemorative. The 
 phraseology, moreover, of the following verses in this place prove 
 the same point, though not at all what the Romish school would 
 deduce from it. 
 
 The latter part of the twenty-seventh and twenty-ninth verses is 
 that which is chiefly depended upon by the advocates of a cor- 
 poreal presence, as proving their pot. In the former the 
 apostle says, ‘‘ Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and 
 drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shadl be guilty of the body 
 and blood of the Lord.” Now, it is manifest that this passage 
 must be explained by whatever sense has already been proved to 
 belong to the words of institution, “‘ this is my body ;” for what- 
 ever guilt is incurred respecting the “ unworthy” use of the 
 things signified by the symbols, can be in no other sense than 
 
294 ‘THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 that in which the body and blood are present. So also respecting 
 the twenty-ninth verse: “ For he that eateth and drinketh unwor- 
 thily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning 
 the Lord's body.” Now, this discerning can have no reference to 
 aught of a physical nature; for the most strenuous advocates of a 
 corporeal presence, do not argue that the body and blood are 
 visible ; so that the discerning must be a mental act. This 
 passage, therefore, really need not be considered in the contro- 
 versy, as far as the advocates of a corporeal presence are con- 
 cerned ; for the question is not upon the mode of discerning, 
 which they, as well as we, admit to be spiritual or mental; and 
 that as to the mode of presence is untouched in it. Such, how- 
 ever, is not the case on the other side. Here we have confessedly 
 a passage in which the discerning the Lord’s body is used in a 
 spiritual sense, which forms a strong argument for the spiritual 
 nature of the presence. I do not say that it is conclusive; but 
 I do say, that there is in it a strong presumptive evidence against 
 the alleged corporeal presence; for what is more natural than 
 that the mode of presence, and the mode of discerning it, should 
 be the same? The former passage, however, will require a few 
 remarks, in order that we may understand the expression, “ guilty 
 of the body and blood of the Lord.” 
 
 In considering, then, the sense of the words, “guilty of the 
 body and blood ef the Lord,” we must inquire, whether or not 
 any other similar expressions are found, from which we may, 
 probably, gather the sense of the apostle. Now, not to dwell 
 upon the manifest truism, that religious privileges and advantages, 
 when not only neglected but abused, become cases of aggravated 
 condemnation to those concerned therein ;—not to linger upon 
 such expressions as those used of and to ancient Israel:—‘‘ To 
 what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith 
 the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of 
 fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of 
 lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who 
 hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 295 
 
 more vain oblations: incense is an abomination unto me; the 
 new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away 
 with ; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons 
 and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble 
 unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth 
 your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make 
 many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.” Not 
 to dwell, I say, on such passages as these in the Old Testament— 
 and with such denunciations the prophets are full — there are 
 many in the writings of St. Paul which go directly to illustrate the 
 expression in question. or instance, the apostle, when referring 
 to those who had enjoyed great spiritual privileges, “who were 
 once enlightened, had tasted of the heavenly gift, were made par- 
 takers of the Holy Ghost, and had tasted the good word of God, 
 and the powers of the world to come ;” of such he says, “1 they 
 shall fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repent- 
 ance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, 
 and put him to an open shame” (Heb. vi., 4, 5, 6): where it is 
 ‘are guilty of the body and 
 blood of the Lord,” hardly in another sense, though undoubtedly 
 
 ‘ 
 
 plain that the persons alluded to 
 
 in another manner than those who nailed Him to the cross on 
 Calvary—hardly in any other sense or manner than those referred 
 to in Heb. xi., 27, of whom the words were immediately spoken. 
 So again, the same inspired writer, comparing the guilt and 
 punishment of those who sin against the light of the Gospel 
 dispensation, with the guilt and punishment of those who sinned 
 under the Mosaic economy (which is just what we called a 
 truism above), shews that responsibilities mcrease in proportion 
 to opportunities. “‘ Of how much sorer punishment, think ye,” 
 says the apostle, ‘shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden 
 under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the 
 covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing?” Is 
 not this language perfectly equivalent to saying, that such “are 
 guilty of the body and blood of the Lord?” [Ὁ is manifest that 
 the idea is, in both phrases, the same: indeed, the phraseology 
 itself is scarcely different. 
 
296 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 The sense of all these passages is sufficiently evident. It is a sin 
 of no light character to neglect opportunities of improvement; but 
 how much more heinous must it be to abuse the means of grace 
 afforded, and to turn them into occasions of greater sin? ‘‘ Give 
 not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls 
 before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn 
 again and rend you,” is an injunction of the Saviour Himself. If 
 it be wrong to afford even the opportunity of such abuse, how 
 much more fearfully so to be the perpetrator thereof. Tyre and 
 Sidon, Chorazin and Bethsaida, were, in. consequence of superior 
 privileges, declared by the lips of infallible Truth, liable to a more 
 terrific fate than fell to the lot of Sodom and Gomorrah. “If I 
 had not done among you the works which no other man did, you 
 had not had sin,” are words consistent at once with reason, and 
 other parts of divine revelation. 
 
 I feel that it is unnecessary to go at greater length into the 
 investigation of this subject. The several parts of the inspired 
 volume are at unity with themselves. The same doctrine per- 
 vades the whole, whether under different forms, or conveyed in 
 varied phraseology. The Bible, under the old economy, never 
 presented any observances of a magical character, or of super- 
 natural operation; and certainly, under the New Testament, 
 gives no unmeaning, no uninfluential rites for Christian men’s 
 observance. But if the paschal supper had in it something 
 more than a mere memorial of the past, shall we not look for 
 something more, likewise, in that which has taken its place in 
 the more perfect economy ? I shall bring this chapter to a close 
 with an enumeration of the chief points of resemblance between 
 the passover and the Eucharist, taken from Waterland’s valuable 
 treatise. 
 
 The resembling circumstances common to the Jewish and 
 Christian Passover may be divided into two kinds: some relating 
 to the things themselves, some to the phrases and forms made 
 use of here and there. 
 
 I. Of the first sort are these: 1. The passover was of divine 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 297 
 
 appointment, and so is the Eucharist. 2. The passover was a 
 sacrament, and so is the Eucharist. 8. The passover was a 
 memorial of a great deliverance from temporal bondage ;* the 
 Eucharist is a memorial of a great deliverance from spiritual 
 bondage. 4. The passover prefigured the death of Christ} before 
 it was accomplished; the Eucharist represents or figures out our 
 Lord’s death now past. 5. The passover was a kind of federal 
 rite between God and man; so also is the Eucharist. 6. As no 
 one was to eat of the passover before he had been circumcised,{ 
 so no one is to partake of the Eucharist before he has been bap- 
 tized. 7. As the Jews were obliged to come clean to the passover,§ 
 so are Christians obliged to come well prepared to the commu- 
 nion.|| 8. As slight defilements (where there was no contempt) 
 did not debar a man from the passover, nor excuse his neglect of 
 it,7 so neither do smaller offences, where there is an honest heart, 
 either forbid or excuse a man’s absenting himself from this sacra- 
 ment. 9. Asa total contempt or neglect of the passover was crime 
 great enough to render the offender liable to be “ cut off from 
 Israel ;’** so a total contempt or neglect of the holy communion 
 is in effect to be cut off from Christianity. 10. As the passover 
 was to continue as long as the Jewish law should stand in force, 
 so must the Eucharist abide as long as Christianity.tt 
 
 II. The other sort of resembling circumstances concern the 
 particular forms and phrases made use of in the institution: and 
 it is in these chiefly that the great masters of Jewish antiquities 
 have obliged the Christian world. I shall offer a short summary 
 of these likewise. 
 
 1. In the paschal, the master of the house took bread and 
 blessed it in a prayer of thanksgiving to God: and the rule was, 
 never to begin the blessing till he had the bread in hand, that so 
 
 * Exod. xii. 14; xiii. 9; Deut. xvi. 3. 
 + Vid. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 415, &e. 
 1 Exod. xii., 48—48. § Num. ix., 6. || 1 Cor. xi., 27, 28, 29. 
 4 Num. ix. 10; 2 Chron. xxx., 18. 
 Ἐκ Eixod. xii., 15; Num. ix., 13 ; Confer. Bucher. Antiqu. p. 402. 
 ++ 1 Cor. xi., 26. 
 QQ 
 
298 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the prayer of benediction directed to God, might at the same time 
 be understood to have relation to the bread, and might draw down 
 a blessing upon it.* It is obvious to see how applicable all this is 
 to our Lord’s conduct in the first article of the institution. 
 
 2. The breaking of the bread, after benediction, was a cus- 
 tomary practice in the Jewish feasts :+ only in the paschal feast, it 
 is said, that the bread was first broken and the benediction fol- 
 lowed.t 
 
 3. The distributing the bread to the company, after the bene- 
 diction and fraction, was customary among the Jews :§ and here 
 likewise our Lord was pleased to adopt the like ceremony. 
 
 Several learned men have suggested,|| that the words, “‘ This is 
 my body,” might be illustrated from some old Jewish forms made 
 use of in the passover feast ; as, ‘‘ This is the bread of affliction,” 
 &c., and, “ This is the body of the passover :” but Buxtorf thought 
 them not pertinent, or not early enough to answer the purpose : 4 
 and Bucherus,** who has carefully re-examined the same, passes 
 the like doubtful judgment ; or rather rejects both the instances as 
 improper, not being found among the Jewish rituals, or being too 
 late to come into account. 
 
 ‘4. The words, ‘‘ This do in remembrance of me,” making part 
 of the institution, are reasonably judged to allude to the ancient 
 paschal solemnities, in which were several memorials :tt and the 
 service itself is more than once called a memoria] in the Old Tes- 
 tament, as before noted. 
 
 * See Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist. p. 171, &e. Bucherus, Antiq. Evangel. 
 p. 368, &e. Buxtorf. de Coena Domini, p. 310. 
 
 + Buxtorf. 313; Bucherus, 372. 
 
 + Lightfoot, Temple Service, c. xiii. sec. 7. p. 964. and on Matt. xxvi., 26. p. 259. 
 Pfaffius, p. 178. 
 
 § Buxtorf. 316; Bucherus, 374. 
 
 || See particularly Pfaffius de Oblat. p.179. And Deylingius, (Miscellan. Sacer. p. 
 228, &c.) who refers to such authors as have espoused the first of the instances, after 
 Baronius and Sealiger. 
 
 4 Buxtorf. Dissert. vi., de Coena, p. 301. Dissert. vii. Vindic. p. 347, 348. 
 
 ** Bucherus, Antiq. Evangel. p. 575, Compare Deylingius (Miscellan. Sacer. p. 
 228, &e.), who absolutely rejects one and doubts of the other. 
 
 ++ “Ανάμνησις ritus Hebreeorum redolet: habebant namque Judei, in celebratione 
 agni paschalis, plures ejusmodi ἀναμνήσεις et recordationes, &c. Bucherus, p. 970, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 299 
 
 5. In the. ancient paschal feast, the master of the house was 
 wont to take cup after cup (to the number of four) into his hands, 
 consecrating them, one after another, by a short thanksgiving ; 
 after which each consecrated cup was called a cup of blessing. 
 
 6. At the institution of the passover it was said, ‘ The blood 
 shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and 
 when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall 
 not be upon you,”* &c. The blood was the token of the covenant 
 in that behalf, between God and His people; as circumcision 
 before had been a token also of a like covenant,| and called cove- 
 nant as well as token.{ In the institution of the communion, our 
 Lord says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is 
 shed for you, for many, for the remission of sins.” The cup is 
 here by a figure put for wine ; and covenant, according to ancient 
 Scripture phrase, is put for token of a covenant ; and wine, repre- 
 sentative of Christ's blood, answers to the blood of the passover, 
 typical of the same blood of Christ :§ and the remission of sins 
 here, answers to the passing over there, and preserving from plague. 
 These short hints may suffice just to intimate the analogy between 
 the Jewish passover and the Christian Eucharist in the several 
 particulars of moment here mentioned. 
 
 7. At the paschal feast there was an annunciation, or declara- 
 tion of the great things which God had done for that people ;|| in 
 like manner, one design of the Eucharist is to make a declaration 
 
 * Exod. xii., 13. 
 
 + Gen. xvii., 11. 
 
 t Gen. xvii., 10, “ This is my covenant,” &c.; and v. 13, “ My covenant shall be 
 in your flesh,” &c. 
 
 § Deus speciali mandato sacrificia et primitias offerendas ordinavit, maxime 
 effusionem sanguinis, ut ab initio-_homines haberent unde effusionis per Christum 
 tacite recordari possent: (Dan. ix., 24; Heb. ix. et x.; Rom. iii.) Preter czeteras 
 oblationes Deo factas, commemorabilia sunt sacrificia in festo expiationum. Tum 
 quoque sacrificium agni paschalis, et quotidiani, seu jugis sacrificii, attendi debit. Hos 
 jgitur ad ritus et oblationes alludit Christus cum ait, Τοῦτο yap ἐστι τὸ αἷμα 
 μου τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, τὸ περὶ πδλλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἅμαρ- 
 τιῶν. Observant preterea viri docti vinum rufum, quale in illis regionibus crescebat, 
 ac in primis in ccena paschali bibebatur, egregiam nobis sanguinis memoriam 
 relinquere. Bucher. Antiq. Evan. p. 389. 
 
 || See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 778. Pfaffius, p. 181. 
 
300 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of the mercies of God in Christ, to “‘ shew the Lord’s death till 
 He come.” 
 
 8. Lastly, at the close of the paschal supper, they were wont to 
 sing an hymn of praise :* and the like was observed in the close 
 of the institution of the Christian Eucharist, as is recorded in the 
 Gospels. 
 
 * See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p, 258, 260. Pfaffius, p. 181. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 301 
 
 CHAP Pr Pin: 
 
 TESTIMONIES IN ALL CENTURIES, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH, 
 IN FAVOUR OF THE PROTESTANT VIEW OF THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 I Have already considered the positive testimony of Scripture 
 on the subject of our enquiry, and also illustrated the views of the 
 early Church, in numberless quotations from their writings. It 
 has been seen, that with whatever of figure and hyperbole the 
 ancient Greek and Latin Fathers sometimes spoke and wrote, 
 when pouring forth their souls in fervid declamation, or indulging 
 in oratorical displays, yet, in their more sober and systematic 
 statements, they speak the language of reason and scriptural 
 truth. This is the case for the first eight centuries of the Chris- 
 tian era; for, however far some may have gone in the use of lan- 
 guage which must be considered unguarded, yet in the same 
 authors, during the period mentioned, we always find the corrected 
 statement of sobriety. It is not in isolated expressions, and 
 disjointed sentences, that the opinions of the Fathers must be 
 sought, but in their whole train of thought, and the general drift 
 of their writings. When they are thus examined, they are found 
 generally to hold the great distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel, 
 and become powerful witnesses of the truth of Protestant Chris- 
 tianity against the unscriptural heresies of the Vatican and ‘Trent. 
 
 It would be but a waste of time to go over the ground which 
 has thus been trodden, as far as, at least, the first five centuries 
 are concerned. I shall now proceed to prove, that in every suc- 
 ceeding age, downwards to the Reformation, there was the profes- 
 sion of Protestant doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist ; and 
 
302 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 that when, in the ninth century, Paschasius began to teach the 
 before unheard-of doctrine of transubstantiation, he was strenu- 
 ously opposed by both clergy and laity. It is impossible not to 
 see the weight of this testimony, which is indeed the most weighty 
 and cumulative which can be brought to bear on any doctrine. 
 Thus, with regard to this leading doctrine of the Romish com- 
 munion, there is, in the first nine centuries of the Christian era, 
 the absence of all special instruction as to a corporeal presence, 
 of all particular directions for worship, &c., arising necessarily 
 from that doctrine, and of all objections to it by adversaries of 
 any kind. But as soon as Paschasius begins to preach it, oppo- 
 sition is rife enough; and no sooner is it adopted as an article of 
 faith, than it is specifically taught, though at first with such vary- 
 ing phraseology as shews the doctrine to be unsettled; while 
 directions are liberally dispensed to regulate the conduct of all 
 who believed in such a momentous tenet. The conduct of both 
 Papist and Protestant (to forestall the names) since the ninth 
 century, being so different from what it was previously, can only 
 be explained by the assumption that both now occupy a position 
 which they did not before that time. 
 
 Before parting company with the Augustine age, I will give a 
 quotation or two from Theodoret, bishop of Cyr, or Cyrus, in 
 Syria. From these it will be perceived that, however clear and 
 emphatic the Protestant doctrine of those Fathers is, it is only 
 Sully seen and felt from a consideration of the whole of the pas- 
 sages. Pick some particular sentence, and the sense may be 
 made to appear very different from what it really is, and what the 
 writer intended. These passages are from Theodoret’s Dialogues, in 
 which he introduces an orthodox believer and a Eutychian dis- 
 coursing thus : 
 
 Dial. 1. “ Orthodoxus. Do you not know that God called His 
 body bread ?—EHranistes. I know it.—Orth. Elsewhere also He 
 calleth His flesh wheat—Hran. I know that also: Unless a corn of 
 wheat fall into the gronnd and die, &c.—Orth. But in the delivery 
 of the mysteries, He called the bread His body, and that which is mixed 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 303 
 
 (viz., wine and water in the cup) blood.—Hran. He did so call them. 
 —Orth. But that which is His body by nature (κατὰ φύσιν τὸ σῶμα) 
 is also to be called His body, and His blood (viz., by nature) blood. — 
 Evan. It is confessed.—Orth. But our Saviour changed the names,* 
 and on His body he imposed the name of the symbol (or sign), and on 
 the symbol He put the name of His body; and so having called 
 Himself a vine, He called the symbol blood.—Eran. Very right. 
 But I have a mind to know the reason of this change of names.—Orth. 
 The scope is manifest to those that are initiated in divine things. For+ 
 He would have those that participate the divine mysteries not to attend 
 to the nature of those things that are seen, but upon the changing of the 
 names to believe the change that is made by grace. For He that 
 called His body, that is so by nature, wheat and bread, and again 
 termed Himself a vine,t He honoured the visible symbols with the 
 appellation of His body and blood, not altering nature, but to nature 
 adding grace.” 
 
 Proceed we now to the next dialogue. 
 
 Dial. 2. ‘Orth. The mystical symbols offered to God by the 
 priests, pray tell me what are they signs of >—Hran. Of the Lord’s 
 body and blood.—Orth. Of His body truly or not truly such ?—Eran. 
 Of that which is truly (His body.)—Orth. Very right. For there 
 must be an original of an image (τῆς εἰκόνος ἀρχέτυπον), for painters 
 imitate nature and draw the images of visible things.—Hran. True.— 
 Orth. If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of a true body, then 
 the Lord’s body is a true body still, not changed into the nature of the 
 Deity, but filled with divine glory.§—EHran. You have seasonably 
 brought in the discourse of the divine mysteries ; for thereby I will 
 shew that the Lord’s body is changed into another nature. Answer, 
 therefore, my question.—Orth. I will.—Hrun. What call ye the gift 
 that is offered before the priest’s invocation ?—Orth. I may not openly 
 declare it, for perhaps some here present may not be initiated.—Evan. 
 Answer, then, enigmatically.— Orth. I call it the food that is made of 
 a certain grain —Hran. How call you the other symbol ?—Orth. By 
 a common name, that signifies a kind of drink.—Hran. But how do 
 
 D μὲ “ὡλ » ‘ 
 
 * Τὶ μὲν σώματι τὸ τοῦ συμβόλου τέθεικεν ὄνομα, TH δὲ συμβόλῳ τὸ 
 
 “. , . 
 Tov σώματος. [yol. iv., p. 26. Hal. 1772]. 
 
 + My τῇ φύσει τῶν βλεπομένων προσέχειν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων 
 ἀναλλαηῆς, πιστεύειν τῇ ἐκ τῆς χάριτος γεγενημένη [SACI [Ibid.] 
 
 i Οὗτος τὰ ὁρώμενα σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος προσηγορίᾳ 
 τετίμηκεν, οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν τῆ φύσει προστεθεικιύς. 
 [1014.] 
 
 mal , > ' 4 
 ὃ Tod ὄντος σώματος ἀντίτυπα.  [IThid., p. 190]. 
 
304 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 you call it after consecration ?>—Orth. The body of Christ, and the 
 blood of Christ.—Evan. And do you believe you partake the body and 
 blood of Christ ?—Orth. Yes, I believe it—Hran. As then the svm- 
 bols of Christ’s body and blood are one thing before the priest’s invo- 
 cation, but after the invocation are changed, and become another 
 thing; so the Lord’s body, after His assumption, is changed into a 
 divine essence.—Orth. You are caught in a net of your own weaving. 
 For after sanctification the mystical symbols do not depart from their 
 own nature ;* for they remain still in their former substance, and figure 
 and form, and may be seen and touched just as before. But they are 
 understood to be that which they are made, and are believed and 
 venerated, as being those things they are believed to ‘be.” 
 
 Now, this is language of the most decided character as to the 
 opinions entertained by the Church in the fifth century. The 
 contradiction to the doctrine of the modern Church of Rome is 
 verbally explicit— “not altering nature, but adding grace to 
 nature,” is what we all should be willing to acknowledge. We 
 believe, with Theodoret, that after consecration, “ the mystical 
 symbols do not depart from their own nature, for they remain 
 still in their former substance, figure, and form.” No allusion to 
 what they are considered to become sacramentally could, for one 
 moment, put the sense of such clear and consistent declarations 
 as the preceding in the least degree in doubt. Itis evident enough 
 to what church Theodoret would belong, if he were to come back 
 to earth in this age. It is important to remark, that the whole 
 force of the argument here, in the mouth of the orthodox, depends 
 upon the assumption that there was no transubstantiation. 
 
 In the sixth century Fulgentius,} speaking of the Eucharist, 
 says, “ In this sacrifice there is a thanksgiving and remembrance 
 of the flesh which He offered, and the blood which Christ shed for 
 
 > 
 
 us ;” and “ this sacrifice of bread and wine was offered throughout 
 
 * Οὐ yap κατὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξισταται 
 φύσεως" Μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ 
 εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι, καὶ ἁπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἣν. Νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ 
 ἐγένετο, καὶ πιστεύεται καὶ προσκυνεῖται, WS ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται. 
 [Ibid., p. 126]. 
 
 + In isto sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi, quam 
 pro nobis obtulit. Augustin. de fide ad Petr. Diacon. cap. 19. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 3805 
 
 the whole Catholic Church.”* This does not look much like 
 transubstantiation. The Eucharist is called very properly a 
 remembrance of Christ's flesh, and a ‘“‘sacrifice of bread and 
 wine :” such language would be deemed heretical by the Church 
 of Rome to-day. 
 
 Primasius and Gaudentius both call this sacrament “a pignus, 
 pledge of the presence of Christ now absent from us.” Facundus, 
 Bishop of Hermiana, in Africa, says plainly, “The sacrament of 
 the body and blood of Christ, which is in the bread and cup, we 
 call His body and blood non quod proprie ;+ not that it is properly 
 His body and blood, but because it containeth a mystery of His 
 body and blood.” How could Facundus have inserted the saving 
 clause if he had believed as does the modern Church of Rome? 
 Every explanation given now is in the opposite direction,—viz., 
 to exaggerate the reality and emphasis of the real, that is, corpo- 
 real presence, and not to explain it away as the African bishop 
 virtually does. 
 
 Euphraimius, bishop of Antioch, speaks exactly as a modern 
 Protestant. He remarks, “The body of Christ, which is received 
 by the faithful, loses nothing of its sensible substance, nor is it 
 separated from the intelligible grace. So baptism, being entirely 
 one in itself, keepeth the property of its sensible substance—that 
 is, water, and loseth not that which it was before.”{ It is certain 
 this is not the doctrine so carefully elaborated at Trent. As has 
 been remarked above, it is no wonder that the Fathers should call 
 the sacred symbols by the names of the things which they repre- 
 sent, and which, in virtue and effect, they become to the worthy 
 recipient ; but it would be a strange thing indeed, if, believing 
 
 * Sacrificium panis et vini Ecclesia Catholica per universum orbem terre offerre 
 non cessat. Augustin. de fide ad Petr. Poincar: cap. 19. 
 + Facund. 1., 9. Defens. Trin cap. 
 
 t Οὕτω yap καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῶν πιστῶν “λαμβανόμενον σῶμα Χριστοῦ, καὶ 
 τῆς ᾿αἰσθητῆς οὐσίας οὐκ ἐξίσταται, καὶ τῆς νοητῆς ἀδιαίρετον μένει χάριτος" 
 καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα δὲ πνευμάτικον, ὅλον ye νόμενον καὶ ἕν ὑπάρχον, καὶ τὸ 
 ἴδιον τῆς αἰσθητῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ὕδατος λέγω, διασώζει, καὶ ὅ γέγονεν οὐκ 
 ἀπώλεσεν. Photius Bibliothec., p. 415. Edit. Auguste Vindelic. 1601. 
 
 RR 
 
306 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 that there was nothing in the sacrament but Christ's real body and 
 blood, they should still call it bread, wine, figure, &c. In the 
 seventh century we have Isidore of Seville saying, “ Bread, be- 
 cause it strengtheneth the body, is therefore called Christ’s body ; 
 and wine, because it worketh blood in the flesh, it hath therefore 
 relation to the blood of Christ; but these two being sanctified by 
 the Holy Ghost, are changed into a sacrament of the body and 
 blood of Christ.”* And Hesychius: ‘‘ We eat this food by 
 receiving the memory of His passion: not of His glory, but of 
 His passion.”+ The same author saith, “ Our mystery is both 
 bread and flesh."t All of which expressions are verbally and 
 doctrinally antagonistic to the Church of Rome. 
 
 In the eighth century we find Bede and Alcuin quoting largely 
 from Jerome and Augustine on the subject which now engages 
 our attention, but in no way do they indicate any tendency to the 
 opinions which we to-day repudiate. The following estimate 
 of their writings, is given in “ Soames’s Bampton Lectures,’$ 
 where the authorities are also given at large. As I have already 
 given Augustine's commentary on the sixth of John (see Appendix 
 H, p. Ixxxii.), whence these extracts are, for the most part, taken, 
 I shall not repeat them here. Soames writes as follows : 
 
 “In commenting upon the Psalms, Bede affirms, that Jesus 
 gave to His disciples, at the last Supper, ‘the figure of His holy 
 body and blood.’ This passage is obviously decisive. It hence 
 appears abundantly, that from the great spiritual guide of our 
 distant ancestors they could never have imbibed the Romish 
 Eucharistic doctrines. Nor, in reality, is thisefact proved less 
 effectually from Bede’s parallel between the Lord’s Supper and the 
 
 * Sed panis quia confirmat corpus, ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur; vinum autem 
 quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ided ad sanguinem Christi refertur,—heec autem 
 duo sunt visibilia sanctificata tamen per SS. in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt. 
 Isidor. de Offic. Ecclesiast. lib. i., cap. 18. 
 
 + Comedimus autem nunc cibum, sumentes ejus memoriam passionis.—Hesych. in 
 Levit., lib..i., c. 2. 
 
 1 Mysterium dicitur, quod simul panis et caro est.—Id. ibid., lib. ii., e. 8. 
 
 § See Lecture vii., with proofs and illustrations. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 307 
 
 passover. In the former celebration, we are told, Jesus ‘ substi- 
 tuted, for the flesh and blood of a lamb, the sacrament of His own 
 body and blood.’ In the days of our venerable countryman, we 
 are assured, expressly, the term sacrament meant a sacred sign. 
 The Son of man, then, in instituting the Holy Supper, did not 
 remove a shadow to make way for a substance. He merely sub- 
 stituted one sacred sign for another. 
 
 “In the same spirit of interpretation Alcuin speaks of our 
 Lord’s presence in the world. After His ascension, Jesus, we 
 are told, became absent carnally from this lower scene. In His 
 divinity He will be present with His faithful people to the end of 
 time. And could such language be deliberately used by a 
 scholarly believer in transubstantiation ? Do not those who hold 
 that doctrine consider the very flesh of their blessed Master to be 
 daily presented, under a veil, indeed, but palpably, notwith- 
 standing, to the senses of all who frequent the Eucharistic sacri- 
 fice? Itis also worthy of remark, that Alcuin represents the act 
 of our adorable Saviour, at the last Supper, as a consecration 
 merely, the offering being that of Himself. Thus, our illus- 
 trious countryman, far from affording such favourable inferential 
 evidence as, at least, a belief in transubstantiation indispensably 
 requires, even adds to the weight of direct testimony against that 
 doctrine. 
 
 “ Alcuin’s imperial friend and pupil in theology, allows not, 
 however, any doubt as to that celebrated scholar’s rejection of 
 the corporal presence. Charlemain plainly designates, in a letter 
 to him, the bread and wine given by Jesus tc His disciples, at 
 His parting paschal meal, as ‘a figure of His body and blood, 
 and as the exhibition of a mighty sacrament, highly beneficial to 
 mankind. Nor in those books against the worship of images, 
 for which the world is, probably, largely indebted to Alcuin’s pen, 
 does the emperor fail of asserting, in repeated instances, the 
 mystical and sacramental, that is, figurative character of the Holy 
 Supper.” 
 
 But the following century did not lack persons of like minds to 
 
308 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 think, and of like ability and courage to express their thoughts 
 
 on the subject of the then growing heresy of a corporeal presence. 
 
 Rabanus Maurus, abbot of Fulden, Haymo, bishop of Halberstal, 
 
 Johannes Scotus Erigena, Christianus Druthmarus, and Bertram, 
 
 monks, the latter of the abbey of Corbey, where Paschasius him- - 
 self was abbot, have, each and all, left their clear testimony against 
 
 the idea of any corporeal and substantial change in their day. 
 
 Hear the foregoing authority with reference to these: 
 
 “ But the most famous of those whom Alcuin formed to intel- 
 lectual eminence was Raban Maur. This illustrious metropolitan 
 is commemorated by Baronius, Bellarmine, and Sixtus of Sienna, 
 as profoundly learned, the brilliant star of Germany, the prince 
 of contemporary divines, equally an example of piety and erudi- 
 tion, a perfect master of rhetoric, poetry, philosophy, theology. 
 Our national school might well be proud of producing such a 
 pupil; and its Eucharistic doctrines are not likely to be learnt 
 from any abler, safer, more honoured pen. How, then, does 
 Raban’s testimony affect the most prominent, the ‘ great, burning 
 article of the Romish creed, as Archbishop Tillotson has strongly 
 but aptly, and not unfairly, called it? The Moguntine metro- 
 politan plainly pronounces the consecrated elements lable to all 
 the accidents of ordinary food; a position utterly irreconcileable 
 with a belief in transubstantiation ; a position which, indeed, those 
 who hold that doctrine must and do consider disgusting, intoler- 
 able, and even blasphemous.* He restricts the eating of Christ's 
 body to the faithful ; those, namely, who, living in obedience and 
 piety, are careful to comport themselyes as members of the 
 Saviour. He pronounces, that the consecrated elements pass, 
 by the operation of the Holy Ghost, into a sacrament, that is, a 
 sacred sign, of our Lord’s body. He draws a parallel between 
 the act of Moses, in establishing God's covenant with His ancient 
 people, and the act of Jesus, in His last paschal supper. Hence 
 he describes the Eucharistic cup as mystical and typical. Thus 
 
 * That all are not staggered by this disgusting, intolerable, and blasphemous posi- 
 tion, see above, page 72. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 309 
 
 this brilliant star, this perfect master of theology, this eminently 
 pious prelate, whom Romish authors, in their eager appropriation 
 of every celebrated ancient name, are so anxious to claim as their 
 own, and who certainly sheds no common lustre upon our Anglo- 
 Saxon school, is convicted of an utter disbelief in the principal 
 distinctive doctrine of the modern papal Church.* Raban’s testi- 
 monies against this doctrine are indeed so repeated, plain, and 
 utterly unmanageable, that a mark of obloquy was early placed 
 against his name. Wiliam of Malmesbury, accordingly, admon- 
 ishes his readers to beware of this famous prelate, as being tainted 
 with a most offensive unsoundness of opinion respecting the 
 blessed sacrament; and he stigmatizes him besides as a mere 
 plagiary, whose writings are worthy only of oblivion. 
 
 “This alleged unsoundness, however, evidently flowed from no 
 headiness, no love of singularity and novelty, on Raban’s part. 
 It was plainly acquired under Alcuin’s tuition. Haymo of Hal- 
 berstadt, accordingly, an Englishman by birth, it is believed, and 
 undoubtedly a fellow-pupil with the celebrated archbishop of 
 Mentz, falls but little short of him in evincing that the Eucha- 
 ristic traditions taught in our ancient Church were widely different 
 from those of modern Rome. Haymo explains our blessed Lord's 
 language, as to the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His 
 blood, by the union subsisting between Him and His faithful 
 
 * Rabanus saith, ‘‘ Bread, because it strengtheneth the body, is therefore called the 
 body ; and wine, because it maketh blood, is therefore referred to Christ's blood.” Quia 
 panis corporis cor confirmat, ideo ille congruenter corpus Christi nuncupatur ; et quia 
 vinum sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo refertur ad sanguinem. Again he goes on 
 to say, ‘That the sacrament is one thing and the power thereof another; the 
 sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the body; by the virtue of the sacrament 
 we attain eternal life.’ Aliud est sacramentum, aliud vis sacramenti ; sacramentum in 
 alimentum corporis redigitur, virtute sacramenti eterne vite dignitas adipiscitur. 
 Raban. de Instit. Cleric. 1. i., cap.31. It is easy to see here how nearly this is a tran- 
 script from Augustine’s commentary, as was before intimated in the case of Bede and 
 Alcuin. And in another place he saith, “‘ That Christ at first instituted the sacrament 
 of His body and blood with blessing and thanksgiving, and delivered it to His apostles 
 and they to their successors, to do accordingly ; and that now the whole Church 
 throughout the world observes this manner.” Quod exinde apostoli imitati fecere, et 
 successores suos facere docuerunt; quod et nunc per totum terrarum orbem generaliter 
 tota custodit ecclesia, Ibid. cap. 32. 
 
310 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 people. Like Raban, he copies Bede, in drawing an analogy 
 between the passover and the last supper. He describes the 
 consecrated bread as the true body of Christ to those who are 
 predestined to eternal life. It is not, then, the true body of 
 Christ to reprobates. Again: he says expressly that our Lord’s 
 ‘body and blood are called 8 sacrament, that is, a sacred sign.’ 
 This passage is conclusive. We have here another divine of the 
 English school, who not only withholds that inferential evidence 
 in favour of transubstantiation, which, at least, the doctrine 
 requires, but who plainly ascribes a figurative character to the 
 Eucharistic elements.* 
 
 ‘“ Druthmar of Corbey, also, said to have been a disciple of 
 Bede, designates the Eucharist as the sacrament of Christ's body 
 and blood; and speaks of it unequivocally, as figurative in its 
 nature. He likewise adopts a beautiful comparison from Sedu- 
 lius, a native of these islands, and probably contemporary with 
 him, which a believer in the corporal presence would be very 
 little likely to approve. Sedulius happily describes the last 
 supper as a meal taken, amidst a company of loved associates, by 
 one about to leave them for a distant journey, and desirous of 
 prescribing to them some significant ceremony, of which their 
 affection for him should ensure the constant repetition, and which 
 
 * Haymo saith the same with Rabanus [ Haimo in pass. secund. Mare. Fer. 3 palm.]: 
 he also calls the Eucharist “a memorial, that gift or legacy, which Christ dimissed 
 unto us at His death.” Sacramentum muneris zterni quod nobis Dominus passurus 
 in memoriam sui dimisit tenendum Haimo in 1 Cor. cap. 11. And again, “ Corpus 
 ergo Christi et sanguis, sacramentum dicuntur, id est, sacrum signum, non sui ipsius, 
 ut premissum est et probatum, sed ad similitudinem sumentium revera signa dicuntur ? 
 sicut enim panis, qui sacratus fit corpus Christi, ex multis granis fit unus panis, et 
 potus ille qui sanctificatus efficitur sanguis Christi, ex multis acinis fit unus potus ; sic 
 omnes digne sumentes hoe sacramentum, ex multis, unum in Christo efficiuntur. Pos- 
 sunt et aliter corpus Christi et sanguis signa nominari, quod manducamus et in corpus 
 Christi nostrum trajicimus, quodam modo nobis incorporari videtur et uniri. Significat 
 ergo hoc corporalis et temporalis carnis Christi et sanguinis comestio et incorporatio 
 illam eeterne societatis et refectionis visionem spiritalem et sempiternam, qua ei incor- 
 porabimur et uniemur in futuro, sic sine fine cum eo permansuri, ad quod nos perduci 
 posse integra fide, alacri spe, flagranti caritate preesumendum est.’—Tractatus Aimonis, 
 al. Haimonis, de Cor. et Sang. Dom. in Spicilegio Domini Luce Acherii. Paris, 1675. 
 tom. xii. p. 29. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 311 
 
 should thus incessantly recall his claims to their kind and grateful 
 recollection.* 
 
 ‘‘While our national school of theology was thus adorned by 
 the mightiest names of their age, and was bearing such decided 
 testimony against a belief in transubstantiation, Paschasius 
 Radbert offered to the world his famous assertion of the corporal 
 presence. This doctrine was thus reduced to that tangible form 
 which calls for a distinct approbation or denial. What, then, was 
 now the conduct of those luminaries who had been trained, under 
 English instruction, to direct public opinion? Did they look 
 unconcernedly upon the controversy, thus shewing themselves 
 convinced by the reasonings of Radbert, or indifferent to their 
 progress? Or did his doctrines win their expressed approbation ? 
 or, on the other hand, excite their opposition? By Raban Maur 
 this last course was adopted with vigour and decision. He speaks 
 of those, accordingly, who taught the corporal presence, as per- 
 sons holding an erroneous opinion, an opinion, too (and this is a 
 most important assertion), of recent origin. He says, likewise, 
 that he had exerted himself, in a particular piece, to stay the 
 progress of this erroneous novelty. The piece to which the arch- 
 bishop refers has never been brought to light. It has, therefore, 
 probably perished, either from the corrosive hand of time, or from 
 the disingenuous policy of some believer in transubstantiation. 
 Perhaps, however, as we know the work to have been written, its 
 loss is of no great importance. We may well rest satisfied with 
 the notorious and indisputable facts, that the bright star of 
 Germany, the pious Raban, the prince of contemporary philo- 
 sophers and divines, took up the pen of controversy to convict of 
 error a belief in the corporal presence, and to brand it as a 
 
 * Christianus Druthmarus, reporting our Saviour’s act at His last supper, saith, 
 “Christ changed the bread into His body and the wine into His blood spiritually ;’ he 
 speaks not of any change of substances. ‘Transferens spiritualiter panem in corpus 
 suum, et vinem et sanguinem. Chr. Druthmar. in cap. xxvi. Matt. tom. 9, in Biblioth. 
 vet. Pat. Colon, 1618. Walafridus Strabo saith, ‘‘ That Christ delivered to His dis- 
 ciples the sacrament of His body and blood, in panis et vini substantia, in the substance 
 
 of bread and wine.” Dominus corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta in panis et vini 
 substantia discipulis tradidit. Wal. Strabo de reb, Eccles. c. 16, 
 
312 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 novelty. This latter position, at least, Raban must have been 
 able to establish. What, then, becomes of those assurances, 
 which have left so many blood-stained pages upon the annals of 
 western Europe, that a belief in the corporal presence is a divine 
 and apostolical tradition? Here is an individual, extolled by the 
 most eminent asserters of that alleged tradition, in terms even 
 approaching extravagance and hyperbole, who testifies expressly 
 that it was a novelty so lately as the ninth century. 
 
 “Nor was the honour of arresting the progress of this porten- 
 tous novelty confined to a foreign disciple of our national school. 
 Erigena, pre-eminent among European scholars, in the generation 
 immediately succeeding that of Raban, became a professed and 
 zealous opponent of a belief in the corporal presence. His attack, 
 indeed, upon the hypothesis of Radbert was so direct and elabo- 
 rate, that it was formally condemned, after the lapse of two 
 centuries, by an Italian council ; transubstantiation having gained, 
 in the mean time, a secure establishment within the Roman 
 Church. Hence, probably, has arisen the complete disappear- 
 ance of Erigena’s controversial piece from repositories of literary 
 treasures. How could those, indeed, who recommended the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation as a divine and apostolical tradi- 
 tion, endure such an exposure of its novelty and unsoundness ?” 
 
 But if the treatise of Scotus is lost, that of Bertram, or Ratram, | 
 written at the same time, and under the same circumstances, yet 
 survives. These two illustrious men were commanded by the 
 Emperor Charles the Bold, to write their opinions upon the then 
 new tenet of Paschasius, which was at the time much controverted. 
 The work of Bertram yet exists, and is as satisfactory a proof of 
 the non-Popish doctrine of the Church, at the time of its pro- 
 duction, as we could desire. In this place I shall give but an 
 extract or two, though, as its importance is so manifestly great, I 
 have given the tract entire in the Appendix (page i.) It is really 
 astonishing that, with such irresistible evidences of the belief of 
 the medizeval Church, any one should have the audacity to assert 
 that transubstantiation was one of its doctrines. That “ the 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. ae 
 
 faithful” should have endeavoured to put it out of the way, as 
 well as its sister treatise of Erigena, is not much to be wondered 
 at, considerimg what we know of the recognition of “ pious 
 frauds ;” but it is, perhaps, a matter of surprise that we should at 
 this day possess it.* Interpolation, excision, forgery, repudiation, 
 corruption of all sorts, have been tried upon almost every ancient 
 and medizval author. If we could entirely recover the veritable 
 
 * The struggle which this treatise of Bertram has had for its life, will be seen by 
 the short notice prefixed to it in the Appendix. Not very different was the fate of 
 @lfric’s homily, wliich has been interpolated and expurgated, in delivery and in manu- 
 script, as will be seen by the following notice from Soames’s lectures, above quoted : 
 “As the years rolled on, this doctrine became highly distasteful to the ruling ecclesias- 
 tics. Lanfranc, who, first under Norman domination, filled the see of Canterbury, had 
 earned notoriety by controverting Berenger’s opposition to the corporal presence. His 
 influence was, therefore, naturally exerted to establish in England those principles for 
 which he had laboured so strenuously upon the continent. Among the fruits of this 
 change in the national religion, was one of those disingenuous expedients which imprint 
 a character of unsoundness upon any cause. Those who desired to undermine A‘lfric’s 
 opinions, yet found themselves unable to overthrow his popularity. They ventured 
 not, accordingly, to banish his instructions from the pulpit. On Easter-day the people 
 were still allowed to hear that well-known paschal homily which had taught their 
 fathers to view the holy supper as a figurative repast upon the Saviour. But its pro- 
 portions were grievously curtailed. Wherever A‘lfric, in admitting fabulous narrations, 
 had shewn himself ensnared by that credulity which necessarily clings to an age like 
 his, the seeming repeater of his discourse failed not of exact fidelity. Nor was this 
 individual’s accuracy less when the original made use of language in any manner 
 favourable to the corporal presence. Passages, however, of an opposite tendency, were 
 unsparingly retrenched, and the whole homily was thus imposed upon the people in 
 such a guise as made it utter doctrine widely different from that which its admirable 
 author had inculeated. In such discreditable devices, who does not detect a conscious- 
 ness of weakness ? who does not hear a tacit admission, that ‘from the beginning it 
 was not so?’ Had not, indeed, A‘lfric’s mutilators been afraid of confronting fairly 
 his opinions with their own, would they not have adopted a very different course ? 
 Would they not have boldly branded his belief with heresy and novelty ? Would they 
 not have openly and ignominiously rejected his discourses from the house of God, as 
 unworthy of resounding within its consecrated portals, as a disgrace to the Christian 
 preacher's lips, a snare and a defilement to the ears of a faithful congregation? Who 
 will not infer, from the surreptitious manner in which our fathers were weaned from 
 fElfrie’s opinions, that an attack upon his character, until he was wholly forgotten, 
 would have excited their indignation, a charge of novelty levelled against his doctrine, 
 their contemptuous derision? This artful dealing with his famous paschal homily fur- 
 nishes, therefore, another argument against those who would number transubstantiation 
 among traditions taught by the Anglo-Saxon Church. It is an additional link in that 
 adamantine chain of testimonies, extending unbrokenly from Bede to the Norman Con- 
 quest, which proves, even to demonstration, that ancient England was taught expressly 
 to deny the leading distinctive doctrine of modern Rome.” 
 
 ss 
 
914 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 writings of those whose names are held in honour by the Church, 
 undoubtedly we should have as strong testimony against the pecu- 
 lar doctrines of Rome, and this of our enquiry especially, as 
 could be penned now by Protestant writers. When error became 
 dominant, every trace of the opposing truth was erased, every 
 evidence removed from observation, and put beyond recovery, by 
 every nefarious means which the unscrupulous could discover. 
 These succeeded in their unholy crusade against men and books, 
 to such an extent that the Church is irreparably injured; they 
 could not succeed to the fullest extent, and so, thanks to a super- 
 intending Providence, the Church is not ruined. Such testimonies 
 as the following must ever prove a heavy condemnation to all 
 who hold the errors which they overthrow. 
 
 In the tenth century the evidence is sparing. If, however, it 
 be scanty, it is yet most undoubted. The chief is that derived 
 from an authority in the early English Church, which puts it 
 beyond all doubt as to what doctrine was taught here by our 
 Saxon forefathers. Adlfric, whose history is somewhat confused, 
 probably from there having been more of the name, and the records 
 being few, has left us a homily, still extant in the original Saxon, 
 as well as several other products of his pen, as letters, sermons, 
 &c., in which the belief of the English Church on the Eucharist, 
 in the tenth century, is distinctly and fully set forth. The homily 
 was one which was read on Easter Sunday, generally, throughout 
 the country; and, therefore, must be looked upon as of equal 
 authority in every part of the Church. Having given it entire in 
 the Appendix (page xxxix.), I will here give but a single quota- 
 tion from it; merely observing, that Johnson, in the preface to 
 his “‘ Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws,” says, “ I am fully per- 
 suaded that the homilies of A‘lfric are more positive against the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation than the homilies of the Church of 
 England, compiled in the reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Eliza- 
 beth.” 
 
 “Much is betwixt the invisible might of the holy housel, and 
 the visible shape of His proper nature. It is naturally corruptible 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 91 
 
 bread, and corruptible wine; and is, by might of God's word, truly 
 Christ's body and His blood; not so, notwithstanding, bodily; 
 but ghostly. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in, 
 and the body that is hallowed to housel. The body, truly, that 
 Christ suffered in was born of the flesh of Mary, with blood and 
 with bone, with skin and with sinews, in human limbs, with a 
 reasonable soul living ; and His ghostly body, which we call the 
 housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, with- 
 out limb, without soul; and therefore nothing is to be understood 
 therein bodily, but all is ghostly to be understood.”* 
 
 And it will be seen that the following extracts from two of 
 fElfric’s letters are not a whit less distinct or decided in the great 
 matter which engages our attention. Itis manifest that in endea- 
 vouring to carry us back to transubstantiation, those who make 
 the attempt are not seeking to restore us to the old doctrine of the 
 English Church, but to a modern one, which overlayed or super - 
 seded the ancient faith of the Church. These extracts are from 
 L'Isle’s translation, “ printed by John Haviland, and are to be 
 sold by H. Seile: 1623,” and follow immediately after the 
 “ Paschal Homily.” 
 
 “ Here followeth the words of Elfrike, abbot of S. Albons, and also 
 of Malmesbury, taken out of his epistle written to Wylfine, bishop of 
 Scyrburne. It is found in a booke of the old Saxon tongue, wherein 
 be xliij. chapters of canons and ecclesiasticall constitutions, and also 
 Liber Penitentialis, that is, ἃ penitentiall booke, or shrift booke, 
 diuided into foure other bookes; the epistle is set for the 30. chapter of 
 ‘the fourth booke, intituled ‘‘ Priests-Synode:’ and this epistle is also 
 in a canon booke of the Church of Exeter. 
 
 * Some priests keepe the housell that is consecrate Heere thou seest 
 on HKaster day all the yeare for sicke men. But they Sines καὶ a 
 doe greatly amisse, because it waxeth hoary. And finding fault with 
 these will not vnderstand how grievous penance the te Citas = 
 penitentiall booke teacheth by this, if the housell that priests on 
 become hoary or rotten, or if it bee lost, or bee eaten of Easter day filled 
 
 ς their housell 
 mouse or beast by negligence. Men shall reserue more boxe, and so kept 
 
 * L'Isle's Trans. 
 
316 
 
 the bread a whole 
 yeare for sicke 
 men, tooke an 
 occasion to 
 speake against 
 
 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 carefully that holy housell, and not reserue it too long, 
 but consecrate other of new for sicke men alwayes 
 within a weeke or a fortnight, that it be not so much as 
 hoary. For so holy is the housell which to-day is hal- 
 
 the bodily pre- 
 sence of Christ 
 
 in the sacrament. 
 So also in an- 
 other Epistle sent 
 to Wulfstane, 
 archbishop of 
 Yorke, hee repre- 
 hending again 
 this ouerlong re- 
 seruing of the 
 housell, addeth 
 also words more 
 at large against 
 the same bodily 
 presence. His 
 words be these; 
 
 lowed, as that which on Haster day was hallowed, ‘That 
 housell is Christ’s body, not bodily, but ghostly. Not 
 the body which He suffered in, but the body of which 
 Hee spake, when Hee blessed bread and wine to housell 
 a night before His suffering, and said by the blessed 
 - bread, this is my body: and againe by the holy wine, 
 this is my bloud, which is shed for many in forgiuenesse 
 of sinnes. Vnderstand now that the Lord, who could 
 turne that bread before His suffering to His body, and 
 that wine to his bloud ghostly; that the selfe same 
 Lord blesseth daily through the priest’s hands bread 
 and wine to His ghostly body, and to His ghostly 
 bloud. 
 
 “Some priests fill their boxe for housell on Haster day, and so 
 reserue it a whole yeare for sicke men, as though that housell were 
 more holy than any other. But they doe vnaduisedly, because it 
 waxeth hoary, or altogether rotten by keeping it so long space. And 
 thus is hee become guilty, as the booke witnesseth to vs. If any doe 
 keepe the housell too long, or lose it, or mice, or other beasts doe eat 
 it, see what the peenitentiall booke saith by this. So holy is altogether 
 that housell, which is hallowed to-day, as that which is hallowed 
 on Easter day. Wherefore I beseech you to keepe that holy body 
 of Christ with more aduisement for sicke men, from Sunday to 
 Sunday, in a very cleane boxe: or, at the most, not to keepe it 
 aboue a fortnight, and then eat it, laying other in the place. Wee 
 haue an example hereof in Moyses bookes, as God Himselfe hath 
 commanded in Moyses law: how the priests should set on euery 
 Saturday twelve loaues, all new baked, vpon the tabernacle, the 
 which were called panes propositionis ; and those should stand there on 
 God’s tabernacle, till the next Saturday, and then did the priests them- 
 selues eat them, and set other in the place. Some priests will not eat 
 the housell which they doe hallow. But wee will now declare vnto you 
 how the booke speaketh by them. Presbyter missam celebrans, et non 
 audens swmere sacrificium, accusante conscientia sua, anathema est: 
 The priest that doth say masse, and dare not eat the honsell, his con- 
 science accusing him, is accursed. It is lesse danger to receiue the 
 housell, than to hallow it. He that doth twice hallow one host to 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 17 
 
 housell, is hike. vnto those heretickes who do christen twice one child. 
 Christ Himselfe blessed housell before His suffering: Hee blessed the 
 bread, and brake, thus speaking to his apostles: ‘ Kat this bread, it is 
 my body.’ And againe He blessed one chalice with wine, and thus 
 also speaketh vnto them: ‘ Drinke ye all of this, it is mine owne bloud 
 of the New Testament, which is shed for many in forgiuenes of 
 sinnes.’ The Lord which hallowed housell before His suffering, and 
 saith, that the bread was His owne body, and that the wine was truly 
 His bloud, He halloweth daily, by the hands of the priest, bread to 
 His body, and wine to His bloud, in ghostly mystery, as wee read in 
 bookes. And yet that lively bread is not bodily so notwithstanding : 
 not the selfe-same body that Christ suffered in. Nor that holy wine is 
 the Sauiour’s bloud, which was shed for vs in bodily thing: but in 
 ghostly understanding. Both bee truly that bread His body, and that 
 wine also His bloud, and was the heauenly bread, which we call manna, 
 that fed forty yeares God’s people. And the cleare water which did 
 then run from the stone in the wildernesse, was truly His bloud, as 
 Paul wrote on some of his epistles: Ommnes patres nostri eandem escam 
 spiritualem manducauerunt, et omnes eundem potum spiritualem bibe- 
 runt, &c. All our fathers ate in the wildernesse the same ghostly 
 meat, and dranke the same ghostly drinke. They drank of that ghostly 
 stone, and that stone was Christ. The apostle hath said, as you now 
 haue heard, that they all did eat the same ghostly meat, and they all 
 did drinke the same ghostly drinke. And hee saith, not bodily, but 
 ghostly. And Christ was not yet borne, nor His bloud shed, when that 
 the people of Israel ate that meat, and dranke of that stone. And the 
 stone was not bodily Christ, though Hee so said. It was the same 
 mystery in the old law, and they did ghostly signifie that ghostly 
 housell of our Sauiour’s body, which wee consecrate now.” 
 
 * This epistle to Wulfstane Elfrike, wrote first in the Latine tongue, as in a short 
 Latine epistle set before this, and one other of his Saxon epistles, he confesseth thus: 
 “ Alfricus Abbas Wulfstano venerabili archiepiscopo salutem in Christo. Tece par- 
 uimus vestre almitatis jussionibus transferentes Anglice duas epistolas quas Latino 
 eloquio descriptas ante annum vobis destinavimus, non tamen semper ordinem sequentes, 
 nec verbum ex verbo; sed sensum ex sensu proferentes.” Behold wee haue obeyed 
 the commandement of thy excellencie in translating into English the two epistles which 
 wee sent vnto thee, written in Latine more than a yeere agoe. Howheit we keepe not 
 heere alwayes the same order, nor yet translate word for word, but sense for sense. 
 Now, because very few there be that doe vnderstand the old English or Saxon (so 
 much is our speech changed from the vse of that time wherein Elfrike liued), and for 
 that also it may be that some will doubt how skilfully and also faithfully these words 
 of Elfrike bee translated from the Saxon tongue; wee haue thought good to set downe 
 heere last of all the very words also of his Latine epistle, which is recorded in bookes 
 
318 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Well might Johnson write as above; for no condemnation of 
 the Popish figment could be more emphatic, consistent, and clear. 
 It appears manifest that these extracts were written at a time 
 when it was necessary to guard against the idea of a corporeal 
 presence, and that these sentiments were those of the bishops to 
 whom the epistles, whence they are taken, were addressed, can 
 hardly be doubted. In whatever estimation A‘lfric was held in 
 his own generation, it appears certain that he cannot be con- 
 founded with another of the same name who held the see of 
 Canterbury. These letters are, therefore, those of an inferior 
 
 faire written of old in the cathedrall churches of Worcester and Excester.—Qvidam 
 vero presbyteriimplent alabastrum suum de sacrificio, quod in pasca Domini santificant : 
 et conseruant per totum annum ad infirmos, quasi sanctior sit ceteris sacrificiis. Sed 
 nimium insipienter faciunt. Quia nigrescit, et putrescit tamdiu conseruatum. Et liber 
 penitentialis pro tali negligentia pcenitentiam magnam docet: aut sia muribus com- 
 estum sit: aut ab auibus raptum. ‘lam sanctum est sacrificium, quod hodie sancti- 
 ficatur, quam illud quod in die pasce consecratum est. Et ideo debetis a dominica in 
 dominicam, aut per duos, vel maxime tres hebdomadas tenere sacrificium in alabastro 
 mundo ad infirmos; ne nigrescat, aut putrescat, si diutius seruetur. Nam in lege 
 Moisi ponebant sacerdotes semper omni sabbato panes propositionis calidos in taber- 
 naculo coram Domino; et in sequenti sabbato sumebant illos soli sacerdotes, et edebant ; 
 et alios nouos pro eis ponebant. Facite et vos sacerdotes similiter. Custodite caute 
 sacrificium Christi ad infirmos, et edite illud, ne diutius teneatur, quam oportet. Et 
 reponite aliud nouiter sanctificatum propter necessitatem infirmorum, ne sine viatico 
 exeant de hoe seculo. Christus Iesus in die sue sancte ccene accepit panem, bene- 
 dixit, ac fregit ; dedit iliscipulis suis dicens, accipite, et comedite ; hoc est enim corpus 
 meum. Similiter et calicem accipiens gratias egit, et dedit illis dicens : bibite ex hoc 
 omnes. Hic est sanguis meus noui Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remis- 
 sionem peccatorum. Intelligite modo sacerdotes, quod ille Dominus qui ante passionem 
 suam potuit conuertere illum panem, et illud vinum ad suum corpus et sanguinem ; quod 
 ipse quotidie sanctificat per manus sacerdotum suorum panem ad suum corpus spiri- 
 tualiter; et vinum ad suum sanguinem. (Non sit tamen hoc sacrificium corpus eius 
 
 in quo passus est pro nobis; neque sanguis eius, quem pro nobis 
 The words inclosed 
 
 Gace weal Ghee effudit ; sed spirvitualiter corpus eius efficitur et sanguis ; sicut 
 pane aces: sme manna quod de ccelo pluit, et aqua que de petra fluxit. Sicut 
 en cea Paulus Apostolus ait.) Nolo enim vos ignorare fratres, quoniam 
 again out ron’ patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt; et omnes mare transierunt: 
 
 et omnes in Moysi baptizati sunt in nube et in mari. Et omnes 
 eandem escam spiritualem manducauerunt ; et omnes eundem potum spiritualem bibe- 
 runt. Bibebant autem de spirituali consequenti eos petra. Patra autem erat Christus. 
 Vunde dicit psalmista, panem cceli dedit eis. Panem angelorum manducauit homo. 
 Nos quoque proculdubio manducamus panem angelorum ; et bibimus de illa petra, 
 que Christum significabat ; quoties fideliter accedimus ad sacrificium corporis et 
 sanguinis Christi..—Test. Antiq. &c. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 319 
 
 to superiors in the Church, and cannot be deemed at variance 
 with the sentiments of those to whom they were sent. 
 
 Soames well remarks on a similar view of these epistles, “ But 
 a circumstance, greatly enhancing the value of these testimonies, 
 has not hitherto received its due share of attention. Both of 
 them occur in addresses of considerable length to the clerical 
 order; addresses which embody the leading points of doctrine 
 and discipline established among our Anglo-Saxon ancestry. 
 They may therefore fairly be considered as pastoral letters; and 
 hence were undoubtedly composed with all that regard to accu- 
 racy which public functionaries necessarily use in the preparation 
 of authentic instruments. Who, then, will doubt, that these two 
 epistles and the paschal homily deliver a correct exposition of the 
 doctrine which our national Church professed in A‘lfric’s day ? 
 
 In the following century, when the Normans overran the 
 English Church and nation, there can be no doubt but that the 
 foundation of a great change was laid in the faith of the Church 
 on this important article of the Eucharist. Lanfranc, who had 
 distinguished himself in opposition to, and in disputations with, 
 Berengarius, was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the Con- 
 queror, and no doubt, in a great measure, owed his elevation to 
 the part he had taken against the archdeacon. But the testimony 
 of Berengarius himself is very clear in this century, and not only 
 so, but the conduct of his opponents gives the strongest proof that 
 the doctrine which he opposed, as well as ourselves, was not then 
 fixed, for the very words in which he was compelled to make his 
 recantation at first, were afterwards declared as heretical as the 
 doctrine which he abjured. At first Berengarius was summoned 
 to a synod held at Vercelli, in 1050, presided over by Leo IX., 
 whereat the archdeacon did not attend, which, however, did not 
 prevent his condemnation, and the burning of the work of Johannes 
 Scotus, which was said to have led him astray. But this was 
 not the only pope with whom Berengarius had to compete. Victor 
 IL, Nicol. II., Gregor. VII.,—all demanded either the abjuration 
 of former abjurations as heretical, or some further one as more 
 
320 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 safe and orthodox. The eventful history of the poor archdeacon 
 is thus summed up by one whose volume on the Popish contro- 
 versy is a valuable handbook on every branch of the subjects in 
 dispute between the churches.* This author remarks :—“‘ Great 
 opposition was given to this doctrine in Germany and France, by 
 Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, and the celebrated Berengarius, of 
 Tours, who, in 4.D. 1059, was compelled to recant his opposition, 
 and profess his faith in these words :—‘ That the bread and wine 
 which are set upon the altar after the consecration, are not only 
 the sacrament, but the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; and are sensibly, not only in the sacrament, but in truth 
 handled and broken by the hands of the priest, and ground and 
 bruised by the teeth of the faithful.'+ But it appears that the pope 
 and council were not sufficiently skilful to express themselves 
 perfectly clear in this matter; for the gloss upon the canon law 
 says, ‘unless we understand these words of Berengarius (viz. the 
 words which the pope and council compelled him to speak) in a 
 sound sense, we shall fall into a greater heresy than that of Beren- 
 garius ; for we do not make parts of the body of Christ. I cannot 
 conceive what can be the meaning of this gloss, ‘ that the body 
 of Christ, though it be in reality broken, yet it is not broken into 
 parts, but into wholes. Now, this breaking of a body, not into 
 parts, but into wholes, which in truth is the doctrine of the Church 
 of Rome, though to persons who believe in transubstantiation, for 
 any thing I know, it may appear sound sense; yet to persons 
 who cannot believe in this doctrine, it appears to be downright 
 nonsense. Pope Gregory VII., twenty years after, a.D. 1079, 
 becoming sensible of this absurdity, made Berengarius, in another 
 
 * “Comparative View of the Anglican and Roman Churches.” —Curry, Dublin, 1536, 
 
 + Ego Berengarius—profiteor me tenere, panem et vinum que in altari ponuntur, 
 post consecrationem, non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus, et sanguinem 
 Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualitér, non solim sacramento, sed in veritate 
 manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri. Gratian. de Consecrat. 
 Dist. 2. cap. Ego Berengar. 
 
 + That this absurdity is one of the “developments” of the Romish Church, con- 
 sequent upon, but not contemporary with, the belief of transubstantiation, the following 
 will clearly shew. I have iaken it from “Faber’s History of the Waldenses and 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 321 
 
 council assembled at Rome, recant in another form, viz., that 
 ‘the bread and wine which are placed upon the altar are substan- 
 tially changed into the true and proper quickening flesh and blood 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, and after consecration are the true body 
 
 Albigenses,” to which I am indebted for other matter respecting the same inter- 
 esting peoples. The whole is put with the venerable author's usual force and 
 perspicuity :—‘‘ William of Malmsbury, who flourished during the reigns of our 
 three first Norman kings, after censuring the pretended heresy of his contemporary 
 Berenger, professes his own full belief, that, after the ecclesiastical benediction, 
 the elements are the true body and blood of the Saviour; and he says, that he 
 was induced thereto, both by the ancient authority of the Church, and likewise 
 by many newly-displayed miracles. One of these convincing miracles was the 
 following :—‘A little Jew boy, entering into a Churck with a Christian boy, 
 beheld, upon the altar, a child, torn limb from limb, and thus severally divided 
 to the people. Returning home, he innocently told the story to his parents, who, 
 in a rage, threw him upon a burning pile. Here he lay unhurt for several hours, 
 until at length he was drawn out by the Christians. When asked how he escaped 
 the effects of the fire, he said, ‘‘ The beautiful woman, whom I beheld sitting on 
 a throne, and whose son was divided to the people, always stood at my right 
 hand in the furnace, turning aside with her robe the volume of fire and smoke.’’’ 
 Nos sane ecredimus, post benedictionem ecclesiasticam, illa mysteria esse verum 
 corpus et sanguinem Salvatoris ; adducti, et veteri ecclesie auctoritate, et multis 
 noviter ostensis miraculis. Quale fuit, quod beatus Gregorius exhibuit Rome. 
 Quale, quod Pascasius narrat contigisse in Alemannia, presbyterum Plegildum 
 visibiliter speciem pueri in altari contrectasse, et, post libata oscula in panis simi- 
 litudine, conversum ecclesiastico more, sumpsisse ; quod, arroganti cavillatione. 
 ferunt Berengarium carpere solitum, et dicere ; speciosa certe Pax nebulonis, ut 
 cui oris preebuerat basium, dentium inferrat exigium. Quale, de pusione judaico, 
 qui. in ecclesiam cum zquevo Christiano forte et ludibunde ingressus, vidit 
 puerum in ara membratim discerpi et viritim populo dividi ; id cum innocentia 
 puerili parentibus pro vero assereret, in rogum detrusum, ubi occluso ostio zstu- 
 abat incendium, multis post horis, sine jactura corporis exuviarum et crinium, a 
 Christianis extractum ; interrogatusque, quomodo voraces ignium globos evaserit, 
 respondit: “ Illa pulchra foemina, quam vidi sedere in cathedra, cujus filius populo 
 dividebatur, semper mihi in camino ad dextram astitit, flammeas minas et furea 
 volumina peplo suo submovens.”’—De Gest. Anglor. Continuat. lib. 111., 6. 27. 
 Now, it is clear that this figment, detailed by William with implicit credulity and 
 evidently with full approbation, could never have been constructed save on the 
 basis of the recognised orthodox theology of the eleventh century. Therefore, the 
 orthodox theology of the eleventh century must have been, that, in each celebra- 
 tion of the Eucharist, the entire coherent mass of bread was changed into the 
 undivided body of one Christ; and that such body, when distributed to the com- 
 municants, was afterwards divided into numerous portions or fragments, so that 
 each communicant received, not the whole Christ, but a part only of a leg or an 
 arm, or any other member, according as it might happen. Yet, strange to say, 
 what in the eleventh century was so pre-eminently orthodox as to be confirmed 
 by the testimony of a miracle, had become, in the sixteenth century, such a dam- 
 AGL 
 
one THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, and which, being offered 
 for the salvation of the world, did hang upon the cross, and sits 
 at the right hand of the Father.’ ” 
 
 nable heresy, that the infallible Fathers of the Tridentine Council actually subjected 
 the unlucky holder of it to all the pains and penalties of a formal anathema, ‘If 
 any one,’ say these unerring settlers of the faith, ‘ shall deny that, in the vener- 
 able sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, 
 and, when a separation is made, under every part of each species, let him be ana- 
 thema.’ ‘Si quis negaverit, in venerabili sacramento Eucharistie, sub unaquaque 
 specie, et sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum 
 contineri, anathema sit.—Concil. Trident. sess. xili. c. 8, can. iii. Here I submit, 
 that the decision of the Tridentine Fathers is altogether irreconcileable with the 
 necessary purport of the miracle attested by the little Jew boy. 
 
 “«The decision of the Tridentine Fathers asserts, that the whole Christ is sub- 
 stantially contained, when a separation is made, under every particle of each spe- 
 cies ; so that every communicant receives the whole Christ full and complete in 
 all his members. Whereas the purport of the miracle, attested by the little Jew 
 boy, was, that the whole Christ is not contained under every particle of each 
 species when a separation is made; for the boy beheld the child Christ on the 
 altar, under the hands of the priest, torn limb from limb, and distributed in this 
 divided state, man by man, to the people. But, in the eleventh century, the 
 miracle, as we learn from William of Malmsbury, was held to be good and suffi- 
 cient evidence of the soundness of the doctrine then inculcated respecting the 
 practical results of what was afterwards styled Transubstantiation ; and, in the six- 
 teenth century, the decision of the Tridentine Fathers was held to be a good and 
 sufficient establishment of the entire doctrine of transubstantiation under all its 
 various aspects, which has ever since been devoutly held by each true son of the 
 Roman Church. Hence the orthodoxy of the eleventh century, which denies that 
 the whole Christ is substantially received by every communicant —and the ortho- 
 doxy of the sixteenth century, which maintains that the whole Christ is substan- 
 tially received by every communicant—are two entirely different systems ; and 
 hence the miracle whigh establishes the former, and the decision which establishes 
 the latter, stand so directly opposed to each. other, that the decision even pro- 
 nounces all those to be accursed who adopt the system established by the miracle. 
 
 “We have here, I take it, a very ugly business ; for the matter finally resolves 
 jtself into the following awkward dilemma :—Is the well-meaning Romanist to be- 
 lieve, with his Church in the eleventh century, that in the administration of the 
 Eucharist, Christ’s substantial body is divided into as many parts as there are com- 
 municants? Or is he to believe with his Church in the sixteenth century, that 
 Christ’s substantial body, in the administration of the Eucharist, is not divided, 
 but that that every communicant receives substantially the whole Christ, complete 
 in all his members? If the former, then the Fathers of the Tridentine Council, 
 so far from being infallible, must have grievously and presumptuously erred, when 
 they anathematised all those who denied that the whole Christ is contained under 
 every part of each species. Ifthe latter, then the Church of the eleventh century, 
 so far from being infallible, taught a grossly-erroneous doctrine ; and the miracle, 
 which had such a convincing effect upon the mind of William of Malmsbury and 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 323 
 
 Tt is not possible to conceive that Berengarius, when he thus 
 combated the growing heresy of the Eucharist, either stood alone, 
 or controverted a long-established doctrine. There is positive 
 evidence that he did not stand alone,* though it has been attempted, 
 as usual, dishonestly to conceal it; and the fact above alluded to, 
 that varied forms of recantation were again and again demanded 
 of him, shews that no settled form of words had as yet been 
 generally adopted to express the mode of presence. And we shall 
 find the same truth manifesting itself very frequently in the 
 following ages. 
 
 In the twelfth century the schoolmen began to flourish, and it 
 has been already shewn, by extracts from Peter Lombard, and 
 even Thomas Aquinas, how differently these men spoke from what 
 the advocates of the doctrine of Trent do now. There are many 
 testimonies extant of this age, proving that ad/ did not believe in 
 transubstantiation, if some did, as the following, from Birkbeck’s 
 “Protestant Evidence,” will sufficiently prove : 
 
 “41, In this age Gratian, the monk, affordeth us a notable testimony 
 against transubstantiation. His comparison is thus drawn: ‘ This holy 
 bread is, after its manner, called the body of Christ, as the offering 
 thereof by the hands of the priest is called Christ’s passion ;’ now the 
 priest's oblation is not properly and literally, in strict terms and sense, 
 the passion of Christ; but, as the Gloss hath it, ‘ the sacrament repre- 
 senting the body of Christ is therefore Christ’s flesh, not in verity 
 of the thing, but in a mystery’ (namely), as the representation of 
 Christ therein is called His passion. 
 
 ““ Gratian’s word’s are these: ‘ As the heavenly bread, which is 
 Christ’s flesh, after a sort, is called Christ’s body, whereas, indeed, it is 
 the sacrament of His body; and the sacrificing of the flesh of Christ, 
 
 his contemporaries, could only have been a disgraceful figment, got up for the 
 establishment of what the Council of Trent, in its infallible wisdom, has since 
 pronounced to be an accursed heresy. At all evenis, the doctrine of the eleventh 
 century is palpably irreconcileable with the doctrine of the sixteenth century.” 
 
 * Sigebert’s Chronicle, speaking of Berenger’s tone, saith, that there was much dis- 
 putation, and by many, both by word and writing, against him and for him. Where 
 the learned Bishop Usher observes, that the words et pro eo, and for him, specially 
 favouring Berenger’s cause, are left out in some editions ; but they are to be found in 
 other authentic copies. 
 
324 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which is done by the priest’s hands, is said to be his passion, not in 
 the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery.’* 
 
 “ Johannes Semeca, who was the first that glossed upon Gratian’s 
 decrees, telleth us how this comparison is to be meant. ‘The sacra- 
 ment (saith the Gloss), because it doth represent the flesh of Christ, is 
 called the body of Christ, but improperly ; not in the truth of the thing, 
 but in the mystical sense—to wit, it is called the body of Christ; that 
 is, it signifieth His body.’+ 
 
 « From these premises we infer, that, after consecration, the sacra- 
 ment is not in truth Christ’s body, but only in a signifying mystery ; 
 ret veritas, the truth of the thing, as it is opposed to significans myste- 
 rium, a signifying mystery, simply excludes the reality of the thing; 
 for it is all one as if he had said, that it is there only in a signifying 
 mystery ; as also in saying it is there swo modo, after a sort only, he 
 implieth, that it is not there truly, or in the truth of the thing, visibly 
 or invisibly. So that these words of Gratian, drawn from St. Augus- 
 tine and Prosper, seconded by the Gloss, and inserted into the body of 
 the canon law, confirmed by Pope Gregory XIII., make strongly 
 against the real presence of Christ’s body, under the accidents of 
 bread and wine, as my learned friend, Master Doctor Featley, made it 
 appear in his first day’s conference with Master Musket, touching 
 transubstantiation. | 
 
 “« Besides, there were divers in this age, who employed both their 
 tongues and their pens in defence of this truth. 
 
 «© 2. Zacharius Chrysopolitanus saith, that there were some, perhaps 
 many, but hardly to be discerned and noted, that thought still, as 
 Berengarius did, whom they then condemned, scorning not a little the 
 folly of them that say, the appearing accidents of bread and wine after 
 the conversion, do hang in the air, or that the senses are deceived.$ 
 
 «3. Rupertus saith, it is not to be concealed, that there are divers, 
 though hardly to be discerned and noted, which are of opinion, and 
 
 * Sicut ergo ccelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, 
 cum revera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi—vocaturque immolatio carnis quz 
 sacerdotis manibus sit, Christi passio—non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio. 
 Decret. part. 3. De Consecrat. Dist. 2. 
 
 + Celeste Sacramentum, quod vere representat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus 
 Christi, sed improprié, unde dicitur suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significante 
 mysterio: ut sit sensus, vocatur corpus Christi, id est, significatur. Gloss, Decret. de 
 Consecrat. Dist. 2. verbo, Ceelestis. 
 
 1 Dr. Featley’s Conference with Mr. Musket, April 21, 1621. 
 
 § Sunt nonnulli, imo forsan multi, sed vix notari possunt qui cum damnato Beren- 
 gavio idem sentiunt, et tamen eundem cum Ecclesia damnant. Zachar. Episc. Chrysop. 
 Comment. in Evangel. Montessar. lib. iv., c. 156. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 325 
 
 defend the same both by word and writing: that the Fathers under the 
 law did eat and drink the very bread and wine which we receive in the 
 sacrament of the altar. And he said they grounded their opinion upon 
 that of the apostle, 1 Cor. x., 3, 4, ‘They did all eat the same spiritual 
 meat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink (for they drank of 
 the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ).’* 
 And the same Rupertus addeth, that ‘ the Church tolerated this diver- 
 sity of opinion touching the sacrament of the Eucharist ;’ for so he 
 saith in his seventh book; whence we may observe, that for so much as 
 the Fathers, under the law, did eat of the same Christ in manna that 
 we do in the sacrament of the Supper, and yet did not, and could not 
 eat Him carnally, who was not then born, nor had flesh: we also in 
 our sacrament can have no such fleshly communication with Christ as 
 some imagine. 
 
 «« And whereas Bellarmine replies, ‘ that the Fathers received the 
 same among themselves, but not the same with us Christians ;’+ he is 
 controlled by St. Augustine, who saith, it was ‘ the same which we 
 eat; the corporal food indeed was diverse, but the spiritual meat was 
 the same; they eat of the same spiritual meat.’ ”} 
 
 But it was not alone within the Church that this growing error 
 was withstood. That much-maligned people, the Waldenses and 
 Albigenses, who, perhaps with some unsound peculiarities, opposed 
 the doctrinal errors, and vicious lives of the Romish clergy, are 
 acknowledged by their adversaries not to have believed in tran- 
 substantiation. It is true, a very different cause is given for this 
 from what we know to be the true one; for to allege the reason 
 given in the extract in the note, is to repeat what the persons 
 concerned always steadily repudiated, and of the existence of 
 which belief among them, there is no trace whatever. We must 
 put down, therefore, to the account of slander, the reason alleged : 
 
 * Hoc loco silendum non est, malé quosdam ignotos, sed absconditi nominis 
 homines opinari, suis quoque defendere dictis et scriptis, panem verum et potum, quem 
 in sancto Altari sumimus, nihilomints Patres illos manducasse tunc temporis et bibisse 
 —huic errori pro maximo argumento adhibent authoritatem apostoli, 1 Cor. x., 3, 4.— 
 Igitur eadem que hactenus in Ecclesia toleratur discordantium et contradicentium 
 permixtio. Rupert. lib. vi., in commentar. in Johan. cap. vi.—et in lib. vii. 
 
 + At eandem inter se, non nobiscum eandem. Bellar. lib. i. 1. de Euchar. c. 14. 
 Sect. Quia. 
 
 { Spiritalem utique eandem, nam corporalem alteram; quia illa manna, nos aliud 
 —idem significavit virtute spirituali. Aug. Tract 26. in Joan, 
 
3826 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the fact is most indubitable.* It will be seen, at a subsequent date, 
 how emphatically these early Protestant tenants of the Valleys 
 repudiated the decrees of Trent, which would stamp with the 
 sanction of Gospel truth the wild fancies of Radbert Paschasius. 
 
 Now, in a work of this interesting people, entitled a ‘“‘ Treatise 
 on Antichrist,” proved, I think satisfactorily, by Mr. Faber, to 
 belong to the twelfth century, we find the most unequivocal con- 
 demnation of the Popish doctrine which we are investigating. 
 In this work, no hesitation is manifested in appropriating to the 
 Church of Rome the title of Antichrist ; and the doctrines of that 
 Church are alleged, seriatim, as the works of Antichrist; the 
 Jalsehood of eternal damnation, covered with the appearance of 
 the truth and righteousness of Christ and His Spouse. The 
 paragraphs in this treatise, appertaining to our present enquiry, 
 are the following: “ His (Antichrist’s) first work is, that the 
 service of Latria, properly due to God alone, he perverts unto 
 Antichrist himself, and to his doings; to the poor creature, 
 rational or irrational, sensible or insensible ; to man, for instance, 
 male or female saints departed this life; and to their images, or 
 carcases, or relics. His doings are the sacraments, especially 
 that of the Eucharist, which he worships equally with God and 
 Christ, prohibiting the adoration of God alone.” And again: 
 “His fourth work is, that he rests the whole religion of the 
 people upon his mass: for, leading them to hear it, he deprives 
 them of spiritual and sacramental manducation.” 
 
 Here, then, is most satisfactory evidence, not only that long 
 before the days of Luther and the Reformation, the same views 
 on the Eucharist were held as we hold to-day, but also that they 
 were held in protestation against the same errors of Rome, as 
 we now protest against. Nothing could more strongly identify 
 
 * Est autem opinio eorum detestanda: dicunt enim, quod panis non transubstan- 
 tiatur in corpus Christi, nee vinum in sanguinem ipsius. Cujus opinionis causa prima 
 est; quia istum materialem panem et vinum mala esse dicunt, asserunt enim quidam 
 eorum a Diabolo creata esse. Alii vero, facta esse a terra, unde hujusmodi cibaria 
 oriuntur. Monet. ady. Cathar, et Valdens, lib. iv., c. 3., 5. I., p. 295. 
 
OF THE HQLY EUCHARIST. 327 
 
 the Waldenses of the twelfth century with the reformers of 
 the sixteenth, than this coincidence, both in profession and 
 protest. 
 
 In another ancient document, derived from the same source, 
 called “The Noble Lesson,” and which carries its own date, 
 1100, on its front, we find, amid much very interesting and 
 important matter, the following on the sacrifice of the mass, 
 shewing under what circumstances it was at that time celebrated, 
 and the opinion held by the Waldenses of its validity with regard 
 to the proposed end. Speaking of an unscrupulous sinner, who, 
 on his dying bed, sends for the priest to quiet his soul, “ The 
 Noble Lesson” goes on to say: “ The priest tells him, that he 
 cannot be forgiven, if he does not restore all that he has taken 
 from another, and well examine his sins. When he hears 
 this, he has great trouble; and he thinks within himself, if 
 he shall restore it entirely, what will remain to his children, 
 and what will the world say? Then he commands his children 
 to examine their faults, and gives money to the priest, that 
 he himself may receive absolution. Though he has extorted 
 from another a hundred pounds, or perhaps two, yet the priest 
 will pardon him for a hundred pence, and sometimes for less, when 
 he can get no more. And he tells him a long story, and promises 
 him pardon; for he will say mass both for him and for his fore- 
 fathers. Thus grants he pardon to them, whether they be just or 
 felonious, and he puts his hand upon their heads. But, when he 
 leaves them, he occasions a grand festival; for he makes them to 
 understand, that they have been very well absolved. Yet ill are 
 they confessed, who are thus faulty; and they will certainly be 
 deceived by such an absolution; and he that makes them believe 
 it, sims mortally. For I dare to say, and it will be found very 
 true, that all the popes, from Sylvester down to the present one, 
 and all the cardinals, and all the bishops, and all the abbots, even 
 all such put together, have no power to absolve or to pardon a 
 single creature in regard to a single mortal sin; inasmuch as God 
 alone pardons, and no other can do it.” 
 
328 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 It is here sufficiently manifest, that whatever identity the 
 Romanist may claim for the Church of the twelfth and that of the 
 sixteenth century (I have shown above that there was not iden- 
 tity), there is the same evidence to prove the identity of the creed 
 of protesting Christians. 
 
 Let it not be wondered at by any, that the evidence of this and 
 the following century is not more abundant. When not only the 
 works of authors, which did not suit the taste, and coincide with 
 the opinions of those in power, were burnt, but the unfortunate 
 authors themselves were subjected to the same ordeal, it would 
 have required a strong conviction of duty ere a man would put 
 his pen to paper, when it was to seal his own condemnation; and 
 fortunate, indeed, would have been the production, if it could have 
 escaped the destruction which awaited all such. The wonder, 
 therefore, is rather, not that we have so little, but that we have 
 any. If persecution cannot convince, it can silence; and the 
 history of the devoted Albigenses and Waldenses is proof, sad and 
 sufficient, of the means adopted, and the lengths ventured upon, 
 to quiet the tongues of such stubborn gainsayers. When we 
 look onward into the thirteenth century, we find the few traces of 
 doctrine which manifest themselves amongst these primitive people 
 still in the same direction. But it is well worthy of remark, that 
 almost every notice which exists in this century of opposition to 
 the doctrines of Rome, is to be found in the writings of her own 
 supporters. The faith of the Waldenses and Albigenses is, accord- 
 ingly, presented to us by Popish writers. Thus, in the “ Index 
 of Valdensic Errors,” in Gretzer’s supplement to Pilichdorf's work 
 against these simple people, he says, “ that all the words of the 
 mass, and all the preparations appertaining to the mass, beyond 
 the simple words of consecration, are of error.”* 
 
 So, also, Conrad of Magdenberg, when speaking of the Bighards, 
 Pighards, or Picards—by which names the Waldenses were com- 
 monly designated in Germany, from their abounding in the 
 
 * Item dicunt; omnia verba Misse, et omnia preeparamenta ad Missam spectantia, 
 esse de errore, prater yerba consecrationis. Ind. Error. Vald. p. 840. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 329 
 
 neighbouring province of Picardy—confesses, with horror, that 
 “ they blaspheme the priesthood of Christ, styling the presbyters 
 in the Church of God, by way of mockery and derision, god- 
 makers. Nevertheless, the priests themselves make not God; 
 but only, through the words of consecration instituted by Christ, 
 under the species of bread and wine, mixed with water, they make 
 our Lord Christ to be corporeally present, who was not corporeally 
 present before, the Holy Spirit operating the transubstantiation of 
 this oblation so as to make God.” 
 
 Here, then, we have a Popish exposition of what is Popish 
 doctrine, and an unquestionable testimony to its specific rejection 
 by the Waldenses of the thirteenth century. 
 
 Somewhat similar is the Protestant evidence of Birkbeck for 
 this age. ‘The terror of the stake, the inquisition, and undistin- 
 guishing massacre, which were all brought to bear upon opponents, 
 prevented much being written, and effectually disposed of whatever 
 was. It is, therefore, only a few occasional acknowledgments which 
 are, in this age, to be found; but they are conclusive against the 
 antiquity of the doctrine which, in 1215, the Council of Lateran, by 
 its decrees, inflicted upon the Church, in the day when Christianity 
 was eclipsed, and the Sun of Righteousness hidden. 
 
 In this century lived John Duns Scotus, an Englishman, who 
 was called the Subtle Doctor. With respect to our subject 
 he writes: “Concerning the Eucharist, it was not in the be- 
 ginning so manifestly believed as concerning this conyersion.* 
 But principally this seemeth to move us to hold transubstan- 
 tiation, because, concerning the sacraments, we are to hold as the 
 Church of Rome doth.’ And he addeth, “We must say the 
 
 * Scotus, lib. 4, Dist. 10. quest. 1. Sect. Quantum ergo ad istum argument. 
 
 + Principaliter autem videtur me movere quod de Sacramentis tenendum est, sicut 
 tenet. S. Romana Ecclesia; nunc autem ipsa tenet panem transubstantiari in corpus, 
 et vinum in sanguinem, sicut manifeste habetur extravagante de Summa Trinit. et 
 fide cath. firmiter credimus Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei 
 in illo symbolo edito sub Innocentio tertio in Concilio Lateranensi, et si queeras quare 
 voluit Ecclesia eligere istum difficilem intellectum hujus articuli, cum verba scripture 
 possent salvari secundim intellectum facilem, et veriorem secundum apparentiam ; dico, 
 
 UU 
 
330 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Church, in the Creed of the Lateran Council, under Innocent 
 III., which begins with these words, F%rmiter credimus, declared 
 this sense concerning transubstantiation to belong to the verity 
 of our faith. And, if you demand why would the Church make 
 choice of so difficult a sense of this article, when the words of 
 the Scripture, ‘This is my body,’ might be upholden after an 
 easy sense, and in appearance more true? I say, the Scriptures 
 were expounded by the same Spirit that made them: and so it is 
 to be supposed that the Catholic Church expounded them by the 
 same Spirit whereby the faith was delivered us, namely, being 
 taught by the Spirit of truth, and therefore it chose this sense, 
 because it was true. Thus far Scotus. 
 
 ‘“* Let us now see what Bellarmine saith: ‘ Scotus tells us,’ saith 
 he, ‘that before the Council of Lateran (which was held in the 
 year 1215), transubstantiation was not believed as a point of 
 faith ;' this is confessed by Bellarmine to be the opinion of Scotus: 
 only he would avoid his testimony with a minime probandum est.* 
 Scotus, indeed, saith so, but I cannot allow of it; and then he 
 taxeth Scotus with want of reading, as if this learned and subtle 
 doctor had not seen as many councils, and read as many Fathers, 
 for his time, as Bellarmine. 
 
 “The same Bellarmine saith, that Scotus held ‘ that there was 
 no one place of Scripture so express, which (without the declara- 
 tion of the Church) would evidently compel a man to admit of 
 transubstantiation: and this (saith the cardinal) is not altogether 
 improbable, that there is no express place of Scripture to prove 
 transubstantiation without the declaration of the Church (as 
 Scotus said); for, although the fore-cited Scripture seem to us 
 so plain, that it may compel any but a refractory man to believe 
 it, yet it may justly be doubted whether the text be clear enough 
 to enforce it, seeing most acute and learned men, such as Scotus 
 
 quod eo spirtu exposite sunt Scripture, quo condite; et ita supponendum est quod 
 
 Kcclesia Cath. eo modo exposuit, quo tradidit nobis fides Sp. sancto veritatis edocta ; 
 
 et ideo hunc intellectum elegit, quia verus.—Scotus in 4. Sentent. Dist. 11. quest. 9. 
 * Bellar. 1. 3. de Sacram. Eucharist. c. 23. Sect. Unum. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 991] 
 
 was, have thought the contrary.’* Thus far Bellarmine, unto 
 whom I will add the testimony of Cuthbert Tonstall, the learned 
 Bishop of Durham. 
 
 “His words are these: ‘Of the manner and means of the real 
 presence, either by transubstantiation or otherwise, perhaps it had 
 been better to leave every man that would be curious to his own 
 conjecture, as before the Council of Lateran it was left ;’+ and 
 Master Bernard Gilpin, a man most holy and renowned among 
 the northern English, and one that was well acquainted with the 
 Bishop Tonstall, his kinsman and diocesan, saith: ‘ I remember 
 that Bishop Tonstall often told me that Pope Innocent III. had 
 done very unadvisedly in that he made the opinion of transub- 
 stantiation an article of faith, seeing, in former times, it was free 
 to hold or refuse that opinion.’ ἢ 
 
 “The same bishop told me, and many times ingenuously con- 
 fessed, that Scotus was of opinion that ‘ the Church might better, 
 and with more ease, make use of some more commodious expo- 
 sition of those words in the Holy Supper: and the bishop was of 
 the mind that we ought to speak reverently of the Holy Supper, 
 but that the opinion of transubstantiation might well be let alone. 
 This thing, also, the same Bishop Tonstall was wont to affirm, both 
 in words and writings, that Innocent III. knew not what he did 
 when he put transubstantiation among the articles of faith; and 
 be said that Innocentius wanted learned men about him; and, 
 
 * Dicit Scotus, non extare locum Scripture tam expressum, ut sine Ecclesiz 
 declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere. Atque id non est omnino 
 improbabile. Nam etiamsi Scriptura quam nos supra adduximus, videatur nobis tam 
 clara, ut possit cogere hominem non protervum; tamen an ita sit, meritO dubitari 
 potest, cum homines doctissimi, et acutissimi, qualis imprimis Scotus fuit, contrarium 
 sentiant.—Id. ibid. Sect. 2. 
 
 + An satius autem fuisset curiosis omnibus imposuisse silentium, ne scrutarentur 
 modura quo id fieret-—an verd potius de modo quo id fieret, curiosum quemque suc 
 relinquere conjecture, sicut liberum fuit ante illud Concilium, modo veritatem corporis 
 et sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia esse fateretur, que fuit ab initio ipsa Ecclesiae 
 fides. —Tonstall. de Eucharistia, lib. 1. p. 46. 
 
 t Memini Tonstallum Episcopum sepits narrasse Innocentium tertium incon- 
 sultiis fecisse, quod transubstantiationis opinionem articulum fidei fecisset. Quum 
 antea liberum fuisset vel sic vel aliter sentire.-—Vita Bernardi Gilpini, p. 40. 
 
332 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 indeed,’ saith the bishop, ‘if I had been of his counsel, I make 
 no doubt but I might have been able to have dissuaded him 
 from that resolution.’* 
 
 “ By this that hath been said, it appears that transubstantiation 
 was neither holden nor known universally in the Church before 
 the Lateran Council, twelve hundred years after Christ: and that, 
 when it began to be received as a matter of faith, it was but 
 believed upon the Church’s authority ; and this Church virtually 
 and in effect was Pope Innocent in the Lateran Council, twelve 
 hundred years and more after Christ; before which time there 
 was no certainty, nor necessity of believing it; and the council 
 might have chosen another sense of Christ's words more easy, 
 and in all appearance more true, there being no Scripture suffi- 
 cient to convince it.” 
 
 In the fourteenth century, learning, which, in the preceding 
 five hundred years, had been declining or dead, began again to 
 revive; though it must be confessed that the impetus which it 
 was likely to receive from other sources, was largely impeded by 
 the determined spirit of persecution which still raged against all 
 opponents or impugners of the “ true faith ;” viz., that of the 
 pope and his cardinals. The evidence of a contrary belief to that 
 of the dominant party, is still to be sought in the works of the 
 favourers of Rome. I am indebted, to the same source as before, 
 for the following epitome of the traces of Protestant doctrine in 
 this century; and I fear that the research of the last two centuries 
 has not brought much more to light : 
 
 In this age, William of Oakham, a scholar of Duns Scotus, and 
 educated at Merton College, Oxford, wrote boldly against the 
 
 * Ita ut Scotus (quod et Episcopus Tunstallus seepe numero ingenué fatebatur) 
 existimaret; multo melius faciliusque potuisse Keclesiam uti commodiore interpreta- 
 tione verborum in sacra cena. Reyerentér cum antiquis patribus de sacra Coena 
 loquendum judicavit Episcopus, et transubstantiationis opinionem mittendam esse. 
 Ilud etiam idem Tunstallus ex scriptis et sermonibus affirmare solebat, Innocentium 
 tertium nescisse quid ageret, quando transubstantiationem inter articulos fidei posuerit : 
 dicebatque Innoceutium doctis circa se hominibus caruisse : adeo equidem, inquit 
 Tunstallus, si ipse fuissem ei ἃ consilio, non dubito me potuisse Pontificem ab eo 
 consilio retraxisse.—Vita Ber. Gilpini, p. 46. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 333 
 
 pope, in his. assumptions of temporal power, and occasionally 
 gives expression to his views on doctrinal subjects. Now, although 
 he does not himself, im so many words, condemn the Romish 
 doctrine, yet he tells us, plainly enough, that there was a great 
 variety of opinion in his day. His words are: “ There are three 
 opinions of transubstantiation, of which the first supposeth a con- 
 version of the sacramental elements ; the second, an annihilation ; 
 the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated 
 into the body of Christ, that it is no way changed in substance, or 
 substantially converted into Christ’s body, or doth cease to be; 
 but only that the body of Christ, in every part of it, becomes 
 present in every part of the bread. This opinion, he saith, the 
 Master of Sentences mentioneth, not much disliking it; yet it is 
 not commonly holden.”* 
 
 Now, although Oakham affirms that “ guod in altari est verum 
 corpus Christi, + yet coming to treat of that modus or way which 
 holds, that substantia panis manet, the substance of bread doth 
 still remain in the sacrament, he saith Hoc dogma est minoribus 
 incommodis obnoxium, this doctrine is subject to lesser incon- 
 veniences ; e¢ rationt et Scripturis minus repugnans, and is not 
 so repugnant to reason, and to the holy Scriptures; so as modus 
 hic potest teneri, this way, saith he, may be maintained,{ guia 
 non repugnat rationi, nec alicui auctoritati Biblie, because it is 
 not repugnant to reason nor the Scriptures. Nay, it is, saith he, 
 rationabilior et facilior, easier to be conceived, and more reason- 
 able, and fewer inconveniences thence ensue than upon any other 
 manner of presence. Quia tamen doctores tenent, quod ibi non 
 remaneat substantia pants, ideo etiam teneo; yet, because the 
 doctors are of opinion that the substance of bread doth not there 
 remain, I do, therefore, hold the same with them ; where any man 
 may plainly see which way himself inclined, had he not been 
 overruled by the contrary definition of the Roman Church.. And 
 
 * Occham. Centilog. conclus. 39. 
 + Occham in Centilog. Theologic. conclus. lib. iv., qu. 6. 
 1 Occham in 4. Sent. Dist. 11. qu. 6. 
 
994 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the like may be said of Petrus de Alliaco, who speaks verbatim, in 
 a manner the same with Ockham, but in a fuller accent.” 
 
 Durandus, who, in this century, was bishop of Meaux, gives it — 
 as his opinion, “ that the material part of the consecrated bread 
 was not converted ;”* imsomuch that Bellarmine professeth, ‘“ that 
 saying of Durand is heretical, although he is no heretic, because 
 he is ready to submit to the judgment of the Church ;” where it is 
 evident enough, from the censure of Bellarmine, that the doctrine 
 of Durand himself was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome. 
 But Durand says, moreover, “‘It is great rashness to say, that 
 the body of Christ cannot, by divine power, be in the sacrament, 
 but by converting bread into it.t Howbeit, if that way which 
 supposeth bread to remain were indeed true, many doubts which 
 meet us, holding it not to remain, were dissolved. But, foras- 
 much as this way must not, de facto, be holden, since the Church 
 hath determined the contrary, which is presumed not to err in 
 such matters, therefore I answer the arguments made to the con- 
 trary, holding the other part which saith, the bread is changed.” 
 Such was the support afforded, or rather the resistance which was 
 quietly offered, to the doctrine decreed as divine by the Lateran 
 Council in 1215. 
 
 Next comes the great light of the fourteenth century in Eng- 
 land, the indomitable Wickliffe. It is unnecessary to do more 
 than give a short extract or two from the voluminous writings of 
 this illustrious man, the brightest star in the dawn of the Refor- 
 mation in England. He tells us, “ that friers perverten the right 
 faith of the sacrament of the auter, and bringen in a new heresie 
 of an accident withouten subject; and whence Holy Writ sayes 
 openly, that this sacrament is bread that we breaken, and God's 
 body ; they sayen, that it is nother bread nor God's body, but 
 accident withouten subject, and nought; and thus they leaven 
 Holy Writ, and taken new heresie on Christ and his apostles, and 
 on Austine, Jerome, Ambrose, Isidore, and other saints, and the 
 
 * Durand. 4. Dist. 11. qu. 1. +In 4 Dist. 11. qu. 1. num. 14. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 339 
 
 Court of Rome, and all true Christian men, that holden the faith 
 of the Gospel.” Now, for his own opinion, he expresseth it in 
 these terms,* that the body of Christ was really and truly in the 
 sacrament, in his kind; that is, sacramentaliter et figuraliter, by 
 way of sacrament; and figuratively, to wit,t as St. John Baptist 
 figuratively was Elias, and not personally. So he saith of the 
 consecrated host,{ that it was Christ’s body in figure, and true 
 bread in nature ; or, which is all one, true bread naturally, and 
 Christ's body figuratively. And Wickliffe is very confident in 
 his opinion; for he saith, “ that the third part of the clergy of 
 England would be ready to defend the same, upon pain of losing 
 of their lives, cum non fuerit materia martyrii plus laudanda, 
 there being no better cause of martyrdom.’’§ 
 
 Similarly, in the fifteenth century, we find the following testi- 
 monies to the fact, that at that time there was no such unanimity 
 of sentiment on the the subject of transubstantiation as the 
 Papists allege :]| 
 
 “1, Waldensis saith, ‘ That some supposed the conversion that is 
 in the sacrament to be, in that the bread and wine are assumed into the 
 unity of Christ’s person: some thought it to be, by way of imagination, 
 and some by way of figurative and tropical appellation.’ 4] 
 
 « The first and second of these opinions found the better entertain- 
 ment in some men’s minds, because they grant the essential presence 
 of Christ’s body, and yet deny not the presence of the bread still 
 remaining to sustain the appearing accidents. 
 
 ‘« These opinions he reports to have been very acceptable to many, 
 not without sighs, wishing the Church had decreed, that men should 
 
 * Iste panis est bene, vere, et realiter, spiritualiter, virtualiter, et sacramentaliter 
 corpus Christi. Wickliff. Confessio de Sacram. Eucharist. 
 
 + Sicut Johannes Baptista figuraliter fuit Elias, et non personaliter. Art. 4. in 
 Synod. Constant. damnatus. 
 
 t Est verus panis naturaliter, et corpus Christi figuraliter, Art. 49. Oxon, damnatus. 
 
 § Confess. de Sacram. Anglice. 
 
 || Birkbeck’s Prot: Evid., Cent. 15, Art, 5. 
 
 41 Primi conversionem istam per viam identificationis suppositorum efliciunt ; 
 secundi, per viam Impanationis: tertii, per viam appellationis figuralis et tropice, 
 cum quibus concurrit Wicliff. Via impanationis in tantum placuit Guidoni, ut si 
 foret Papa ipsam decerneret eligendam. Tho. Waldensis de Sacram. Euchar. cap. 64. 
 tom. 2. 
 
336 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 follow one of them. Whereupon John Paris writeth, ‘ That this way 
 of impanation so pleased Guido, the Carmelite, sometime reader of the 
 Holy Palace, that he professed, if he had been pope, he would have 
 prescribed and commanded the embracing of it.’ 
 
 «2. Petrus de Alliaco, the cardinal, professeth that, for ought he 
 can see, the substantial conversion of the sacramental elements into the 
 body and blood of Christ, cannot be proved either out of Scripture, or 
 any determination of the universal Church, and maketh it but a matter 
 of opinion, inclining rather to the other opinion of consubstantiation.* 
 His words are these: ‘ That manner or meaning which supposeth the 
 substance of bread to remain still, is possible; neither is it contrary to 
 reason, or to the authority of the Scriptures; nay, it is more easy and 
 more reasonable to conceive, than that which says the substance doth 
 leave the accidents.’| And of this opinion no inconvenience doth seem 
 to ensue, if it could accord with the Church’s determination. And he 
 adds: ‘ That the opinion which holdeth the substance of bread not to 
 remain, doth not evidently follow of the Scripture, nor in his séeming 
 of the Church’s determination.’ 
 
 «¢ 3. Biel saith, ‘ It is not expressed in the canon of the Bible how the 
 body of Christ is in the sacrament;’{ and hereof anciently there have 
 been divers opinions. 
 
 And, although our author alleges an obligation to believe “ that 
 the bread doth not remain, but is changed into Christ’s body,” 
 yet he gives as the reason, propter Hcclesie determinationem in 
 concilio Lateransi. It is sufficiently plain, whether we should be 
 more influenced by what he declares of scriptural teaching, or by 
 that of the Lateran Council. 
 
 “4, Cajetan saith, “ That, secluding the Church’s authority, there 
 is no written word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receive 
 
 ΕἸ 
 . 
 
 this doctrine (of transubstantiation).’§ 
 « Suarez, the Jesuit, ingenuously professeth, that Cardinal Cajetan, 
 
 * Cameracens. in 4. Sent. quest. 6. art. 2. licet ita esse non sequatur evidenter, ex 
 Scriptura. Ξ 
 
 + Patet quod 1116 modus sit possibilis, nec repugnat rationi, nec authoritati Biblie, 
 imd facilior ad intelligendum, et rationabilior quam, &c. Ibid. 
 
 * Non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliz, unde de hoe antiquitus fuerunt 
 diverse opinionis. Biel in Canon. Misse. lect. 40. 
 
 § Dico autem ab Ecclesia, quum non appare at ex evangelio coactivum aliquid ad 
 intelligendum heec verba proprié. Cajet. in 3. part, Thom. qu. 75. art. 1. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 337 
 
 in his commentary upon this article, did affirm that those words of 
 Christ, ‘ This is my body,’ do not of themselves sufficiently prove 
 transubstantiation, without the Church’s authority: and therefore, by 
 the commandment of Pius Quintus, that part of his commentary is left 
 out in the Roman edition.* 
 
 “« By this it appears that their learned council of schoolmen, who 
 lived in this age, were not fully agreed upon the point. 
 
 This evidence of the wide-spread existence of Protestant views 
 on the Eucharistic question, and of the then recent decision of 
 the Lateran Council, for the first time binding transubstanti- 
 ation, is chiefly from Roman Catholic sources. It will be seen, 
 from many of these testimonies, that the writers themselves 
 regret the decision which bound men’s consciences, and that, 
 too, without any scriptural warrant. It will be seen, by the 
 results of the ecclesiastical contests of the following century, 
 that men’s minds were not to be fettered even by the decree of a 
 council, so as to be compelled to receive dogmas as divine, which 
 had only human authority. Where is the foundation for the pre- 
 tence that the Romish tenet of transubstantiation has the sanction 
 of the guod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum? It 
 is easy to set up claims; but such as these, when investigated, 
 “flit like the baseless fabric of a vision, and leave not a wreck 
 behind.” 
 
 Though it, perhaps, scarcely comes legitimately within the 
 range of the fifteenth century, yet I think the following will find 
 a better place here than later. Though actually penned in the 
 following age, it had its existence ages before, among the primi- 
 tive people of whom we have above spoken. In this respect it 
 differs from the ordinary class of Protestant confessions, which shall 
 be noticed in the following chapter. The reflex character of this 
 confession is thus stated by Faber, in his history of the people 
 from whom it comes : 
 
 * Ex Catholicis solus Cajetanus in Commentario hujus articuli qui jussu Pi V., in 
 Romana editione expunctus est, docuit, seclusa, ecclesia authoritate verba illa ad 
 veritatem hane confirmandam non sufficere. Suarez. tom. 3. Disp. 46. sec. tertio. qu. 
 75. im tertiam part. 1), Thom. 
 
 xX X 
 
338 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 The Vallenses of Piedmont, in the year 1542, presented to the 
 King cf France a document, preserved by Crispin, to which there 
 is a peculiarity attached which renders it eminently valuable. 
 
 In the year 1342, a date brought out by the specification of 
 two centuries before the year 1542, a colony of the Vallenses of 
 Piedmont planted themselves at Merindol and Cabriere, on the 
 western side of the Cottian Alps, and there, by dint of ‘hard 
 labour, brought an uninhabited desert into a state of such high 
 cultivation, that they supplied all Provence with corn, wine, oil, 
 honey, almonds, flocks, and herds.* 
 
 Such being the case, their confession may justly be viewed, as 
 connecting the latter part of the middle ages with the times of 
 the Reformation: for it may be considered as exhibiting the faith 
 of the Vallenses on either side of the Cottian Alps, through a 
 period of two entire centuries; or, from the year 1342, when the 
 emigration took place, down to the year 1542, when the con- 
 fession was drawn up and delivered to the French king by 
 Cardinal Sadolet. 
 
 Of this confession the following is an extract: 
 
 “ We believe and confess,t that our Lord Jesus Christ after- 
 ward ordained the sacrament of the supper, which is the giving 
 of thanks, and the remembrance of the death and passion of Jesus 
 Christ, rightly celebrated in the assembly of God's people. There 
 
 * Crispin. Act. et Moniment. Martyr. lib. iii. fol. 88, 100, 110. 
 
 + Credimus et confitemur, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum deinde ordinasse 
 sacramentum Coen, quee gratiarum est actio, et memoria mortis ac passionis Jesu 
 Christi, in ecetu populi Dei rite celebrata. In quo quidem panis et vinum distribu- 
 untur et sumuntur, ut visibilia signa et monumenta rerum sacrarum : corporis videlicet 
 et sanguinis Jesu Christi suspensi atque in crace oblati pro peccatorum nostrorum 
 remissione, et generis humani cum Deo reconciliatione. Quisque credit Jesum Chris- 
 tum, tradidisse corpus suum, et profudisse sanguinem, ad remissionem peccatorum ; 
 ille comedit carnem e bibit sanguinem Domini, et utriusque fit particeps: considerans 
 convenientiam earum rerum que oculis subjiciuntur et cibi quo corpus istud susten- 
 tatur, cum iis, rebus que non videntur atque cibo spirituali. Etenim, ut corpus in 
 hae vita pane corroboratur, vinumque cor hominis recreat; ita etiam corpus Jesu 
 Christi morti traditum, ejusque sanguis pro nobis effusus, nutrit, confirmat, et reficit 
 animam tristem et afflictam. Cceterum nequis existimet, signum visibile, cum re per 
 id significata que est invisibilis, adeo conjungi aut conglutinari, ut disjungi aut dissolvi 
 nequeant, quin unum sine altero esse possit. Nam Judas signum quidem cepit, rem 
 
QF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 339 
 
 the bread and wine are distributed and taken, as visible signs and 
 representations of holy things; that is to say, of the body and 
 blood of Jesus Christ, offered upon the cross for the remission of 
 our sins, and for the reconciliation of mankind with God. Who- 
 soever believeth that Jesus Christ delivered His body and shed 
 His blood for the remission of sins, he eats the flesh and drinks 
 the blood of the Lord, and becomes a partaker of both, consider- 
 ing the agreement of those things which are subjected to the 
 eyes, and of the food by which the body is sustained, with those 
 things which are not seen, and with spiritual food. For as the 
 body, in this life, is strengthened with bread, and as wine recre- 
 ates the heart of man, so likewise the body of Jesus Christ, 
 delivered unto death, and His blood shed for us, nourish and 
 confirm and refresh the sad and afflicted soul. But let not any 
 one imagine, that the visible sign is so conjoined or conglutinated 
 with the invisible thing signified, as to be incapable of separation . 
 insomuch that the one cannot be received without the other: for 
 Judas, indeed, received the sign; but the thing signified he did 
 not receive, nor was he ever made a partaker of the body and 
 blood of Christ. The opinion of some, therefore, is not to be 
 received, who believe, that the true and natural body of Christ, 
 His flesh and His bones, exist and lie hid in that bread of the 
 supper, or that any transmutation of the one into the other is 
 effected. For this opinion is repugnant to the word of God and 
 contrary to the articles of our faith, in which it is clearly set 
 forth, that Christ ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right 
 vero significatam et fructum non percepit, nec unquam corporis et sanguinis Jesu 
 Christi particeps factus est.—Atqui istud non eo modo accipiendum quo nonnulli 
 opinati sunt, verum Christi corpus et naturale, carnem et ossa, in pane illo Coenze 
 esse ac delitescere, aut in eum converti; nam hee opinio pugnat cum verbo Dei, et 
 fidei nostre articulis est contraria, in quibus clare habemus, Christum ascendisse ad 
 coelos, sedere ad dextram Dei Patris omnipotentis, unde et venturus est ad judicandum 
 vivos et mortuos; sed Dominus Jesus Christus sacramento Coene adest, potentia, 
 virtute, atque preesentia, Spiritus sui, in cordibus electorum suorum et fidelium.— 
 Errant etiam, qui affirmant, in Ccena Christi corpus comedi corporaliter: caro enim 
 nihil prodest; Spiritus est, qui vivificat. Fideles igitur vere Jesu Christi carnem 
 
 edunt et sanguinem bibunt spiritualiter in ipsorum cordibus. Confess. Vald. in 
 Crispin. Act. Martyr. lib. iii. 106—108. 
 
340 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 hand of God the Father Almighty; whence, also, He will come 
 to judge the quick and the dead. But the Lord Jesus Christ is 
 present in the sacrament of the supper, by the power, and virtue, 
 and presence of His Spirit in the hearts of His elect and faithful. 
 They, also, who affirm that in the supper the body of Christ is 
 eaten corporally, do err: for the flesh, when eaten, profiteth 
 nothing; it is the Spirit which quickeneth. Therefore, the truly 
 faithful of Jesus Christ eat His flesh and drink His blood spirit- 
 ually in their hearts.”* 
 
 I shall now proceed to consider the mighty change which took 
 place, in the early part of the sixteenth century, in the state of 
 the Christian Church throughout Christendom. It was one of 
 the most extensive revolutions of opinion which the world ever 
 saw brought about in so short a time, and by such unlikely means. 
 But ‘“ man’s extremity is God’s opportunity,” and the feebleness 
 and unsuitableness (to human eye) of the instrumentality, only 
 demonstrates the more clearly the origin of the potent influence. 
 The use of “ earthen vessels” teaches that the power is of God, 
 and not of man. 
 
 * Faber’s Hist. of Vall. and Alb. bk. iii., 6. xi. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 94} 
 
 GHAPRPTER ΤΥ: 
 
 THE HARMONY OF PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF 
 THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 WE have now arrived at that epoch in the Church's history, 
 when, being blinded by the darkest errors in her faith, she had 
 sunk into the lowest depths of viciousness and infamy in her 
 practice. But the hour of Nature’s deepest obscurity—when 
 “ Night is in the zenith of her dark domain”—is that wherein 
 the sun begins his return journey to gladden our hearts, and 
 enlighten our eyes. Nor was it otherwise with the night of the 
 Church. When it might have seemed to the superficial ken that 
 all was lost, then did it please God that the discovery of printing 
 should give wings, as it were, to banished knowledge, that she 
 might fly to and fro, and bless the soul of man. That “ solitary 
 monk, who shook the world,” was, perhaps, the least likely of all 
 instruments to work such a vast change as that which he was the 
 means of accomplishing ; or, at least, in the advance of which he 
 led the way. No one can now look back upon the history of those 
 days, and not feel that Luther was just the man for the emer- 
 gency, though singled out from amongst those whom he afterwards 
 so strenuously opposed. He was unlikely, considering his pro- 
 fession, his position, his probable opportunities. But wherein he 
 lacked any of these things, the pope opened the way for him. 
 His suitableness is seen, in the steady coolness with which he 
 braved all hostility and danger, and the unflinching firmness with 
 which he held to the opinions which he was led to adopt. The 
 suitableness of the instruments used, will generally be seen by 
 
342 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 imagining any two prominent individuals transposed. If Cranmer 
 had been in Luther's place, the Reformation would have been 
 swamped: if Luther had occupied Cranmer’s position, he would, 
 probably, soon have forfeited it, or have shaken too violently the 
 Church in so much more limited a sphere. We see the suitable- 
 ness—we admire the adaptation. A wise Head, and a powerful 
 Hand, are here plainly seen to be at work: one less wise, less 
 powerful, would mar the whole, and throw it into confusion. 
 With regard to all God's works, we may safely say, not only 
 “whatever is, is right,” but “‘ whatever is, is dest.” 
 
 But it would have been impossible for even Luther to have 
 created such a wide-spread, deeply-rooted perturbation of opinion, 
 had it not been that men’s minds were prepared, nay, longing for 
 the change. The train was laid, and it needed only the match to 
 produce the explosion. ‘The testimonies which have been pre- 
 sented to us of the foregoing centuries, prove this clearly enough. 
 Means, at the thought of which the soul shudders, had been 
 unscrupulously used to stem heresy and silence heretics, as the 
 dominant party phrased it, but in fact to get rid of opposition 
 and crush the truth. Now, that ove dared to speak out, as well as 
 think, others took courage, and imparted what they took. Alone, 
 undoubtedly, even Luther would have been overwhelmed, but 
 when thousands were heard to re-echo his words, the adversary 
 was staggered as well as intimidated. 
 
 And the tdentity of the movement proves the unity of its 
 source. ‘There has never yet been a controversial writer or 
 speaker, on the side of Rome, but has always upbraided the 
 Protestants with the variations of their creed; but this oppro- 
 brjum is much more imaginary than real. In fact, the Refor- 
 mation was the same work wherever it was entered upon. In the 
 different nations of Europe, and even in the same nation among 
 different bodies, the degrees varied to which the Reformation was 
 pushed: But in no case has Rome ought to boast of in this; for 
 she is equally condemned by all, though not guite to the same 
 extent. There is, however, scarcely a shadow of disparity in the 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 945 
 
 doctrines and practices censured by the various bodies of Protes- 
 tants, but they unanimously condemn what are familiarly known 
 as the peculiar doctrines of Popery. Now, whence could this 
 unanimity spring if not hence; viz., that the whole body of 
 protestors had derived their creed from the same origin? ‘To 
 suppose that, in a time of agitation and violent controversy, none 
 should have exceeded the bounds of moderation, would be to 
 ignore the essentia] characteristics of human nature: to suppose 
 that so much agreement could result from simple chance-medley 
 and mental confusion, is equally to forget the connection of cause 
 and effect. There is enough of family likeness existing in the 
 several branches of the Protestant communities, to shew, mani- 
 festly enough, that they are brethren. The close accordance 
 between their several sentiments and the revealed word of God, 
 puts it beyond all doubt, that that is the source whence their faith 
 has been derived. “‘ The Harmony of the Protestant Confessions” 
 is carried out into too many particulars to allow chance to have 
 had anything to do in their composition. 
 
 In the “Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,” there is again 
 served up the old, oft-repudiated, as well as oft-refuted figment, 
 that Luther and Calvin, and Zuinglius and Cranmer, were of 
 essentially different opinions on matters of religion. It is true, in- 
 deed, that they did not agree together in every idea, any more than 
 other men; but the attempt to demonstrate three different, and 
 all erroneous, systems on the single subject of the Eucharist, held 
 by so many distinct classes of Protestants, is almost wholly ima- 
 ginary. No doubt, in ad/ churches, Protestant and Romish, there 
 is a great difference of opinion about the nature and efficacy of 
 the Eucharist as an ordinance, and of the elements as external 
 symbols ; but I do not find that there is any good ground for this 
 distinction in the examination of the various confessions which 
 have been promulgated by the different Protestant churches. I 
 shall give that portion of these which has special reference to the 
 subject which has so long engaged our attention; and I think 
 that, when these extracts have been read, considered, and compared, 
 
944 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the conviction will be that they teach generally the same doctrine, 
 and that it must have been derived from the same source. I have 
 used them, as prepared to my hand in “ The Harmony of Pro- 
 testant Confessions,’ from the accurate and valuable edition of 
 Mr. Hall.* They are given, in chronological order, as follows : 
 
 OF THE HOLY SUPPER OF THE LORD. 
 
 I—FROM THE LATTER CONFESSION OF HELVETIA. 
 
 Chapter 12. Of the Holy Supper of the Lord. 
 
 The Latter Confession of Helvetia was written by the pastors of Zurich, 
 in the year 1566, and approved and subscribed, not only of the Tigurines 
 themselves, and their confederates of Berne, Schaffhausen, Sangallia, 
 Rhetia, Mulhausen, and Bienne ; but by the churches of Geneva, of Savoy, 
 of Poland, and likewise of Hungary, and of Scotland. 
 
 The Supper of the Lord (which is also called the Lord’s 
 Table, and the Eucharist—that is, a thanksgiving) is, therefore, 
 commonly called a supper because it was instituted of Christ in 
 that His last Supper, and doth as yet represent the same, and in 
 it the faithful are spiritually fed and nourished. For the author 
 of the Supper of the Lord is not an angel or a man, but the very 
 Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did first of all consecrate 
 it to His Church. And the same blessing and consecration doth 
 still remain amongst all those who celebrate no other but that 
 very Supper, which the Lord did institute; and at that do recite 
 the words of the Supper of the Lord, and in all things look unto 
 Christ only by a true faith; at whose hands, as it were, they 
 do receive that which they do receive by the ministry of the 
 ministers of the Church. The Lord, by this sacred rite, would 
 have that great benefit to be kept in fresh remembrance, which He 
 did for mankind; to wit, that, by giving up His body to death, 
 
 * The Harmony of Protestant Confessions: exhibiting the Faith of the Churches 
 of Christ, reformed after the pure and holy doctrine of the Gospel, throughout Europe. 
 By the Rev. Peter Hall, M.A. r 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 545 
 
 and shedding His blood, He hath forgiven us all our sins, and 
 redeemed us from eternal death, and the power of the devil, and 
 doth now feed us with His flesh, and giveth us His blood to 
 drink, which things, being apprehended spiritually by a true faith, 
 do nourish us up to life everlasting. And this, so great a benefit, 
 is renewed, so oft as the Supper is celebrated. For the Lord 
 said, “ Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke xxii., 19). 
 
 By this holy Supper, also, it is sealed unto us, that the very 
 body of Christ was truly given up for us, and His blood shed for 
 the remission of our sins, lest that our faith might somewhat 
 waver. And this is outwardly represented unto us, by the minis- 
 ter, in the sacrament, after a visible manner; and, as it were, 
 laid before our eyes to be seen, which is inwardly in the soul 
 invisibly performed by the Holy Ghost. Outwardly, bread is 
 offered by the minister, and the words of the Lord are heard: 
 “ Receive, eat, this is my body; take it, and divide it amongst 
 you: drink ye all of this, thisis my blood” (Matt. xxvi., 26—28; 
 Luke xxii., 17—20). Therefore the faithful. do receive that 
 which is given by the minister of the Lord, and do eat the bread 
 of the Lord, and drink of the Lord’s cup. But yet, by the work- 
 ing of Christ, through the Holy Ghost, they receive also the flesh 
 and blood of the Lord, and do feed on them to life everlasting. 
 For the flesh and blood of Christ are true meat and drink unto 
 everlasting life: yea, Christ Himself, in that He was delivered for 
 us, and is our Saviour, is that special thing and substance of the 
 Supper; and, therefore, we suffer nothing to be put in His place. 
 
 But that it may the better and more plainly be understood, how 
 the flesh and blood of Christ are the meat and drink of the faith- 
 ful, and are received by the faithful to life everlasting, we will add, 
 moreover, these four things. 
 
 Eating is of divers sorts: for there is a corporal eating, whereby 
 meat is taken into a man’s mouth, chewed with the teeth, and 
 swallowed down into the belly. After this manner did the Caper- 
 naites, in times past, think that they should eat the flesh of the 
 
 Lord: but they are confuted by him (John vi., 830—68). For as 
 YY 
 
346 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the flesh of Christ cannot be eaten bodily, without great wicked- 
 ness and cruelty, so is it not meat for the belly, as all men do 
 confess. We, therefore, disallow that canon in the pope's decrees, 
 Ego Berengarius ; De Consecrat. dist. 2. For neither did godly 
 antiquity believe, neither yet do we believe, that the body of 
 Christ can be eaten corporally, and essentially, with a bodily 
 mouth. 
 
 There is also a spiritual eating of Christ's body; not such a 
 one, whereby it may be thought that the very meat is changed 
 into the Spirit, but whereby (the Lord’s body and blood remaining 
 in their own essence and property) those things are spiritually 
 communicated unto us, not after a corporal, but after a spiritual 
 manner, through the Holy Ghost, who doth apply and bestow 
 upon us those things (to wit, remission of sins, deliverance, and 
 life everlasting) which are prepared for us by the flesh and blood 
 of our Lord, given for us: so that Christ doth now live in us, 
 and we live in Him; and doth cause us to apprehend Him by 
 true faith, to this end, that He may become unto us such a spi- 
 ritual meat and drink—that is to say, our life. For even as cor- 
 poral meat and drink do not only refresh and strengthen our 
 bodies, but also do keep them in life: even so the flesh of Christ 
 delivered for us, and His blood shed for us, do not only refresh 
 and strengthen our souls, but also do preserve them alive, not so 
 far as they be corporally eaten and drunken, but so far as they 
 are communicated unto us spiritually by the Spirit of God:* the 
 Lord saying, ‘“ The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I 
 will give for the life of the world” (John vi., 51). Also, “ The 
 flesh (to wit, corporally eaten) profiteth nothing; it is the Spirit 
 which giveth life: and the words which I speak to you, are Spirit 
 and life” (John vi., 63). And as we must, by eating, receive the 
 
 * The adverb so far as, understand to be used casually, for because; as if he had 
 said, not that they be eaten corporally, ἕο. But in this place, and other places else- 
 where afterward, so understand these adverbs corporally, and spiritually, that by them 
 not the thing signified, which is received, but the manner of receiving it, is declared, 
 
 namely, to be not corporal, but spiritual; that is, not of the external mouth, but of the 
 faithful mind. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 947 
 
 meat into our bodies, to the end that it may work in us, and shew 
 its efficacy in us (because, while it is without us, it profiteth us 
 not at all); even so it is necessary that we receive Christ by faith, 
 that He may be made ours, and that He may live in us, and we 
 in Him. For He saith, “1 am the bread of life; he that cometh 
 to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me, shall not 
 thirst any more” (John vi., 35) ; and also, “ He that eateth me, 
 shall live through me; and he abideth in me, and I in him” 
 (John vi., 56). By all which it appeareth manifestly, that by 
 spiritual meat we mean not any imaginary thing, but the very 
 body of our Lord Jesus, given to us; which yet is received of the 
 faithful, not corporally, but spiritually, by faith: in which point 
 we do wholly follow the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour, Christ, 
 in the sixth of John. And this eating of the flesh, and drinking 
 of the blood of the Lord, is so necessary to salvation, that without 
 it no man can be saved. This spiritual eating and drinking is 
 also without the Supper of the Lord, even so often as, and where- 
 soever, a man doth believe in Christ. ΤῸ which purpose that 
 sentence of St. Austin doth happily belong: ‘“‘ Why dost thou 
 prepare thy teeth and belly ? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” 
 Besides that former spiritual eating, there is a sacramental 
 eating of the body of the Lord; whereby the faithful man not 
 only is partaker, spiritually and internally, of the true body and 
 blood of the Lord; but also, by coming to the table of the Lord, 
 doth outwardly receive the visible sacraments of the body and 
 blood of the Lord. True it is, that the faithful man, by believing, 
 did before receive the food that giveth life, and still receiveth the 
 same; but yet, when he receiveth the sacrament, he receiveth 
 something more. For he goeth on in continual communication 
 of the body and blood of the Lord, and his faith is daily more and 
 more kindled, more strengthened and refreshed, by the spiritual 
 nourishment. For while we live, faith hath continual increasings ; 
 and he that outwardly doth receive the sacraments with a true 
 faith, the same doth not only receive the sign, but also doth 
 enjoy (as we have said) the thing itself. Moreover, the same man 
 
348 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 doth obey the Lord’s institution and commandment, and, with a 
 joyful mind, giveth thanks for his, and the redemption of all 
 mankind, and maketh a faithful remembrance of the Lord's death, 
 and doth witness the same before the Church, of which body he is 
 amember. This also is sealed to those which receive the sacra- 
 ment, that the body of the Lord was given, and His blood shed, 
 not only for men in general, but particularly for every faithful 
 communicant, whose meat and drink He is, to life everlasting. 
 But as for him that, without faith, cometh to this holy table of 
 the Lord, he is made partaker of the sacrament only; but the 
 matter of the sacrament, from whence cometh life and salvation, 
 he receiveth not at all: and such men do unworthily eat of the 
 Lord’s table. ‘‘ Now, they which do unworthily eat of the Lord's 
 bread, and drink of the Lord’s cup, they are guilty of the body 
 and blood of the Lord, and they eat and drink it to their judg- 
 ment” (1 Cor. xi., 26—29). For when, as they do not approach 
 with true faith, they do despite unto the death of Christ, and 
 therefore eat and drink condemnation to themselves. 
 
 We do not, therefore, so join the body of the Lord and His 
 blood with the bread and wine, as though we thought that the 
 bread is the body of Christ, more than after a sacramental manner ; 
 or that the body of Christ doth le hid corporally under the bread, 
 so as it ought to be worshipped under the forms of bread; or yet 
 that whosoever he be which receiveth the sign, he receiveth the 
 thing itself. The body of Christ is in the heavens, at the right 
 hand of His Father: and, therefore, our hearts are to be lifted 
 up on high, and not to be fixed on the bread, neither is the Lord 
 to be worshipped in the bread; though, notwithstanding, the 
 Lord is not absent from His Church, when as they celebrate the 
 Supper. The sun, being absent from us in the heavens, is yet, 
 notwithstanding, present amongst us effectually : how much more 
 Christ, the Sun of righteousness, though in body He be absent 
 from us in the heavens, yet is present amongst us, not corporally, 
 but spiritually, by His lively operation; and so as He Himself 
 promised, in His last Supper, to be present amongst us! (John 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 349 
 
 xiy., xv., and. xvi). Whereupon it followeth, that we have not 
 the Supper without Christ, and yet that we have meanwhile an 
 unbloody and mystical Supper, even as all antiquity called it. 
 
 Moreover, we are admonished, in the celebration of the Supper 
 of the Lord, to be mindful of the body whereof we are made 
 members; and that therefore we be at concord with all our 
 brethren, thet we live holily, and not pollute ourselves with 
 wickedness, and strange religions; but, persevering in the true 
 faith to the end of our life, give diligence to excel in holiness of 
 life. It is, therefore, very requisite, that, purposing to come to 
 the Supper of the Lord, we do try ourselves, according to the 
 commandment of the apostle: first, with what faith we are endued, 
 whether we believe that Christ is come to save sinners, and to 
 call them to repentance, and whether each man believe that he 
 is in the number of them, that, being delivered by Christ, are 
 saved ; and whether he have purposed to change his wicked life, 
 to live holily, and persevere, through God's assistance, in true 
 religion, and in concord with his brethren, and to give worthy 
 thanks to God for his delivery, &c. 
 
 We think that rite, manner, or form of the Supper to be the 
 most simple and excellent, which cometh nearest to the first 
 institution of the Lord, and to the apostles’ doctrine : which doth 
 consist in declaring the word of God, in godly prayers, in the 
 action itself that the Lord used, and the repeating of it; in the 
 eating of the Lord’s body, and drinking of His blood; in the 
 wholesome remembrance of the Lord's death, and faithful giving 
 of thanks; and in an holy fellowship in the union of the body of 
 the Church. We, therefore, disallow them, which have taken 
 from the faithful one part of the sacrament, to wit, the Lord's 
 cup. For these do very grievously offend against the institution 
 of the Lord, who saith, “ Drink all of you of this” (Matt. xxvi., 
 27), which He did not so plainly say of the bread. What manner 
 of mass it was that the Fathers used, whether it were tolerable - 
 or intolerable, we do not now dispute. But, this we say freely ; 
 that the mass, which is now used throughout the Romish Church, 
 
350 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 which, for brevity's sake, we will not now particularly recite, for 
 many and most just causes is quite abolished out of our Churches. 
 Truly we could not like of it, because that, of a most wholesome 
 action, they have made a vain spectacle ; also, because it is made 
 a meritorious matter, and is said for money; likewise, because 
 that in it the priest is said to make the very body of the Lord, 
 and to offer the same really, even for the remission of the sins of 
 the quick and the dead. Add this also: that they do it for the 
 honour, worship, and reverence of the saints in heaven, &c. 
 
 II—FROM THE FORMER CONFESSION OF HELVETIA. 
 Article 22. Of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 The Former Confession of Helvetia was written at Basle about the 
 year 1536, in the behalf of all the Churches of Helvetia, and sent and pre- 
 sented to the assembly of divines at Wirtemburg, by Master Bucer and 
 Master Capito. In the year following—viz., 1537—it was again propounded, 
 together with the declaration thereof, to the assembly of Smalcald, by 
 Bucer himself, and allowed of that whole assembly ; namely, of all the 
 divines and degrees of Protestants ; as Luther his own letters to the Helve- 
 tians do testify. The declaration in Latin was itself also conferred in very 
 raany places with the more ample copy, written in the German tongue. 
 
 We say that the Supper is a mystical thing, wherein the Lord 
 doth indeed offer unto those that are His, His body and blood, 
 that is, Himself, to this end, that He may more and more live in 
 them, and they in Him. Not that the body and blood of the 
 Lord are either naturally united to bread and wine, or be locally 
 here inclosed, or be placed here by any carnal presence ; but that 
 bread and wine, by the institution of the Lord, are signs, whereby 
 the true communication of His body and blood is exhibited of the 
 Lord Himself, by the ministry of the Church, not to be meat for 
 the belly, which doth perish, but to be nourishment unto eternal 
 life. We do, therefore, use this holy meat oftentimes, because that, 
 being admonished hereby, we do with the eyes of faith behold the 
 flesh and blood of Christ crucified: and, meditating upon our 
 salvation, not without a taste of heavenly life, and a true sense 
 of life eternal, we are refreshed by this spiritual, lively, and 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 851 
 
 inward food, with an unspeakable sweetness ; and we do rejoice 
 with a joy that cannot be expressed in words, for that life which 
 we have found; and we do wholly, and with all our strength, 
 pour out thanksgiving for so wonderful a benefit of Christ be- 
 stowed upon us. Therefore we are most unworthily charged of 
 some, who think that we do attribute very little to these holy 
 signs. For these things be holy and reverend,* as those which 
 were instituted and received of our High Priest, Christ: exhi- 
 biting unto us, after their manner, as we have said, the things 
 signified; giving witness of the things done; representing very 
 difficult things unto us; and, by a certain wonderful analogy of 
 things signified, bringing light to those most evident mysteries. 
 Moreover, they minister aid and help even to faith itself: and, to 
 conclude, they do serve instead of an oath, to bind him that is 
 entered into the profession of Christianity. Thus holily do we 
 think of the sacred signs. But we do always attribute the force 
 and virtue of quickening and sanctifying to Him, who is life itself; 
 to whom be praise for ever: Amen. 
 
 Out of the Declaration of the same Confession :—Of the Holy Supper of 
 
 the Lord. 
 
 The Supper of the Lord is a sacrament ; to wit, the holy insti- 
 tution of the Lord, whereby He doth renew and witness unto us 
 His bountifulness ; to wit, the communion of His body and blood, 
 and that by a visible sign. For by bread and wine He doth 
 declare unto us what He giveth, namely, Himself, to be the 
 nourishment of our life: for He, by His body and blood, doth 
 feed us to life eternal. Therefore, the very gift of God (that is, 
 the body and blood of the Lord; to wit, the body of the Lord 
 delivered unto death for us, and His blood shed for the remission 
 
 * By holy, understand those things which are appointed to a most holy use; not 
 those wherein consisteth any inherent holiness. In like manner by reverend, under- 
 stand those things which are to be received with outward comeliness, and in that 
 order which might testify an internal veneration; namely, when our minds are lifted 
 up unto God: not that any worship ought to be yielded to the signs themselves, or 
 that those rites, which are either in their own nature superstitious, or else may easily 
 be turned into superstition, ought to be used in the holy service of the Lord. 
 
392 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of sins) is the chiefest part of this sacrament. For the body and 
 blood of Christ is thus made or prepared to be the lively meat of 
 our souls. The Son of God doth die in the flesh for us, that He 
 might quicken us; he poureth out His blood, that He might 
 cleanse us from our sins. ΤῸ conclude, He raiseth up His body 
 from the dead, that our bodies may receive hope, and strength to 
 rise again. Thus, therefore, doth the Lord offer Himself to be 
 eaten and possessed of us, and not a certain false imagination of 
 aman, or an idle picture, in His stead. For, beside Him, there 
 is nothing in heaven, or in earth, that may feed and satiate our 
 souls. Now, we do indeed eat the body, and we do indeed drink 
 the blood, of our Lord; but not so rawly, as the Papists have 
 hitherto taught, to wit, the bread being changed into natural flesh, 
 substantially (that is, corporally, or carnally), or the body being 
 included in the bread; but spiritually, that is, after a spiritual 
 manner, and with a faithful mind. The Lord is eaten indeed, 
 and with fruit, by faith, that now He may live whole in His, and 
 His in Him. 
 
 Moreover, these holy gifts of God (which are not given of any 
 other than the Lord Himself), according to the institution of the 
 Lord, are represented unto us by visible signs, to wit, bread and 
 wine, and offered to our senses, not that we should rest in them, 
 but that our weakness may be helped, and that we may lift up 
 our hearts unto the Lord; knowing that here we must think upon 
 greater things, to wit, not of eating bread, or drinking wine, but 
 of receiving the Lord Himself, with all His gifts, by a faithful 
 mind. ‘Therefore, when the guests see the bread on the board, 
 they set their minds upon the body of Christ ; when they see the 
 cup, they set their minds upon the blood of Christ: when they 
 see the bread broken, and the wine poured out, they consider how 
 that the body of Christ was tormented, and His blood poured out, 
 for their sakes. As by bread the bodies are nourished and 
 strengthened; as by wine the minds are made merry: so the 
 godly do believe, that by the body of the Lord, delivered unto 
 death for them, they are fed to everlasting life; and that by His 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 300 
 
 blood poured out upon the cross, their consciences are renewed. 
 To conclude, they do feel the quickening power of Christ, which 
 doth confirm them. 
 
 In this sort is the Supper of the Lord accomplished spiritually : 
 thus are the bread and wine a sacrament unto us, and not bare 
 and naked signs. Hereupon now ariseth a very great rejoicing 
 and thanksgiving for so great benefits ; also a praising and con- 
 fessing of the name of God. Here those works, which the Lord 
 once finished, are renewed and represented: but especially the 
 memory of the Lord’s death is renewed, which, although it once 
 happened, and now is past, yet unto the faithful it is as yet fresh 
 and present. For the remembrance of the death of Christ, which 
 we make in the Supper, is far more noble and holy than theirs, 
 who, in some profane banquet, are mindful of their companion, 
 when they drink the wine that He gave them. For, among these, 
 He that is absent worketh nothing: but in this holy Supper of 
 the faithful the Lord is present, and doth work effectually by the 
 Spirit in their hearts, as He who, according to His promises, is in 
 the midst of them. 
 
 By these things it is most evident, that in the holy Supper we 
 do not take away our Lord Christ from His Church, nor deny that 
 His body and blood is there received to be our nourishment unto 
 life eternal. But we, together with our predecessors, and the 
 chief prelates of our religion did, and as yet to this day do, deny 
 that the very body of Christ is eaten carnally, or that it is present 
 everywhere corporally, and after a natural manner. For we do 
 openly confess, according to the Scriptures, and with all the holy 
 Fathers, that Jesus Christ our Lord left this world, and went to 
 His Father: and that He now sitteth at the right hand of His 
 Father in heavenly glory, from whence He shall never* descend, 
 or be drawn down into this earthly and transitory world. For 
 the true presence of Christ in the Supper is heavenly, not earthly, 
 not carnal. Also, we deny that the bread is turned into the body 
 
 * Never, that is, under the present dispensation, or before His return, in glory and 
 
 judgment, at the last day.—Epiror. 
 ZZ 
 
304 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 of Christ miraculously, so that the bread should become the very 
 body of Christ, naturally and substantially, yet after a spiritual 
 manner. To conclude, we deny that the body of Christ is united 
 with the signs, by any other than a mystical mean, whereof we 
 have spoken sufficiently in the general consideration of a sacra- 
 ment. Seeing, therefore, we have expressly said and written, with 
 the holy Fathers—Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine— 
 “that the bread is a figure, token, and sign of the body of Christ,” 
 and also, “‘ that by bread and wine the body and blood of the 
 Lord are signified ;” this is it which we would make manifest, to 
 wit, that the bread is not the very body of the Lord, but a token, 
 or a sacrament of His body. And yet we do not, therefore, speak 
 these things, as though we did simply deny all kind of presence 
 of Christ in the Supper; for that kind of presence which now we 
 have confessed doth remain true, without any prejudice to this 
 sort of speeches. Moreover, the word ¢his, in the sentence, ‘ This 
 is my body” (Luke xxii., 19), doth not only shew bread unto our 
 corporal eyes, but therewith also it sheweth the very body of Christ 
 unto the eyes of our mind. 
 
 Also, we confess that this use of the Supper is so holy and 
 profitable, that whosoever shall worthily—that is, with a true 
 faith—eat of this bread, and drink of this cup of the Lord, he 
 doth receive heavenly gifts from the Lord: but “ whosoever shall 
 eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, unworthily "—(that is, 
 without faith, by which alone we are made partakers of the Lord, 
 and of salvation)—“ he doth eat and drink judgment unto him- 
 self ;” as Paul wrote to the Oorinthians (1 Cor. xi., 27—29). 
 Wherefore we do often put this diligently into the heads of our 
 people, that they take heed that none of them abuse the Lord's 
 table; but that every one examine himself, and then eat of that 
 bread, and drink of that cup (1 Cor. xi., 28). Also, the Lord’s 
 Supper is a badge unto us; for as one loaf, aud one wine, are 
 made of many grains and grapes, so we, being the whole multi- 
 tude of the faithful, are gathered together to be one bread, and 
 one body (1 Cor. x., 17). By this we testify, in an outward 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 855 
 
 profession, that we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, and 
 made the members of Christ; to whom we give thanks, in whom 
 we are confederates, and do promise to perform mutual duties one 
 toward another. 
 
 III—FROM THE CONFESSION OF BASLE. 
 Article 6. Of the Supper of the Lord. 
 
 The Confession of Basle was first written in the German tongue, about 
 the year 1532, by the ministers of the Church of Basle, and, by com- 
 mon subscription, allowed of the pastors of Strasburg. Then again, in 
 the year 1561, it was both recognised and received by the same ministers of 
 Basle. Afterward, also, it was published in the German tongue, with a 
 preface, by the magistrates of Milan, in their own name, as though it had 
 been that Church’s own confession. And at last it was turned into Latin. 
 Which, as more ancient than the rest of the confessions of Helvetia, we 
 have thought good should be set down here also, and do sometimes call it 
 likewise the Confession of Mulhausen. 
 
 We confess that the Lord Jesus did institute His holy Supper, 
 that His holy passion might be remembered with thanksgiving, 
 His death declared, and Christian charity and unity, with true 
 faith, testified. And as in baptism (wherein the washing away of 
 our sins is offered by the minister of the Church, and yet is 
 wrought only by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), true 
 water remaineth, so, also, in the Supper of the Lord (wherein, 
 together with the bread and wine of the Lord, the true body and 
 the true blood of Christ is offered by the minister of the Church), 
 bread and wine remaineth. Moreover, we do firmly believe, that 
 Christ Himself is the meat of faithful souls unto life eternal, and 
 that our souls, by faith in Christ crucified, are fed and moistened 
 with the flesh and blood of Christ (John vi., 53); so that we, 
 being members of His body, as of our only head (ph. 1., 22; iv., 
 15; v., 28; and Col.i., 18); do live in Him, and He in us; 
 wherein, at the last day, through Him, and in Him, we shall rise 
 again to eternal joy and blessedness (Johm xi., 25). 
 
 And, in the Marginal Note, upon the words, Our Souls : 
 
 For it is a spiritual meat, and therefore it is received of a faith- 
 
356 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 ful soul; that is, the souls are made full, valiant, mighty, peace- 
 _able, quiet, merry, and lively to all things, as the body is by the 
 corporal meat. 
 
 Also, upon the words, The Members of the Head : 
 
 And so man is made a spiritual member of the spiritual body 
 of Christ. 
 
 And, in the Margin, upon the words, To be present : 
 
 To wit, sacramentally, and by a remembrance of faith, which 
 lifteth up a man’s mind to heaven, and doth not pull down Christ, 
 according to His humanity, from the right hand of God. 
 
 Now, we do not include intothe bread and drink: of the Lord, 
 the natural, pure, and substantial body of Christ, which was born 
 of the true Virgin Mary, suffered for us, and ascended into 
 heaven. Therefore, neither do we worship Christ in the signs of 
 bread and wine, which we do commonly call the sacraments of the 
 body and blood of Christ, but in heaven, at the right hand of 
 God the Father (Co/. iii., 1; Heb. i., 3, and x., 12), from whence 
 He shall come to judge the quick and the dead (Acts iu., 21; 
 ROT Ma ee Oe 
 
 IV.—FROM THE CONFESSION OF BOHEMIA. 
 Chapter 13. Of the Holy Supper of the Lord. 
 
 The Confession of Bohemia, being the last, composed of four former, which 
 were far more ancient (which for the largeness thereof we thought good not 
 to be inserted into this Harmony), being recited in the same order of chap- 
 ters and arguments, and somewhat more plainly expressed, and in the year 
 1573 published in divers places, was also approved by common testimony of 
 the university of Wirtemburg; even as Masters Luther and Melancthon had 
 approved the former, published in the year 1532, being altogether the same 
 in doctrine with this, as Luther his preface witnesseth. And we have called 
 it elsewhere the Confession of the Waldenses, following the common title 
 assigned unto these churches; which we would have to be spoken without 
 any prejudice to those brethren. a 
 
 In the thirteenth place we teach, touching the Supper of the 
 Lord which is inthe New Testament, that we must believe with 
 the heart, and profess with the mouth, that it is a sacrament 
 instituted of Christ our Lord, in His last Supper, and that in 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. oO7 
 
 express form of words: that is, that, concerning bread and wine, 
 he hath pronounced, that they be His body and His blood ; and 
 that they were delivered to his apostles (Matt. xxvi., 26—28 ; 
 Mark xiv., 22—24; Luke xxii., 19, 20); and so, in like sort, 
 to the whole universal Church, for a monument of His death, and 
 that all men should lawfully use the participation thereof, even to 
 the end of the world. Of this sacrament the evangelists do write, 
 and especially St. Paul, whose words, even to this day, are thus read 
 in the Church: “ I have received of the Lord, that which I also 
 have delivered unto you; to wit, that the Lord Jesus, in that 
 night, wherein he was betrayed, took bread,” &c. (1 Cor. xi. 28). 
 And a little after : “ When ye come together (to wit, to the Supper 
 of the Lord), let one tarry for another” (ver. 33). Therefore, 
 according to these things, we believe with the heart, and confess 
 with the mouth, that this bread of the Lord’s Supper is the body 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ delivered for us; and that this cup, or 
 the wine in the cup, is likewise His blood shed for us, for the 
 remission of sins. And this we affirm according to the express 
 words of Christ, wherein He saith, “‘ This is my body, this is my 
 blood” (Matt. xxvi., 26—28). Which words may not be taken or 
 understood of any other thing, nor be otherwise referred than only 
 to the bread and cup of the Lord: and the body and blood of the 
 Lord cannot be understood of any other, than of the only true and 
 proper body of Christ, which He made meat by His torments, and 
 of His blood, which, being largely poured out of His body, He 
 appointed to be drink for His Church. For He had not a natural 
 body, and other blood. ‘Therefore our ministers do teach, that to 
 these certain words pronounced by Christ our Lord (wherein He 
 doth peculiarly pronounce, witness, and institute bread to be His 
 body, and wine to be His blood), I say, that to these words no 
 man may add anything, no man may detract anything from them ; 
 but that every man, in these words, is to believe that which of 
 themselves they signify,* and that no man ought to turn from 
 them, either to the right hand or to the left. 
 
 * That is to say, of the true bread and wine, and also of the very body that was 
 given for us, and of the very blood that was shed for us. As for that attribution 
 
358 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Yet, to expound the meaning of this faith, we do further teach, 
 that although the bread be the body of Christ, according to His 
 institution, and wine be His blood, yet doth neither of these leave 
 its nature, or change or lose its substance ; but that the bread is, 
 and doth remain, bread ; and that the wine is, and doth remain, 
 wine ; as also the holy Scripture doth give this its own name to 
 either of them. Otherwise, if it should cease to be an element, 
 it should not be a sacrament; seeing that a sacrament is then 
 made, when the word is added to the element. August. in Joan. 
 Tract. 80, et Epist. 23, ad Bonifa. Neither could it signify, or 
 bear witness, if it had nothing instead of that thing, whereof it is 
 a sacrament; or if the thing signified should have any other 
 manner of presence than that which is sacramental. _Wherefore 
 this speech, ‘‘ Bread is the body, and wine is the blood of Christ,” 
 is a sacramental speech ; to wit, that these two distinct things do 
 remain the self-same thing which in their own nature they be, and 
 yet that, by reason of a sacramental union, or sacramentally, they 
 be that also, which they do signify, and whereof they do testify ; 
 and yet not in their own nature, or after a natural manner, but by 
 the institution, pronouncing, or witnessing of the author: as Paul 
 doth excellently expound this, where he thus writeth, “The cup 
 which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? 
 the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body 
 of Christ ?” (1 Cor. x., 16). 
 
 Now, both the good and the wicked do use this sacrament; and 
 yet the true believers do receive it to life, and those which do not 
 believe do receive it to judgment and condemnation. And although 
 either of them do receive this sacrament, and the truth thereof,* 
 
 wherein the bread is said to be the body, and wine to be the blood, even in this con- 
 fession it is evidently set down, that it ought to be interpreted by a sacramental 
 metonymy. 
 
 * By the word truth, in this place, understand, not the fruit of the sacraments, which 
 is received of the faithful only; neither yet the very body and blood of Christ (seeing 
 that they also cannot be received but by faith, to salvation); but the bread and the 
 wine, the which (whether worthy or unworthy communicants do approach) are never, 
 in respect of God, offered, as to be received, without the thing signified ; because the 
 truth of God dependeth not upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the communicants. 
 Yet hereby it cannot be concluded, that both of them are received of every one, because 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 859 
 
 sacramentally and outwardly, yet the believers do alone receive it 
 spiritually, and so to their salvation: without which spiritual 
 receiving, there is no worthy receiving in the sacramental use. 
 For by this mean we are ingrafted into Christ, and into His body ; 
 and by this mean is that true union and communion of Christ 
 with His Church made: and in like sort by this mean is the 
 communion of the holy Church, which is a certain spiritual body, 
 made amongst and with themselves ; whereof the apostle writeth, 
 “There is one bread, and we, being many, are one body, seeing 
 we are all made partakers of one bread” (1 Cor. x., 17). 
 Moreover, we are further taught, that with this ministry, or 
 sacrament of the Lord, no other thing ought to be done, or taken 
 in hand, than that one thing which was shewed, ordained, and 
 expressly commanded of Christ Himself; as when He reached 
 bread, severally and peculiarly, to His disciples, and in express 
 words said, “ Take, eat, this is my body ;” and in like sort, when 
 He reached to them the cup, severally and peculiarly, saying, 
 “Drink all ye of this, this is my blood.” Thus, therefore, according 
 to this commandment, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ must be distributed only, and be received in common of 
 the faithful, or believing Christians: but it must not be sacrificed, 
 or set forth, or lifted up, that it may be worshipped, or exhibited, 
 or stored away, or carried about. And both these must be re- 
 ceived in several elements peculiarly ; His body severally, and 
 also His holy blood severally, as either of them were of the Lord 
 severally instituted, reached forth, and given to all His disciples 
 in common. And this doctrine was used in the first holy Church, 
 and this sacrament was wholly distributed and received in both 
 parts. But he that, beside or contrary to these commandments, 
 and the institution of Christ, dare bring in any other thing, or 
 somewhat more, and use it with this sacrament, or wantonly invent 
 therein at his pleasure; he doth manifestly and malapertly against 
 our Lord, who instituted this sacrament, and committeth a thing 
 
 both of them are always offered by God to all indifferently. Concerning which matter, 
 see very fully hereafter in the first observation upon the confession of Augsburg. 
 
360 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 clean contrary to His holy testament, and last will, which was 
 declared in His own words, and that expressly. 
 
 Also, this sacrament ought to be received and administered 
 without adoration, and without that worship which is due to God 
 alone ; yet with a due kind of religion and reverence, and chiefly 
 with that which is the greatest of all, namely, with faith and exa- 
 mination of one’s self, which in this action is most acceptable to 
 Christ our Lord, and most profitable for men; which, also, St. 
 Paul taught the first Church, and exhorted it hereunto, saying, 
 “Let every man try, or examine himself, and so let him eat of 
 that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh 
 unworthily, doth eat and drink his own judgment, or condemna- 
 tion, because he discerneth not the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. xi., 28, 
 29). And, in another place; ‘‘ Prove yourselves, whether ye are 
 in the faith: examine yourselves. Know ye not your own selves, 
 how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? Now 
 I pray unto God, that ye do no evil” (2 Cor. ΧΙ11., 5—7). If so 
 be that any man approach to this table without such a trial, and 
 presenting of himself worthy ; who hath not first examined him- 
 self, what manner of faith he hath, with what purpose he came to 
 this sacrament, or how he had prepared himself hereunto: I say, 
 such a man should greatly profane and reproach this sacrament, 
 yea, the whole institution hereof appointed by Christ. For which 
 cause the ministers of our churches do admit none to this sacra- 
 ment, neither give it unto any, but to such as are noted to come unto 
 it seriously, and do, so much as in them lieth, prepare themselves 
 hereunto after such a manner as becometh Christian godliness. 
 
 Now, when the congregation doth come together to celebrate 
 the use of the Lord’s Supper, and the participation thereof, then, 
 according to the example of the primitive Church, our ministers 
 do teach in their holy sermons concerning Christ, and concerning 
 the grace which, through Him, and in Him, is given to sinners ; 
 and especially concerning His death, the shedding of His blood, 
 and the redemption and salvation purchased thereby. After that, 
 the whole Church doth join together in faithful prayers unto God, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 90] 
 
 to obtain this, that they may indeed use this sacrament worthily. 
 Moreover, in the next place, absolution from sin is lawfully admi- 
 nistered,* the words of the institution are rehearsed, and the 
 people, by exhortation, are stirred up to a reverent consideration 
 of this mystery, and to a cheerful and serious contemplation of 
 the benefits of God. ‘The sacrament is reverently, with all godli- 
 ness, distributed ; and the people of the faithful, most commonly 
 falling down on their knees,} do receive this sacrament with thanks- 
 giving, with gladness, with singing of hymns or holy songs; and 
 they shew forth the death of the Lord, and admonish themselves 
 of all His benefits, to the confirmation of their faith, in a true 
 communion with Christ and His body. And all this we do 
 according to the meaning of those things which are commanded 
 in the holy Scripture, especially according to the saying of Christ, 
 “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke xxii., 19); and Paul 
 saith, “So often as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of this 
 cup, ye shall shew forth the death of the Lord, till He come” (1 
 Carex. 90). 
 
 V.—FROM THE CONFESSION OF FRANCE. 
 
 The Confession of France was first presented in French in the year 1559, 
 to Francis II., king of France, at Amboise, in the behalf of all the godly of 
 that kingdom ; again, in the year 1561, at Poissy, to Charles [X.; and at 
 length in Latin also, published by the pastors of the French churches, with 
 a preface to all other evangelical pastors, in the year 1566. 
 
 Art. 36. We affirm that the holy Supper of the Lord, to wit, 
 the other sacrament, is a witness to us of our uniting with our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ; because that He is not only once dead, and 
 raised up again from the dead for us, but also He doth indeed feed 
 
 * See the Eighth Section, upon the Confession of Bohemia, Augsburg, and Saxony. 
 
 + In this rite, also, we suppose that every Church ought to have her liberty ; not 
 that we do utterly in itself condemn this manner, so that the caution be added, whereof 
 we spake of late in the fourth observation ; but because that, for the rooting of the 
 superstitious worshipping of the bread out of men’s minds, it were more expedient thet 
 that ceremony in most places were abolished in the receiving of the signs themselves ; 
 whereof look before in the first observation upon the Former Confession of Helvetia. 
 
 3 ἃ 
 
362 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 us and nourish us with His flesh and blood, that we, being made 
 one with Him, may have our life common with Him. For although 
 He be now in heaven, and shall remain there till He come to 
 judge the world; yet we believe that, by the secret and incom- 
 prehensible virtue of His Spirit, He doth nourish and quicken us 
 with the substance of His body and blood,* apprehended by faith. 
 But we say that this is done spiritually, not that we may counter- 
 feit an imagination or thought instead of the efficacy and truth ; 
 but rather, because this mystery of our union with Christ is so 
 high a thing, that it surmounteth all our senses, yea, and the 
 whole order of nature: to conclude, because that it, being 
 divine and heavenly, cannot be perceived nor apprehended, but by 
 faith. 
 
 Art. 387. We believe, as was said before, that as well in the 
 Supper as in baptism, God doth indeed, that is, truly and effec- 
 tually, give whatsoever He doth there sacramentally represent : 
 and accordingly, with the signs, we join the true possession and 
 fruition of that thing, which is there offered unto us. Therefore 
 we affirm, that they which do bring pure faith, as it were a certain 
 vessel, unto the holy Supper of the Lord, do indeed receive that 
 which there the signs do witness ; namely, that the body and blood 
 of Jesus Christ are no less the meat and drink of the soul, than 
 bread and wine are the meat of the body. 
 
 Also, out of Article 38. A little after the beginning : 
 
 And, also, that that bread and wine, which is given us in the 
 Supper, is indeed made unto us spiritual nourishment ; inasmuch 
 as they do offer unto our eyes to behold, that the flesh of Christ 
 
 * The French churches have witnessed, in general synods, that they, after the 
 example of the ancient l’athers, do use the word substance; not as if the very sub- 
 stance of Christ were infused into the bread, or conveyed into us any manner of way, 
 either corporal or unspeakable ; or that it were applied to our corporal substance (seeing 
 that it verily is now in heaven, and nowhere else, unto the last day, and we in earth 
 and nowhere else) ; but to meet the slander of those men which think that we, instead 
 of the very body and blood of Christ, do place only His merits, or His spiritual force 
 and operation; whereas notwithstanding we do teach, that we (though spiritnally and 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 363 
 
 is our meat, and that His blood is our drink. Therefore, we reject 
 all those fantastical folk, which do refuse these signs and tokens, 
 seeing that Christ our Lord hath said, ‘‘ This is my body,” and 
 “ This cup is my blood.” 
 
 VI—FROM THE CONFESSION OF ENGLAND. 
 
 The Confession of England was inserted in the general apology written in 
 the year 1562, by John Jewell, bishop of Sarum, in the behalf of the Eng- 
 lish churches. 
 
 Art. 12. Near the beginning. We say that the Eucharist 
 (that is to say, the Supper of the Lord) is a sacrament ; that, is, 
 ah evident representation of the body and blood of Christ; wherein 
 is set, as it were, before our eyes, the death of Christ, and His 
 resurrection, and whatsoever He did, whilst He was in His mortal 
 body: to the end we may give Him thanks for His death, and for 
 our deliverance, and that, by the often receiving of this sacrament, 
 we may daily renew the remembrance thereof; and to the intent 
 that we, being fed with the body and blood of Christ, may be 
 brought into the hope of the resurrection and of everlasting life, 
 and may most assuredly believe that, as our bodies be fed with 
 bread and wine, so our souls be fed with the body and blood of 
 Christ. To this banquet we think the people of God ought to be 
 earnestly bidden, that they may all communicate among them- 
 selves, and openly declare and testify both the godly society which 
 is among them, and also the hope which they have in Christ Jesus. 
 Chrysost. ad E'phes. Serm. 3, cap. 1. For this cause, if there 
 had been any which would be but a looker-on, and abstain from 
 the holy communion, him did the old Fathers, and bishops of 
 Rome in the primitive Church, before private mass came up, 
 excommunicate, as a wicked person and as a pagan. Neither 
 
 mystically, yet, notwithstanding, truly) do participate Christ Himself, not so that either 
 we do cleave essentially unto Him, or He unto us, but that His life is derived into us. 
 Look, also, concerning this matter, in the first observation upon the Confession of 
 
 Augsburg, in this section. 
 
364 THE TRUE -DOCTRINE 
 
 was there any Christian at that time which did communicate alone, 
 whiles other looked on. For so did Calixtus, in times past, de- 
 cree, “ That after the consecration was finished, all should com- 
 municate, except they had rather stand without the church doors. 
 For thus (saith he) did the apostles appoint, and the same the 
 holy Church of Rome keepeth still,” De Conseer. Dist. 1. Cap. 
 Omnes. Dist. 2. Cap. Seculares. Dist. 2. Cap. Peracta. More- 
 over, when the people cometh to the holy communion, the sacra- 
 ments ought to be given them in both kinds; for so both Christ 
 hath commanded, and the apostles in every place have ordained, 
 and all the ancient Fathers and Catholic bishops have followed 
 the same. And whoso doth contrary to this, he (as Gelasius saith, 
 De Consecr. Dist. 2. Cap. Comperimus.) committeth sacrilege. 
 And, therefore, we say that our adversaries, at this day, who, 
 having violently thrust out and quite forbidden the holy commu- 
 nion, do, without the word of God, without the authority of any 
 ancient council, without any Catholic father, without any example 
 of the primitive Church, yea, and without reason, also, defend 
 and maintain their private masses, and the mangling of the sacra- 
 ments ; and do this, not only against the express commandment 
 of Christ, but also against all antiquity ; do wickedly therein, and 
 are very church robbers. 
 
 We affirm, that the bread and wine are the holy and heavenly 
 mysteries of the body and blood of Christ; and that by them 
 Christ Himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently 
 given unto us, as that, by faith, we verily receive His body and 
 blood. Yet say we not this so, as though we thought that the 
 nature and substance of the bread and wine is clearly changed, 
 and goeth to nothing; as many have dreamed in these latter 
 times, and yet could never agree among themselves upon their 
 own dreams. For that was not Christ's meaning, that the wheaten 
 bread should lay apart its own nature, and receive a certain new 
 divinity; but that it might rather change us, and (to use Theo- 
 phylact’s words, iz Joan. cap. vi.), might transform us into His 
 
 body. For what can be said more plainly, than that which 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 365 
 
 Ambrose saith (De Sacram. lib. iv. cap. 4): “ The bread and 
 wine remain still the same they were before, and yet are changed 
 into another thing?” Or that which Gelasius saith (¢ Dialogis 
 1 e¢ 2): “ The substance of the bread, and the nature of the wine, 
 
 2 
 
 ceaseth not to be?” Or that which Theodoret saith (12) Sermone 
 ad Infantes) : “ After the consecration, the mystical signs do not 
 cast off their own proper nature: for they remain still in their 
 former substance, form, or kind?” Or that which Augustine 
 saith (De Consecr. Dist. 2. Cap. Qui manducasti): “ That 
 which ye see, is the bread, and cup, and so our eyes do tell us: 
 but that which your faith requireth to be taught, is this; The 
 bread is the body of Christ, and the cup is His blood?” Or 
 that which Origen saith (in Matt. xv., 17): “ The bread which 
 is sanctified by the word of God, as touching the material sub- 
 stance thereof, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the 
 draught?” Or that which Christ Himself said, not only after the 
 blessing of the cup, but also after He had ministered the commu- 
 nion: “1 will drmk no more of this fruit of the vine?” (Luke 
 xxli., 18). It is well known that the fruit of the vine is wine, 
 and not blood. And in speaking thus, we mean not to abase the 
 Lord’s Supper, or to teach that it is but a cold ceremony only, 
 and nothing to be wrought therein, as many falsely slander us, 
 that we teach. For we affirm, that Christ doth truly and pre- 
 sently give Himself wholly in His sacraments: in baptism, that 
 we may put Him on ; and in His Supper, that we may eat Him 
 by faith, and the Spirit, and may have everlasting life by His 
 cross and blood. And we say not this is done slightly or coldly, 
 but effectually and truly. For although we do not touch the 
 body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold Him fast, and 
 eat Him by faith, by understanding, and by the Spirit. And it 
 is no vain faith, that comprehendeth Christ; neither is that 
 received with cold devotion, which is received with understanding, 
 faith, and the Spirit. For Christ Himself altogether is so offered 
 and given to us in these mysteries, that we may certainly know 
 that “ we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones” (Zphes. 
 
866 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 v., 30); and that ““ Christ continueth in us, and we in Him” 
 (1 John 11., 24). 
 
 And, therefore, in celebrating these mysteries, the people are 
 to good purpose exhorted, before they come to receive the holy 
 communion, to lift up their hearts, and to direct their minds to 
 heavenwards: because He is there, by whom we must be fed, and 
 live. Cyril saith, ‘‘ When we come to receive these mysteries, all 
 gross Imaginations must quite be banished (De Consecr. Dist. 1. 
 Cap. Quando). The Council of Nice, as it is alleged by some in 
 Greek, plainly forbiddeth us to be basely affectioned toward the 
 bread and wine, which are set before us. And, as Chrysostom 
 very aptly writeth, we say, “ That the body of Christ is the dead 
 carcase, and we ourselves must be the eagles” (meaning thereby, 
 that we must fly on high, if we will come to the body of Christ) : 
 “ for this table is a table of eagles, and not of jays.” Cyprian 
 also: “ This bread,” saith he, ‘‘ is the food of the soul, and not 
 the meat of the belly” (De Cena Domini). And St. Augustine 
 saith, “ How shall I hold Him, being absent? How shall I 
 reach my hand up to heaven, to lay hold upon Him, sitting there?” 
 He answereth, ‘“‘ Reach thither thy faith, and then thou hast laid 
 hold upon Him” (In Joan. Tract. 50). : 
 
 Art. 18. Neither can we away in our Churches with these shews, 
 and sales, and markets of masses, nor with the carrying about 
 and worshipping of the bread, nor with such other idolatrous and 
 blasphemous fondness ; which none of them can prove that Christ 
 or His apostles ever ordained or left unto us. And we justly 
 blame the bishops of Rome, who, without the word of God, with- 
 out the authority of the holy Fathers, without any example of 
 antiquity, after a new guise, do not only set before the people the 
 sacramental bread to be worshipped as God, but do also carry the 
 same about upon an ambling palfrey, whithersoever themselves 
 journey, in such sort as, in old times, the Persian fire, and the 
 relics of the goddess Isis, were solemnly carried about in proces- 
 sion; and have brought the sacraments of Christ to be used now 
 as a stage-play, and a solemn sight; to the end that men’s eyes 
 
, OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 367 
 
 should be fed with nothing else but with mad gazings, and foolish 
 gaudies, in the self-same matter, wherein the death of Christ 
 ought diligently to be beaten into our hearts, and wherein also 
 the mysteries of our redemption ought, with all holiness and 
 reverence, to be performed. Besides, where they say, and some- 
 time do persuade fools, that they are able, by their masses, to 
 distribute and apply unto men’s commodity all the merits of Christ's 
 death (yea, although many times the parties think nothing of the 
 matter, and understand full little what is done), this is a mockery, 
 a heathenish fancy, and a very toy. For it is our faith that 
 applieth the death and cross of Christ to our benefit, and not the 
 act of the massing priest. ‘“* Faith had in the sacraments (saith 
 Augustine, Ad Rom. cap. 3. Lib. 3) doth justify, and not the 
 sacraments. And Origen saith, ‘“‘ Christ is the priest, the pro- 
 pitiation, and sacrifice: which propitiation cometh to every one 
 by mean of faith.” And so, by this reckoning, we say, that the 
 sacraments of Christ, without faith, do not once profit those that 
 be alive: a great deal less do they profit those that be dead. 
 
 VII. FROM THE CONFESSION OF SCOTLAND. 
 Article 21 ; towards the middle. Of the Sacraments. 
 
 The Confession of Scotland was first exhibited to, and allowed by, the 
 three estates in parliament, at Edinburgh, in the year 1560 ; again ratified 
 at the same place, and on the same authority, in 1567 ; and finally sub- 
 scribed by the king’s majesty, and his household, at Holyrood House, the 
 28th day of January, 1581. 
 
 Not that we imagine any transubstantiation of bread into 
 Christ's natura! body, and of wine into His natural blood, as the 
 Papists have perniciously taught, and damnably believed: but 
 this union and conjunction, which we have with the body and 
 blood of Christ Jesus in the right use of the sacrament, is wrought 
 by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who, by true faith, carrieth 
 us above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and 
 maketh us to feed upon the body and blood of Christ Jesus, 
 which was once broken and shed for us, which now is in heaven, 
 
368 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 and appearing in the presence of His Father for us. And not- 
 withstanding the far distance of place, which is betwixt His 
 body, now glorified in heaven, and us, now mortal on this earth ; 
 yet we must assuredly believe, that the bread which we break is 
 the communion of Christ’s body, and the cup which we bless is 
 the communion of His blood (1 Cor. x., 16). So that we con- 
 fess, and undoubtedly believe, that the faithful, in the right use 
 of the Lord's table, do so eat the body and drink the blood of the 
 Lord Jesus, that He remaineth in them, and they in Him. Yea, 
 they are so made flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bones (Eph. 
 y., 30), that, as the eternal Godhead giveth to the flesh of Christ 
 Jesus (which of its own condition and nature, was mortal and 
 corruptible) life and immortality ; so doth Christ Jesus His flesh 
 and blood, eaten and drunken by us, give unto us the same pre- 
 rogatives. Which, albeit we confess are neither given unto us at 
 this time only, neither yet by the proper power and virtue of the 
 sacrament only; yet we affirm that the faithful, in the right use 
 of the Lord’s table, have such conjunction with Christ Jesus, as 
 the natural man cannot apprehend: yea, and further we affirm, 
 that albeit the faithful, oppressed by negligence and manly infir- 
 mity, do not profit so much as they would, in the very instant 
 action of the Supper; yet shall it after bring fruit forth, as lively 
 seed sown in good ground: for the Holy Spirit, which can never 
 be divided from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not 
 frustrate the faithful of the fruit of that mystical action. 
 
 VII. (2)—FROM THE CONFESSION OF WESTMINSTER DIVINES. 
 Chapter 29. Of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, 
 instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's 
 Supper, to be observed in His Church unto the end of the world, 
 for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His 
 death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their 
 spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engage- 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 369 
 
 ment in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and to be a 
 bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each 
 other, as members of His mystical body. 
 
 2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father, 
 nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick 
 or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of 
 Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual 
 oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that 
 the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abomi- 
 nably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitia- 
 tion for all the sins of the elect. 
 
 8. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His 
 ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to 
 pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to 
 set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and 
 break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also 
 themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who 
 are not then present in the congregation. 
 
 4, Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or 
 any other alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people, 
 worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them 
 about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended 
 religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and 
 to the institution of Christ. 
 
 5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to 
 the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, 
 as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called 
 by the name of the things they represent ; to wit, the body and 
 blood of Christ; albeit in substance and nature they still remain 
 truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. 
 
 6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of 
 bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood 
 (commonly called transubstantiation), by consecration of a priest, 
 or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but 
 even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of 
 
 3 1B 
 
370 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold 
 superstitions ; yea, of gross idolatries. 
 
 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible ele- 
 ments in this sacrament, do then also inwardly, by faith, really 
 and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, 
 receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His 
 death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally 
 or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine ; yet as really, 
 but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, 
 as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. 
 
 8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward ele- 
 ments in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified 
 thereby ; but by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of 
 the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Where- 
 fore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy 
 communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table ; 
 and cannot without great sin agaist Christ, while they remain 
 such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto. 
 
 VIIL—FROM THE CONFESSION OF BELGIA. 
 
 The Confession of Belgia was published in French, in the name of all the 
 churches of Belgia, in the year 1566 ; and, in the year 1579, in the public 
 synod of Belgium, was repeated, confirmed, and turned into the Belgian 
 tongue. 
 
 Art. 35. We believe and confess, that Jesus Christ, our Lord 
 and Saviour, hath instituted the holy sacrament of His Supper, 
 that in it He might nourish and sustain those whom He hath 
 regenerated and engrafted into His family, which is the Church. 
 But those which are regenerate, have in them a double life: the 
 one carnal and temporal, which they brought with them from 
 their first nativity, the which is common unto all; the other 
 spiritual and heavenly, bestowed upon them. in their second 
 nativity, which is wrought in them by the word of the Gospel, in 
 the union of the body of Christ, the which is peculiar to the elect 
 alone. And as God hath appointed earthly and material bread, 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 917] 
 
 fit and convenient for the preservation of this carnal life, which, 
 even as the life itself, is common unto all; so, for the conserva- 
 tion of that spiritual and heavenly life, which is proper to the 
 faithful, God hath sent lively bread, which came down from 
 heaven, even Jesus Christ, who nourisheth and sustaineth the 
 spiritual life of the faithful, if He be eaten (that is, applied and 
 received) by faith, through the Spirit. But to the intent that 
 Christ might figurate and represent unto us this spiritual and 
 heavenly bread, He hath ordained visible and earthly bread and 
 wine for the sacrament of Eis body and blood; whereby He tes- 
 tifieth, that as truly as we do receive and hold in our hands this 
 sign, eating the same with our mouths, whereby afterwards this 
 our life is sustained, so truly we do by faith (which is to our soul 
 instead of hand and mouth) receive the very body and true blood 
 of Christ, our only Saviour, in ourselves, unto the conservation 
 and cherishing of a spiritual life within us. And it is most cer- 
 tain that Christ, not without good cause, doth so carefully com- 
 mend unto us this His sacrament, as one that doth indeed work 
 that within us, whatsoever He representeth unto us by these His 
 holy signs; although the manner itself, being far above the reach 
 of our capacity, cannot be comprehended of any ; because that all 
 the operations of the Holy Ghost are hidden and incomprehensible.* 
 Neither shall we err in saying, that that which is eatent is the very 
 natural body of Christ, and that that which is drunk is the very 
 blood of Christ. Yet the instrument, or means, whereby we do 
 eat and drink them, is not a corporal mouth, but even our soul 
 and spirit, and that by faith. Christ, therefore, sitteth always at 
 the right hand of His Father in heaven: and yet, for all that, 
 doth not anything the less communicate Himself unto us by faith. 
 
 * That is to say, both when the proper force of the Holy Spirit, which is incompre- 
 hensible, is regarded, and seeing that His effects do exceed our senses ; both which do 
 come to pass in these mysteries. 
 
 + Namely, by faith, as it is often iterated in this confession; that is to say, that is 
 received spiritually, by the mind, in believing, as the sign is eaten and drunken cor- 
 porally. For the words ealing and drinking can not otherwise be spoken of the mind, 
 
 and of faith (which are the only instruments of receiving the very body and blood of 
 Christ), than metaphorically or metonymically, 
 
3872 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 Furthermore, this Supper is the spiritual table, whereat Christ 
 doth offer Himself to us, with all His benefits, to be participated 
 of us; and bringeth to pass, that in it we are partakers, as well 
 of Himself, as of the merit of His death and passion. For He 
 Himself, by the eating of His flesh, doth nourish, strengthen, and 
 comfort our miserable, afflicted, and comfortless soul, and, in like 
 manner, by the drinking of His blood, doth refresh and sustain 
 the same.* Moreover, although the signs be coupled with the 
 things signified,t yet both of them are not received of all. For 
 an evil man verily receiveth the sacrament unto his own con- 
 demnation ; but the thing or truth of the sacrament he receiveth 
 not. As, for example, Judas, and Simon Magus, did both of 
 them receive the sacramental sign; but as for Christ Himself 
 signified thereby, they received Him not. For Christ is commu- 
 nicated to the faithful only. Last of all, we, with great humility 
 and reverence, do communicate the holy sacrament in the assembly 
 of God’s people, celebrating the memorial of our Saviour Christ’s 
 death with thanksgiving, and making there a public confession of 
 Christian faith and religion. No man, therefore, ought to pre- 
 sent himself at this holy Supper, which hath not first examined 
 himself; lest that, eating of this bread, and drinking of this cup, 
 he do eat and drink his own damnation. Moreover, by the use 
 of this sacrament, a most ardent love is kindled within us, both 
 towards God Himself, and also towards our neighbour. Therefore 
 here we do worthily reject, as a mere profanation, all the toys and 
 damnable devices of men, which they have presumed to add and 
 mingle with the sacraments ; affirming, that all the godly are con- 
 tent with that only order and rite, which Christ and His apostles 
 have delivered unto us, and that they ought to speak of these mys- 
 teries after the same manner as the apostles have spoken before. 
 
 * Thatis (as hath been said in the former observation), by a spiritual participation ; 
 the which, sometimes by reason of the sacramental receiving, and sometimes by reason 
 of that spiritual life which Christ engendereth in us, is metaphorically signified by the 
 names of eating or drinking. 
 
 + Of the sacramental union we have spoken before, in the second observation upon 
 the Confession of Bohemia. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 373 
 
 IX.—_FROM THE CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG. 
 The Tenth Article, out of the edition of Wirtemburg, Anno 1531. 
 
 The Confession of Augsburg was first presented in the German tongue at 
 the city of Augsburg, in the year 1530, to the Emperor Charles the Fifth, 
 by certain most renowned princes of Germany, and by other states of the 
 sacred empire, whom they call Protestants. Secondly, the self-same year, 
 it was set forth and published in Latin, at Wirtemburg, somewhat corrected 
 in certain articles, with a preface, and the subscription of the authors’ 
 names. 
 
 Touching the Supper of the Lord, they teach, that the body 
 and blood of Christ are there present indeed,* and are distributed 
 
 * We, also, do allow of this, namely, that the word of God is not deceitful; and 
 therefore, as often as the holy signs are rightly given, that is, according to Christ His 
 institution, that then, also, the thing signified by the sign (which is the very body of 
 Christ crucified for us, and the very blood of Christ shed for us) is also given to be 
 received. But we afiirm, that the thing signified is not otherwise coupled with the 
 sign, than sacramentally. The truth of which sacramental conjunction doth not consist, 
 in this, that, wheresoever the sign is, there the thing represented by the sign should 
 also be present; but in this, that that which God promiseth by the sign, He also doth 
 offer to be received. Therefore we hold that the body of Christ is not really present 
 in, with, or under the bread, otherwise than after this sacramental manner : both because 
 ' it is a true body, being circumscribed in its local situation, and also hath truly ascended 
 from the earth, above all the heavens that be subject to our sight, and shall there remain 
 (from whence He exerciseth a government over all things beneath, even as He is man) 
 until He come truly from thence to judge both quick and dead. Moreover we do also 
 ayouch, that, as the signs are offered to the body, so the things signified are offered to 
 the mind. And therefore that the signs are received of every one with the hand and 
 mouth, that come unto the Supper (the which unto some, namely, the worthy receivers, 
 do turn unto salvation, but unto others, that is, the unworthy communicants, by reason 
 of the profanation of the signs, and contempt of the thing signified, they do turn to 
 condemnation) ; but as for the things signified, those we affirm to be truly and effec- 
 tually apprehended only of those that be endued with a right mind and a true faith, and 
 that always unto salvation, whereunto the distance of place is no hindrance, by reason 
 of the unspeakable operation of the Holy Ghost. And yet not so, as that the substances 
 should be mingled betwixt themselves, or cleave together in any place (for Christ’s flesh 
 abideth in heaven and ours upon the earth) ; but so that (those things being mystically 
 united, which in true distance of situation are separated) we might draw from the flesh 
 of Christ all gifts necessary for our salvation, and especially that lively juice whereby 
 we are nourished to eternal life. Therefore, whatsoever they pretend which are of the 
 contrary judgment, the controversy is not of the signs, or of the things signified, or of 
 the truth of the sacraments, or of the actual receiving of them, or of the effects: but 
 only of the definition of the sacramental conjunction, and also of the manner of receiving 
 the things signified : both which we contend to be so interpreted by some out of the 
 word of God, that, if their opinion be once granted, both the truth of Christ's body, and 
 His ascension into heaven and second coming is, consequently, overthrown. See the 
 exposition of this article, expressed in the divers editions of the Augsburg Confession, 
 
374. THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 to those that eat of the Lord’s Supper; and they condemn those 
 that teach otherwise. 
 
 The same Tenth Article, in the edition newly corrected, Anno 1540, is thus 
 set down : 
 
 Touching the Supper of the Lord, they teach, that, together 
 with the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ are truly 
 exhibited to them that eat of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 Hitherto, also, pertaineth the First Article ; of Abuses which are changed in 
 the outward rites and ceremonies. This Article is, Of the Mass : 
 
 Our churches are wrongfully accused to have abolished the 
 mass. For the mass is retained still among us,* and celebrated 
 with great reverence: yea, and almost all the ceremonies that 
 have been in use; saving that, with the songs in Latin, we mingle 
 certain psalms in Dutch here and there, which be added for the 
 people’s instruction. For, therefore, we have need of ceremonies, 
 that they may teach the unlearned; and that the preaching of 
 God’s word may stir up some unto the true fear, trust, and invo- 
 
 though not after the same manner, nor in the same words : and for the full declaration 
 thereof, look into the admonition lately set forth by our brethren the Neustadtians, in 
 the fifth chapter; out of the which our agreement in this point of doctrine, rightly de- 
 clared, doth appear. 
 
 * The princes and divines in the assembly at Neuburg testified, in the year 1561, 
 as is manifest by the decrees of that assembly, that they by the word mass do under- 
 stand the administration of the Supper, and do from the bottom of their hearts detest 
 the Romish mass. But although we do abhor all contentions about words, and do 
 acknowledge that the word mass is not newly sprung up in the Latin Church; yet, 
 seeing that the original of this term (namely, because alms were sent from the faithful 
 in their usual meetings at their love-feasts) is long since abolished; and seeing that 
 this word hath these many years broken out into great abomination, so great, indeed, 
 that none so gross or execrable was ever heard of; we do not without cause, together 
 with the thing, abolish the name itself out of our churches. As for the holy liturgy, 
 we think that it is there most rightly celebrated, where it is most simply, and most 
 nearly unto the first institution, observed. And seeing it is manifest that the ceremo- 
 nies in the Roman liturgy are partly in themselves unprofitable, partly tending rather 
 to an ambitious shew and pomp than to edification, partly ridiculous, and partly either 
 in themselves superstitious, or else ready to be turned into superstition ; therefore the 
 most of them, or in a manner all, we have in every place utterly swept away: yet so 
 as that the Church hath her liberty left in things indifferent, as it is meet, and shall be 
 declared in the seventeenth section. As for the speaking or singing of anything in the 
 public liturgy, in such a tongue as is unknown to the common people, unless there be 
 an interpreter, the apostle doth plainly forbid it (1 Cor. xiv., 27, 28). 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 375 
 
 cation of God. And this is not only commanded by St. Paul, to 
 use a tongue that the people understand, but man’s law hath also 
 appointed it. We use the people to receive the sacrament together, 
 if so be any be found fit thereunto. And that is a thing that doth 
 increase the reverence and due estimation of the public ceremonies. 
 For none are admitted, except they be first proved and tried. 
 Besides, we use to put men in mind of the worthiness and use 
 of a sacrament, what great comfort it offereth unto them which 
 repent ; to the end that men may learn to fear God, and believe 
 in Him, and to use prayer and supplication unto Him, looking 
 for all good things at His hands. This is the true worship of 
 Christians: these services, of fear, faith, prayer, hope, &c., God 
 doth like. When, therefore, these services are performed, in the 
 use of ceremonies, then doth the using of the sacraments please 
 God. So that, when as the people are accustomed to the cere- 
 mony, and advertised of the true use thereof, the masses are said 
 with us after a meet and godly manner. And thus all things are 
 ordered in the Church with greater gravity and reverence, than in 
 times past. 
 
 It is not unknown that, these many ages past, there hath been 
 common and open complaint made by good men, of the abuse 
 and profanation of masses. For it is easy to be seen how far this 
 abuse hath spread itself in all our churches ; what kind of men 
 they are that say the masses, flat contrary to the prescript of the 
 canons; also how shamefully they are turned to a matter of cursed 
 lucre. For many there be that say masses, without repentance, 
 only for the belly’s sake. These things are too open and manifest 
 to. be kept any longer in hugger-mugger.* Surely it seemeth that 
 never any religious thing, since the world began, was so commonly 
 turned into gain, as the mass. But St. Paul doth fearfully threaten 
 them, which deal otherwise with these sacraments, than is beseem- 
 ing the dignity of them; where he saith, “ He that eateth this 
 bread and drinketh this cup unworthily, is guilty of the body and 
 
 * In hugger-mugger—that is, in holes and corners, under cover.—F.p1To0r. 
 
376 ᾿ THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. xi., 27). And, in the Ten Command- 
 ments, it is written, “‘ He that abuseth God's holy name, shall not 
 escape unpunished” (Hod. xx., 7). As, therefore, the world 
 hath oft, heretofore, been justly punished for idolatry, so, doubt- 
 less, this shameless profaning of masses will be fearfully revenged 
 with grievous penalties. And it may well be that the Church, in 
 these latter times, 1s punished with blindness, discord, and wars, 
 and many other plagues, chiefly for this one cause. And yet 
 these open and gross abuses have the bishops (who cannot be 
 ignorant of them) not only borne withal, but also smoothly laughed 
 at them. And now, all too late, they begin to complain, forsooth, 
 of the calamity of the Church; when, as no other thing hath been 
 the occasion of the broils of these times, but the abuses themselves, 
 which were now become too open and evident, that modest men 
 could no longer bear them. Would to God that the bishops had 
 (as by their office they might have), long before this, bridled and 
 restrained the covetousness, or impudence, whether of monks, or 
 of some others, who, changing the manner of the old Church, 
 have made the mass a money matter. 
 
 But it will not be amiss now to shew, whence these abuses did 
 spring at the first. There is an opinion spread abroad in the 
 Church, that the Supper of the Lord is a work, which, being once 
 done by the priest, deserveth remission of sins, both of the fault 
 and of the punishment, not only for him that doth it, but also for 
 theirs: and that because of the work done, although it be done 
 without any good intent of the doer. Likewise, that if it be 
 applied in the behalf’of the dead, it is satisfactory—that is, it 
 deserveth remission of the pains of purgatory. And in this mean- 
 ing they take the word sacrifice, when they call the mass a 
 sacrifice ; namely, a work that, being done in the behalf of some 
 others, doth merit for them remission both of the fault and of the 
 punishments; and that because of the very work done, even with- 
 out any good intent of him that useth it. . Thus they mean, that 
 the priest in the mass doth offer a sacrifice for the quick and the 
 dead. And after. this persuasion was once received, they taught 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Ot 
 
 men to seek forgiveness of sins, and all good things, yea, and to 
 free the dead from punishments, by the benefit of the mass. And 
 it made no matter what kind of men they were that said the 
 masses ; for they taught that they were very available for others, 
 without any good motion of the user. Afterward a question arose, 
 whether one mass said for many was as available as several masses 
 for several persons. And this disputation did augment the num- 
 ber of masses, and the gain that came in by them, out of measure. 
 But we dispute not now of the gain; we only accuse the impiety 
 of them. For our divines do prove plainly, that this opinion of 
 the meriting and applying of the mass, is both false and impious. 
 This is the state of this controversy between us and them. 
 
 And it is no hard matter for the godly to judge of this point, if 
 a man will but weigh the arguments that follow. First, we have 
 proved before, that men do obtain remission of sins freely by faith ; 
 that is, by sure trust to obtain mercy for Christ's sake. It is then 
 impossible for a man to obtain remission of sins for another man’s 
 work, and that without any good motion; that is, without his 
 own faith. This reason doth very evidently overthrow that mon- | 
 strous and impious opinion, touching the merit and application of 
 the mass. 
 
 Secondly, Christ's passion was an oblation and satisfaction, not 
 only for original sin, but also for all other sins; as it is written in 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, ‘“‘ We are sanctified by the oblation 
 of Christ once offered” (Heb. x., 10); and again: “ By one 
 oblation He hath made perfect for ever those that are sanctified ” 
 (ver. 14). To conclude: a good part of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews is spent in confirming this point, that the only sacrifice 
 of Christ hath merited remission of sins, or reconciliation, for 
 others. Therefore he saith that the Levitical sacrifices were oft- 
 times offered, because they could not take away sins; but that 
 Christ, by His sacrifice, hath at once satisfied for the sins of all 
 men (Hed. x., 11, 12). This honour of Christ’s sacrifice must 
 not be transferred from Him to the work of a priest. For He 
 
 saith expressly, that ‘“ by one oblation the saints are made per- 
 80 
 
378 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 fect” (ver. 10). Besides, it is a wicked thing to place that trust 
 in the work of a priest, which should only lean and stay itself 
 upon the oblation and intercession of Christ the High Priest. 
 
 Thirdly, Christ, in the institution of the Lord’s Supper, doth 
 not command the priests to offer for others, either quick or dead. 
 Upon what ground, then, or authority, was this worship ordained 
 in the Church, as an offering for sins, without any commandment 
 of God? But that is yet more gross, and far from all reason, 
 that the mass should be applied to deliver the souls of such as 
 are dead. For the mass was ordained for a remembrance; that 
 is, that such as received the Supper of the Lord, should stir up 
 and confirm their faith, and comfort their distressed consciences, 
 with the remembrance of Christ's benefits. Neither is the mass a 
 satisfaction for punishment; but it was instituted because of the 
 remission of the'fault; to wit, not that it should be a satisfaction 
 for the fault, but that it might be a sacrament, by the use whereof 
 we might be put in mind of the benefit of Christ, and the forgive- 
 ness of the fault. Seeing, therefore, that the applying of the 
 Supper of the Lord for the deliverance of the dead has been 
 received without warrant of Scripture, yea, quite contrary to 
 Scripture, it is to be condemned, as a new and ungodly worship or 
 service. 
 
 Fourthly, a ceremony, in the new covenant, without faith, 
 meriteth nothing,* neither for him that useth it, nor for others. 
 For it is a dead work, according to the saying of Christ, ‘‘ The true 
 worshippers, shall worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 
 iv., 23). The same doth the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews 
 prove throughout: “ By faith, Abel offered a better offering unto 
 God” (ver. 4): also, ‘‘ Without faith, it is impossible to please 
 God” (ver. 6). Therefore the mass doth not merit remission of 
 
 * No, nor yet in the Old Testament: yea, neither any ceremony, nor faith itself, 
 doth merit anything; but whereas the external work, being performed with faith, 
 according to God’s commandment, is acceptable unto Him, all this we teach out of 
 God’s word to be of grace, and not of debt. Whereof look to the eighth section and 
 seventh observation, and to the ninth section and second observation, upon the same 
 Confession of Augsburg. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 379 
 
 the fault, or of the punishment, for the work’s sake performed. 
 This reason doth evidently overthrow the merit, as they call it, 
 which ariseth of the work that is done. 
 
 Fifthly, the applying of the benefit of Christ is by a man’s own 
 faith; as Paul witnesseth, ‘‘ Whom God hath set forth to be a 
 reconciliation, through faith in His blood” (Rom. 111., 25). And 
 this applying is made freely. And, therefore, it is not made by 
 another man’s work, nor for another man’s work. For when we 
 use the sacrament, this application is made by our own work, and 
 by our own faith, and not by another man’s work For surely if 
 we could have no remission but by applying of masses, it should 
 be very uncertain, and our faith and trust should be transferred 
 from Christ unto the work of a priest: and so is it come to pass, 
 as all men see. Moreover, faith placed in the work of a man is 
 wholly condemned. Arguments, with sundry other, do witness 
 for us, that the opinion of the merit and applying of the mass 
 for the quick and the dead, was, for good causes, misliked and 
 reproved. 
 
 Now, if we would stand to consider how far this error is spread 
 in the Church, how the number of masses hath increased, and 
 how, through this sacrifice, forgiveness both of the fault and of 
 the punishment is promised to the quick and the dead, it will 
 appear that the Church is disfigured with shameful blots by this 
 profanation. There never fell out a weightier cause in the Church, 
 O noble emperor, or more worthy for good and learned men, to 
 debate of. It is the duty of all the godly, with most fervent 
 prayers, to crave at God's hand, that the Church might be deli- 
 vered from these foul enormities. All kings and bishops must, 
 with all their might, endeavour that this whole matter may be 
 rightly laid forth, and the Church purged. 
 
 Sixthly, the institution of the sacrament is contrary to that 
 abuse. For there is not a word set down of any oblation for the 
 sins of the quick and the dead; but a commandment to receive 
 the body and blood of Christ, and to do it in remembrance of the 
 benefit of Christ. This remembrance doth signify, not a bare 
 
380 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 representing of the history, as it were in a shew (as they dream 
 that are the patrons of merit, by reason of the work wrought) ; 
 but it signifieth by faith to remember the promise and benefit, to 
 comfort the conscience, and to render thanks for so great a bless- 
 ing. For the principal cause of the institution was, that our faith 
 might then be stirred up and exercised, when we do receive this 
 pledge of God’s grace. Besides, the institution ordaineth, that 
 there should be a communication; that is, that the ministers 
 of the Church should give unto others the body and blood of 
 the Lord. And that this order was observed in the primitive 
 Church, St. Paul is witness to the Corinthians, when as he com- 
 mandeth, “‘ that one should stay for another” (1 Cor. xi., 38), 
 that there might be a common partaking of the sacrament. 
 
 Now that the abuses of the private mass be discovered (foras- 
 much as they all, for the most part, were used by way of applica- 
 tion for the sins of other men, and do not agree with the institution 
 of Christ), therefore they are left off in our churches. And there 
 is one common mass appointed, according to the institution of 
 Christ, wherein the pastors of the churches do consecrate for 
 themselves,* and give unto others, the sacrament of the body and 
 blood of Christ. And this kind of mass is used every holy-day,t 
 and other days also, if any be desirous to use the sacrament. 
 Yet none are admitted to the communion, except they be first 
 tried and examined. We adjoin, moreover, godly sermons, 
 according as Christ commanded, that there should be sermons 
 when this ceremony is used. And in such sermons, as men are 
 taught diligently in other articles and precepts of the Gospel, so 
 are they also put in mind for what use the sacrament was insti- 
 tuted ; to wit, not that these ceremonies should merit for them 
 remission of sins by the bare work done, but that the sacrament 
 
 * By the name of consecration we understand no other thing, than the use of 
 Christ’s ordination, by whose blessing and power the elements are sanctified unto us ; 
 whereof dependeth the whole force and dignity of the sacraments. 
 
 + Of holy-days is spoken afterwards in the sixteenth section. But in our churches 
 certain days by public warning are appointed, wherein if any refuse to receive the 
 Supper, they answer for it in the Consistory. 
 
 παν Fe 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 98] 
 
 should be a testimony and a pledge, whereby Christ doth testify 
 that He performeth the things promised to us,* and that His 
 promises pertain unto us; that Christ giveth us His body, to 
 testify that He is effectual in us, as in His members; and His 
 blood, to testify unto us that we are washed with His blood. The 
 sacrament, therefore, doth profit them that do repent, and seek 
 comfort therein; and being confirmed by that testimony, do 
 believe that remission of sins is given them indeed, and are 
 thankful unto Christ for so great a benefit. And so the applica- 
 tion of the benefit of Christ is not by another man’s work, but by 
 every man’s own faith, and his own use of the sacrament. For "ἡ 
 when we, in our own persons, use the sacrament, Christ’s institu- 
 tion of it doth belong unto us. 
 
 This kind of use of the sacrament is holy, and to be taught in 
 the churches, as that which doth give light unto the doctrine of 
 faith, and of spiritual exercises, and of true worship, and bringeth 
 unto the consciences of the godly very great comfort and strength 
 of faith. Before these days, the Church hath been far otherwise 
 taught. Touching the use of the sacrament, there was no word of 
 anything, but that this work was to be done; but no man spake 
 anything of faith, or the comfort of consciences. And men’s con- 
 sciences were racked with over-great care and pains of confessing 
 themselves. This they took to be the purity which the Gospel 
 requireth ; whereas the Gospel doth require true fear, true faith 
 and trust, and comforteth us by the use of this sacrament, that 
 they which do truly repent, may assuredly believe that God is 
 become merciful unto them by Christ, though that our nature be 
 frail and unclean, and though that this our imperfect obedience 
 be far from the perfection of the law. 
 
 By all this that hath been said, it is clear that the mass that is 
 in use amongst us, doth agree with the institution of Christ, and 
 
 * As an instance of the sad inaccuracy with which books were edited and printed 
 two centuries ago, it may be noticed that, in both editions of the English Harmony, 
 the whole of the clause above, from the beginning of the sentence, is given twice over 
 in almost the very same words.—EpiTor. 
 
382 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the manner of the primitive Church. And, besides, it doth notably 
 lay open the true use of the sacrament. Such a common work 
 was there in the Church of old time, as Chrysostom doth witness ; 
 who saith, “ that the priest did stand at the altar, and call some 
 unto the communion, and put back others.” And, by the decrees 
 of the Nicene Synod, it is evident that some one did celebrate the 
 liturgy, as the Grecians call it, and did minister the body and 
 blood of the Lord to all the rest. For these are the words of the 
 decree: ‘‘ Let the deacons in their order, after the elders, receive 
 the holy communion of a bishop, or of an elder.” Here he doth 
 expressly say, that the priests did receive the sacrament of some 
 one that ministered it. And, before Gregory's time, there is no 
 mention of any private mass ; but, as oft as the old writers speak 
 of a mass, it is evident that they speak of a mass that was com- 
 mon. Seeing, therefore, that the rite and manner of the mass, 
 used with us, hath authority out of Scripture, and example from 
 the old Church, and that we have only rejected certain intolerable 
 abuses, we hope that the use of our churches cannot be misliked. 
 As for other indifferent rites and ceremonies, they are, for the 
 most part, observed according to the usual manner. But the 
 number of masses is not alike. ‘ Neither was it the use in old 
 times, in the churches whereunto was greatest resort, to have mass 
 every day,’ as ‘“‘ The Tripartite History,” lib. ix., cap. 38, doth 
 witness. Again saith it, “ In Alexandria, every fourth and sixth 
 day in the week, the Scriptures are read, and the doctors do 
 interpret them; and all other things are done also, except only 
 the yearly manner of oblation.” 
 
 This Article we find elsewhere placed in the Third Place, among those wherein 
 the Abuses that be changed are reckoned up, in this manner : 
 
 Of the Mass. 
 
 Our churches are wrongfully accused to have abolished the 
 mass. For the mass is retained still among us, and celebrated 
 with great reverence; yea, and almost all the ceremonies that are 
 in use, saving that, with the songs in Latin, we mingle certain 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 383 
 
 psalms in Dutch here and there, which be added for the people's 
 instruction. For, therefore, we have need of ceremonies, that they 
 may teach the unlearned, and that the preaching of God's word 
 may stir up some unto the true fear, trust, and invocation of God. 
 This is not only commanded by St. Paul, to use a tongue that the 
 people understand (1 Cor. xiv., 9), but man’s law hath also ap- 
 pointed it. We use the people to receive the sacrament together, 
 if so be any be found fit thereunto. And that is a thing that doth 
 increase the reverence and due estimation of the public ceremonies. 
 For none are admitted, except they be first proved and tried. Be- 
 sides, we use to put men in mind of the worthiness and use of a 
 sacrament, how great comfort it bringeth to fearful consciences ; 
 _ that they may learn to believe God, and to look for and crave all 
 good things at His hands. This worship doth please God: such 
 an use of the sacrament doth nourish piety towards God. There- 
 fore it seemeth not that masses be more religiously celebrated 
 among our adversaries than with us. 
 
 But it is evident that, of long time, this hath been the public 
 and most grievous complaint of all good men, that masses are 
 filthily profaned, being used for gain. And it is not unknown 
 how far this abuse hath spread itself in all churches; of what 
 manner of men masses are used, only for a reward, or for wages ; 
 and how many do use them against the prohibition of the canons. 
 And Paul doth grievously threaten those which handle the Lord's 
 Supper unworthily, saying, “He that shall eat this bread, or 
 drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body 
 and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. xi., 27). Therefore, when we 
 admonished the priests of this sin, private masses were laid aside 
 among us, seeing that for the most part there were no private 
 masses but only for lucre’s sake. Neither were the bishops igno- 
 rant of these abuses, who, if they had amended them in time, there 
 had now been less dissension. Heretofore, by their dissembling, 
 they suffered much corruption to creep into the Church; now 
 they begin, though it be late, to complain of the calamities of the 
 Church ; seeing that this hurly-burly was raised up by no other 
 
384 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 mean than by those abuses, which were so evident, that they could 
 no longer be tolerated. There were many dissensions, concerning 
 the mass and the sacrament. And, peradventure, the world is 
 punished for so long a profaning of masses, which they, who both 
 could and ought to have amended it, have so many years tolerated 
 in their churches. For, in the Ten Commandments, it is written, 
 “ He that abuseth the name of the Lord, shall not escape un- 
 punished” (Hod. xx.,7). And, from the beginning of the world, 
 there neither was nor is any divine thing, which might seem so to 
 be employed to gain, as is the mass. 
 
 There was added an opinion, which did increase private masses 
 infinitely ; to wit, that Christ, by His passion, did satisfy for 
 original sin, and appointed mass, wherein an oblation should be 
 made for daily sins, both mortal and venial. Hereupon a common 
 opinion was received, that mass is a work that taketh away the 
 sins of the quick and the dead, and that for the doing of the work. 
 Here men began to dispute, whether one mass said for many were 
 of as great force as particular masses said for particular men. 
 This disputation hath brought forth an infinite multitude of 
 masses. Concerning these opinions our preachers have admo- 
 nished us, that they do disagree from the holy Scriptures, and 
 hurt the glory of the passion of Christ. For the passion of Christ 
 was an oblation and satisfaction, not only for original sin, but 
 also for all other sins; as it is written in the Epistle to the He- 
 brews: “We are sanctified by the oblation of Jesus Christ once 
 made ;” also, “ΒΥ one oblation He hath made perfect for ever 
 those that are sanctified” (Heb. x., 10, 14). Also the Scripture 
 teacheth, that we are justified before God through faith in Christ, 
 when we believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ His sake. 
 Now, if the mass do take away the sins of the quick and the dead, 
 even for the work's sake that is done, then justification cometh 
 by the work of masses, and not by faith, which the Scripture 
 cannot away withal. But Christ commandeth us “to do it m 
 remembrance of Himself” (Luke xxii., 19); therefore the mass is 
 instituted, that faith, in them which use the sacrament, may 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 385 
 
 remember what benefits it receiveth by Christ, and that it may 
 raise and comfort a fearful conscience. For this is to remember 
 Christ—to wit, to remember His benefits—and to feel and perceive 
 that they be indeed exhibited unto us. Neither is it sufficient to 
 call to mind the history ; because that the Jews, also, and the 
 wicked, can do that. Therefore the mass must be used to this 
 end, that there the sacrament may be reached unto them that 
 have need of comfort; as Ambrose saith, ‘‘ Because I do always 
 sin, therefore I ought always to receive a medicine.” And, seeing 
 that the mass is such a communion of the sacrament, we do ob- 
 serve one common mass every holy-day, and on other days, if any 
 will use the sacrament, when it is offered to them which desire it. 
 Neither is this custom newly brought into the Church. For the 
 ancient Fathers, before Gregory's time, make no mention of any 
 private mass: of the common mass they speak much. Chrysos- 
 tom saith, ‘‘ that the priest did daily stand at the altar, and call 
 some unto the communion and put back others.” And, by the 
 ancient canons, it 15 evident that some one did celebrate the mass, 
 of whom other elders and deacons did receive the body of the 
 Lord. For so the words of the Nicene canon do sound: “ Let 
 the deacons in their order, after the elders, receive the holy com- 
 munion of a bishop or of an elder.” And Paul, concerning the 
 communion, commandeth, “that one tarry for another” (1 Cor. 
 xi., 83), that so there may be a common participation. Seeing, 
 therefore, that amongst us the mass hath the example of the 
 Church, out of the Scripture, and the Fathers, we hope that it 
 cannot be disliked ; especially for that our public ceremonies are 
 kept of us, the most part, alike unto the usual ceremonies: only 
 the number of masses is not alike, the which, by reason of very 
 great and manifest abuses, it were certainly far better to be moder- 
 ated. “For in times past, also, in the churches whereunto was 
 greatest resort, it was not the use to have mass said every day,’ 
 as the ‘“‘ Tripartite History,” lib. ix., cap. 88, doth witness. Again 
 saith it, “ In Alexandria, every fourth and sixth day of the week, 
 
 the Scriptures are read, and the doctors do interpret them; and 
 3D 
 
386 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 all other things are done, also, except only the yearly manner of 
 oblation. 
 
 Also, Article 2. Of both kinds of the Sacrament. 
 
 And, forasmuch as we do celebrate the common mass, that the 
 people may understand that they, also, are sanctified through the 
 blood of Christ, and learn the true use of this ceremony ; either © 
 part of the sacrament in the Supper of the Lord is given to the 
 laity; because the sacrament was instituted, not only for a part 
 of the Church, namely, for elders, but also for the rest of the 
 Church. And, therefore, the people doth use the sacrament, as 
 Christ appointed it. And certainly Christ saith, ‘‘ Drink all ye 
 of this” (Matt. xxvi., 27), where He saith manifestly, concerning 
 the cup, that all should drink. And that no man might cavil, 
 that it doth only appertain to the priests, the ordinance of Paul to 
 the Corinthians doth witness, that the whole Church did use either 
 part in common. This custom remained a long time, even in the 
 latter churches ; neither is it certain when, or by what author, it 
 was changed. Cyprian, in certain places, doth witness, that the 
 blood was given to the people; for thus he writeth to Cornelius 
 the Pope: “‘ How do we teach or provoke them to shed their 
 blood in the confession of His name, if we deny the blood of 
 Christ to them which are in this warfare ? or how shall we make 
 them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them, 
 by the right of communication, to drink in the Church the cup of 
 the Lord?” And Jerome saith, ‘‘ The priests do minister the 
 Eucharist, and divide the blood of the Lord to the people.” In 
 the decrees there is a canon of Pope Gelasius, which forbiddeth 
 the sacrament to be divided: these be the words—“ We do under- 
 stand that certain men, having received the portion of the holy 
 body only, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood ; who, be- 
 cause that I know not by what superstition they are taught to be 
 tied hereunto, either let them unfeignedly receive the whole sacra- 
 ments, or let them be put back from the whole sacraments, because 
 that one and the self-same mystery cannot be divided without 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 387 
 
 great sacrilege.” In the “ Tripartite History,” it is written, in 
 reprehension of Theodosius, the emperor (whom Ambrose would 
 not admit to the communion without repentance, because that, at 
 Thessalonica, he had too grievously revenged the death of a few 
 soldiers which were slain in an uproar, and had murdered seven 
 thousand citizens),— here saith Ambrose: ‘“ How canst thou, 
 with these hands, receive the holy body of the Lord ? with what 
 rashness canst thou take into thy mouth the cup of that holy 
 blood ?’ &c. Therefore it is evident, that it was the custom of the 
 ancient Church to give either part of the sacrament to the people ; 
 only a new start-up custom doth take away one part from the 
 people. Here we will not dispute what men are to think con- 
 cerning a received custom, contrary to the authority of the apos- 
 tolic Scripture, contrary to the canons, and contrary to the example 
 of the primitive Church. For all godly men do understand that, 
 touching Christian doctrine, consciences are to ask counsel at the 
 word of the Lord, and that no custom is to be allowed which is 
 contrary to the word of God. And although, in the Latin Church, 
 custom hath changed the ancient manner, yet it doth not disallow 
 or forbid it ; neither, indeed, ought human authority to forbid the 
 ordinance of Christ, and the most received custom of the ancient 
 Church. Therefore we have not thought it good to forbid the 
 use of the whole sacrament. And in that ceremony, which ought 
 to be the covenant of mutual love in the Church, we would not, 
 contrary to charity, be hard to other men’s consciences, which 
 had rather use the whole sacrament; neither did we think that 
 any cruelty should be exercised in that matter: but so much as 
 in us lieth, together with the ceremony, we have restored the holy 
 doctrine touching the fruit of the ceremony, that the people may 
 understand how the sacrament is laid before them, to comfort the 
 consciences of them that do repent. This doctrine doth allure 
 the godly to the use and reverence of the sacrament. For not 
 only the ceremony was before maimed, but also the chief doctrine, 
 touching the fruit thereof, was utterly neglected. And, peradven- 
 ture, the maiming of the ceremony did signify, that the Gospel 
 
388 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 touching the blood of Christ (that is, the benefit of Christ His 
 death) was obscured. Now, by the benefit of God, the pure doc- 
 trine concerning faith, together with this ceremony, is renewed 
 and restored. 
 
 This Article we find placed elsewhere in the First Place, amongst those wherein 
 the Abuses which are changed are reckoned, after this manner : 
 
 Of Both Kinds. 
 
 Either kind of the Sacrament in the Lord’s Supper is given to 
 the laity, because that this custom hath the commandment of the 
 Lord, “ Drink all ye of this” (Matt. xxvi., 27), where Christ doth 
 manifestly command concerning the cup, that all should drink. 
 And that no man might cayil, that it doth only appertain to the 
 priests, the example of Paul to the Corinthians doth witness, that 
 the whole Church did use either part in common (1 Cor. xi., 28). 
 This custom remained a long time, even in the latter churches ; 
 neither is it certain when, or by what author, it was changed. 
 Cyprian, in certain places, doth witness that the blood was given 
 to the people: the same thing doth Jerome testify, saying, ‘‘ The 
 priests do minister the sacrament, and distribute the blood of 
 Christ to the people.” Yea, Gelasius the Pope commandeth, that 
 the sacrament be not divided. (Dist. 2. De Consecr. Cap. Com- 
 perimus.) Only a new custom, brought in of late, doth otherwise. 
 But it is manifest that a custom, brought in contrary to the com- 
 mandments of God, is not to be allowed, as the canons do witness 
 (Dist. 8. Cap. Veritate), with that which followeth. Now this 
 custom is received, not only against the Scripture, but also against 
 the ancient canons and the example of the Church. Therefore, if 
 any had rather use both parts of the sacrament, they were not to 
 be compelled to do otherwise with the offence of their conscience. 
 And, because that the parting of the sacrament doth not agree 
 with the institution of Christ,* we use to omit that procession 
 which hitherto hath been in use. 
 
 * This, verily, is one cause why the carrying about of the sacrament is condemned ; 
 yet neither the only cause nor the chiefest. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 389 
 
 X.—FROM THE CONFESSION OF SAXONY. 
 Article 14. Of the Holy Supper of the Lord. 
 
 The Confession of Saxony was written in Latin in the year 1551, in the 
 behalf of the Saxon churches, by Master Philip Melancthon, that it might 
 be presented to the Council of Trent ; to which not only the Saxon and 
 Meissen churches, but also very many other, did subscribe, as if to the Con- 
 fession of Augsburg repeated. 
 
 Both baptism and the Supper of the Lord are pledges and tes- 
 timonies of grace, as was said before, which do admonish us of 
 the promise, and of our whole redemption, and do shew that the 
 benefits of the Gospel do pertain to every one of those that use 
 these ceremonies. But yet here is the difference: by baptism 
 every one is ingrafted into the Church ; but the Lord would have 
 the Supper of the Lord to be also the sinew of the public congre- 
 gation, &. The rest that followeth, pertaineth to the Fifteenth 
 Section, till you come to these words that follow :—Even as, 
 also, in the very words of the Supper, there is a promise included ; 
 seeing He commandeth that the death of the Lord should be shewed 
 forth, and this Supper distributed, till He come (1 Cor. xi., 26). 
 
 That, therefore, we may use this sacrament with the greater 
 reverence, let the true causes of the institution thereof be well 
 weighed, which pertain to the public congregation, and to the 
 comfort of every one. The first cause is this: The Son of God 
 will have the voice of His Gospel to sound in a public congrega- 
 tion, and such an one as is of good behayiour. The bond of this 
 congregation He will have this receiving to be, which is to be 
 done with great reverence, seeing that there a testimony is given 
 of the wonderful conjunction betwixt the Lord and the receivers ; 
 of which reverence Paul speaketh, saying, “ He that receiveth 
 unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” 
 (1 Cor. xi., 27). Secondly, he will have both the sermon and 
 the ceremony itself, to be profitable, both for the preservation, 
 and also for the propagation of the memory of His passion, resur- 
 rection, and benefits. Thirdly, He will have every receiver to be 
 singularly confirmed by this testimony, that he may assure him- 
 
390 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 self that the benefits of the Gospel do pertain to him, seeing that 
 the sermon is common; and by this testimony, and by this 
 receiving, He sheweth that thou art a member of His, and that 
 thou art washed in His blood, and that He doth make this cove- 
 nant with thee, “ Abide in me, andI in you” (John xy., 4): also, 
 “1 in them, and they in me” (John xvii., 23). Fourthly, He 
 will have this public receiving to be a confession, whereby thou 
 mayest shew what kind of doctrine thou dost embrace, and to 
 what company thou dost join thyself. Also, He will have us to 
 give thanks, publicly and privately, in this very ceremony, to God 
 the Eternal Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, both 
 for other benefits, and, namely, for this infinite benefit of our 
 redemption and salvation. Also, He will that the members of the 
 Church should have a bond of mutual love among themselves. 
 Thus we see that many ends do meet together. By the remem- 
 brance of these weighty causes, men are invited to the reverence 
 and use of the sacrament; and we teach how the use may be 
 profitable. We do plainly condemn that monstrous error of the 
 monks, who have written, that the receiving doth deserve remis- 
 sion of sins, and that for the work's sake, without any good 
 motion of him that useth it. This pharisaical imagination is 
 contrary to that saying, “The just shall live by His faith” (Had. 
 11., 4). Therefore, we do thus instruct the Church, that they 
 which will approach to the Supper of the Lord, must bring 
 repentance or conversion with them; and, having their faith now 
 kindled, must here seek the confirmation of this faith, in the con- 
 sideration of the death, and resurrection, and benefits of the Son 
 of God; because that, in the use of this sacrament, there is a 
 witness borne, which declareth that the benefits of the Son of 
 God do pertain to thee also; and there is a witness that He 
 joineth thee as a member to Himself, and that He is in thee;* as 
 He said, “ I in them,” &c. (John xvii., 23). Therefore we give 
 
 * This we admit, touching the spiritual efficacy, not concerning the very essence of 
 the flesh; the which is now in heaven, and nowhere else; as hath been before shewed 
 in the first observation upon the Confession of Augsburg. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 39] 
 
 counsel, that men do not think that their sins be forgiven them 
 for this work’s sake, or for this obedience; but that in a sure 
 confidence they behold the death and merit of the Son of God, 
 and His resurrection, and assure themselves that their sins are 
 forgiven for His sake, and that He will have this faith to be 
 confirmed by this admonition and testimony. When as faith, 
 comfort, joy of conscience, and thanksgiving, do, after this sort, 
 increase, the receiving is profitable. Neither are any admitted to 
 the communion, except they be first heard and absolved of the 
 pastor, or his fellow-ministers. In this trial the ruder sort are 
 asked, and oftentimes instructed, touching the whole doctrine ; 
 and then is absolution published. 
 
 Also men are taught, that sacraments are actions instituted of 
 God; and that without the use whereunto they are ordained, the 
 things themselves are not to be accounted for a sacrament; but 
 that, in the use appointed, Christ is present in this communion, 
 truly and substantially,* and the body and blood of Christ indeed 
 given to the receivers; that Christ doth witness that He is in 
 them, and doth make them His members;t and that He doth 
 wash them in His blood: as Hilary also saith, “ These things, 
 being eaten and drunk, do cause, both that we may be in Christ, 
 and that Christ may be in us, 
 
 Moreover, in the ceremony itself, we observe the usual order of 
 the whole ancient Church, both Latin and Greek. We use no 
 private masses; that is, such wherein the body and blood of 
 Christ was not distributed: as also the ancient Church, for many 
 years after the apostles’ times, had no such masses; as the old 
 descriptions, which are to be found in Dionysius, Epiphanius, 
 Ambrose, Augustine, and others, do shew. And Paul doth com- 
 mand that the communion should be celebrated when many do 
 meet together (1 Cor. xi., 33). Therefore, in the public congre- 
 
 * See the first and second observation upon the Confession of Augsburg. 
 
 + Both these also we do embrace, as is contained in the word of God; namely, so 
 that this whole dwelling be by His power and efficacy, and that the flesh of Christ be 
 
 communicated unto us, yet after a spiritual and mystical manner; as hath been de- 
 clared of us before, both in the Confession of Bohemia and of Augsburg. 
 
392 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 gation, and such as is of good behaviour, prayers and the creed 
 are rehearsed or sung, and lessons, appointed usually for holy- 
 days, are read. After that, there is a sermon of the benefits of 
 the Son of God, and of some part of doctrine, as the order of time 
 doth minister an argument. Then the pastor doth rehearse a 
 thanksgiving, and a prayer for the whole Church, for them that 
 are in authority, and as the present necessity requireth ; and he 
 prayeth to God that, for His Son’s sake, whom He would have to 
 be made a sacrifice for us, He would forgive us our sins, and save 
 us, and gather and preserve a Church. ‘Then he rehearseth the 
 words of Christ, concerning the institution of the Supper; and he 
 himself taketh, and distributeth to the receivers, the whole sacra- 
 ment; who come reverently thereunto, being before examined and 
 absolved, and there they join theirs with the public prayers. In 
 the end they do again give thanks. All men, which are not alto- 
 gether ignorant of antiquity, do know that this rite and this com- 
 munion doth, for the most part, agree with the writings of the 
 apostles, and with the custom of the ancient Church, even almost 
 to Gregory's time. Which thing being so, the custom of our 
 churches is to be approved, not to be disallowed ; but our adversa- 
 ries, misliking our custom, do defend many errors, some more 
 foul and gross, others coloured with new deceit. 
 
 Many heretofore have written, that in the mass there is an 
 oblation made for the quick and the dead; and that it doth 
 deserve remission of sins, both for him that maketh it, and for 
 others, even for the work’s sake. And this persuasion of very 
 many was, and yet is, like unto that of the Pharisees and the 
 heathen. For after the same manner the Pharisees and the 
 heathen did dream, that they, for the work’s sake, did deserve, for 
 themselves and for others, remission of sins, peace, and many 
 other good things. Or although those, which were not so blind, 
 did speak more modestly, and say that they did deserve, but not 
 without the good intention of the sacrificer ; yet they imagined 
 that those sacrifices were merits, and a ransom. By reason of 
 this opinion, there were a multitude of sacrifices, and the crafty 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 393 
 
 means of gain were increased. Such is the merchandise of masses, 
 and the profanation of the Lord’s Supper, almost throughout the 
 whole world. But God will have corrupt kinds of worship to be 
 reproved and abolished. Therefore we do simply, and indeed, 
 propound the voice of God, which doth condemn those errors ; 
 and with all our heart we affirm before God, and the whole 
 Church in heaven and in earth, that there was one only sacri- 
 fice propitiatory, or whereby the wrath of the Eternal Father 
 against mankind is pacified: to wit, the whole obedience of the 
 Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified and raised 
 up again. ‘This is that only ‘“‘ Lamb, which taketh away the 
 sins of the world” (John i., 29). Of this only sacrifice it is said, 
 * By one only sacrifice He made perfect for ever those that are 
 sanctified ” (Heb. x., 14). And this sacrifice is applied to every 
 one, by their own faith, when they hear the Gospel, and use the 
 sacraments. As Paul saith, ‘‘ Whom God hath set forth to be a 
 reconciliation through faith in His blood” (Rom. 111., 25). And 
 Habakkuk : “The just shall live by His faith” (Had. ii., 4). And 
 Peter, ‘“ Being sanctified by the Spirit, unto obedience, and 
 sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet.1., 2). Other 
 sacraments in the Old Testament were typical; whereof we shall 
 speak more at large in their place: and they did not deserve any 
 remission of sins. And all the righteousness of holy men at all 
 times were, are, and shall be sacrifices of praise; which do not 
 deserve remission, either for them that offer them, or for others. 
 But they are services which every one ought to perform, and are 
 acceptable to God for the mediator, and our high priest, the Son 
 of God, His sake; as it is said, “‘ By Him we offer the sacrifice 
 of praise always to God” (Hed. xiii., 15). 
 
 That this is an unchangeable and eternal truth, it is most 
 manifest. And whereas certain fragments, which they call the 
 canons of the mass are alleged against this so clear light of the 
 truth, itis also manifest that the Greek and Latin canons are very 
 unlike the one to the other; and that the Greek canons do dis- 
 
 agree among themselves in the most weighty matter ; and that, in 
 3 5 
 
394 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the Latin canon, many jaggs and pieces were, by little and little, 
 patched together of ignorant authors. The ancient Church doth 
 use the names of sacrifice and oblation: but thereby it under- 
 standeth the whole action, prayers, reception, remembrance, faith, 
 confession, and thanksgiving. This whole inward and outward 
 action, in every one that is turned to God, and in the whole Church, 
 is indeed a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving, and a reasonable 
 service. And when the Lord saith, “The true worshippers shall 
 worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John iv., 23), he 
 affirmeth, that in the New Testament outward sacrifices are not 
 commanded ; which, of necessity, should be made, although there 
 were no motions of the Holy Ghost in the heart ; as in the law 
 it was necessary that the ceremony of the passover should be 
 kept. But touching the Supper of the Lord, it is said, “ Let 
 every man examine himself,” &c. (1 Cor. xi., 28). So the Supper 
 of the Lord doth profit him that useth it, whereas he bringeth 
 with him repentance and faith; and another man’s work doth 
 nothing at all profit him. 
 
 Furthermore, concerning the dead, it is manifest that all this 
 shew is repugnant to the words of the institution of the Supper, 
 wherein it is said, ‘‘ Take ye, eat ye,” &c. (Mark xiv., 22). “Do 
 ye this in remembrance of me” (Luke xxii., 19). What doth this 
 appertain to the dead, or to those that be absent? And yet, in a 
 great part of Europe, many masses are said for the dead: also a 
 sreat number, not knowing what they do, do read masses for a 
 reward. But seeing that all these things are manifestly wicked, 
 (to wit, to offer, as they speak, to the end that they may deserve 
 for the quick and the dead; or for a man to do he knoweth not 
 what), they do horribly sin that retaim and defend these mischievous 
 deeds. And seeing that this ceremony is not to be taken for a 
 sacrament without the use whereunto it was ordained, what manner 
 of idol worship is there used, let godly and learned men consider. 
 Also it is a manifest profanation, to carry about part of the 
 Supper of the Lord, and to adore it; where a part is utterly trans- 
 ferred to an use clean contrary to the first institution ; when, as 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 395 
 
 the text saith, “ Take, eat” (Mark xiv., 22); and this shew is but 
 a thing devised of late. To conclude: what be the manners of 
 many priests and monks in all Europe, which have no regard of 
 this saying, “ Let every man examine himself:” also, “‘ Whoso- 
 ever taketh it unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood 
 of the Lord ?” (1 Cor. xi., 27, 28). Every man of himself doth 
 know these things. 
 
 Now, although the chief-priests and hypocrites, who seek delu- 
 sions to establish these evils, do scoff at these complaints ; yet it 
 is most certain that God is grievously offended with these wicked 
 deeds, as He was angry with the people of Israel for their pro- 
 fanations of the sacrifices. And we do see evident examples of 
 wrath; to wit, the ruins of so many kingdoms, the spoil and waste 
 that the Turks do make in the world, the confusions of opinions, 
 and many most lamentable dissipations of churches, But, O Son 
 of God, Lord Jesus Christ, which wast crucified and raised up 
 again for us; thou which art the High Priest of the Church; with 
 true sighs we beseech Thee that, for Thine and Thy eternal Father's 
 glory, Thou wouldest take away idols, errors, and abominations. 
 And, as Thou Thyself didst pray, Sanctify us with Thy truth, and 
 kindle the light of Thy Gospel, and true invocation, in the hearts 
 of many ; and bow our hearts to true obedience, that we may 
 thankfully praise Thee in all eternity! The greatness of our sins, 
 which the profanation of the Supper of the Lord these many years 
 hath brought forth, doth surpass the eloquence of angels and 
 men ! 
 
 We are, herein, the shorter, seeing that no words can be devised 
 sufficient to set out the greatness of this thing; and, in this great 
 grief, we beseech the Son of God, that He would amend these 
 evils; and, also, for a further declaration, we offer ourselves to 
 them that will hear it. But, in this question, we see that to be 
 chiefly done, which Solomon saith, ‘“ He that singeth songs to a 
 wicked heart, is like him that poureth vinegar upon nitre” (Prov. 
 xxv., 20). Our adversaries know, that these persuasions of their 
 sacrifice are the sinews of their power and riches; therefore they 
 will hear nothing that is said against it. Some of them do now 
 
396 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 learn craftily to mitigate these things, and, therefore, they say, 
 the oblation is not a merit, but an application ; they deceive in 
 words, and retain still the same abuses. But we said before, that 
 every one doth by faith apply the sacrifice of Christ to himself, 
 both when he heareth the Gospel, and then, also, when he useth 
 the sacraments ; and it is written, “ Let every man examine him- 
 self” (1 Cor. xi., 28). Therefore Paul doth not mean that the 
 ceremony doth profit another that doth not use it. And the Son of 
 God Himself did offer up Himself, going into the holy of holies, 
 that is, into the secret counsel of the Divinity, seeing the will of 
 the eternal Father, and bearing His great wrath, and understanding 
 the causes of this wonderful counsel. These weighty things are 
 meant, when the text saith, “ He offered Himself” (Hed. ix., 26), 
 and when it saith, ‘‘ He will make his soul an offering for sin” 
 (Isa. lili., 10). Now, therefore, what do the priests mean, who 
 say that they offer up Christ? And yet antiquity never spake 
 after this manner. But they do most grievously accuse us. They 
 say, that we do take away the continual sacrifice, as did Antiochus, 
 who was a type of antichrist. We answered before, that we do 
 retain the whole ceremony of the apostolic Church ; and this is 
 the continual sacrifice, that the sincere doctrine of the Gospel 
 should be heard, that God should be truly invocated ; to conclude, 
 as the Lord saith, it is ‘‘ to worship the Father in spirit and in 
 truth” (John iv., 28), we do, also, herein comprehend the true use 
 of the sacraments. Seeing that we do retain all these things 
 faithfully, we do with great reverence retain the continual sacri- 
 fice: they do abolish it, who many ways do corrupt true invo- 
 cation, and the very Supper of the Lord; who command us to 
 invocate dead men ; who set out masses to sale; who boast, that 
 by their oblation they do merit for others; who do mingle many 
 mischievous errors with the doctrine of repentance and remission 
 of sins ; who will men to doubt, when they repent, whether they be 
 in favour; who defile the Church of God with filthy lusts and 
 idols. These men be like unto Antiochus, and not we, who 
 endeavour to obey the Son of God, who saith, “If any man 
 loveth me, he will keep my word” (John xiv., 23). 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 397 
 
 “Article 15. Of the Use of the whole Sacrament. 
 
 Let sophistry be removed from the judgments of the Church. 
 All men know that the Supper of the Lord is so instituted, that 
 the whole sacrament may be given to the people ; as it is written, 
 “ Drink all ye of this” (Matt. xxvi., 27). Also the custom of the 
 ancient Church, both Greek and Latin, is well known. Therefore 
 we must confess that the forbidding of one part is an unjust 
 thing. It is great injury to violate the lawful testament of men ; 
 why, then, do the bishops violate the testament of the Son of God, 
 which He hath sealed with His blood? But it is to be lamented 
 that certain men should be so impudent as to feign sophistry 
 against this so weighty an argument, that they may establish their 
 prohibition ; the refutation of whom, the matter being so clear 
 and evident, we do omit. 
 
 In another place this Article is not distinguished from that 
 which went before, but is thus joined with it :—To conclude, we 
 must also speak in few things of the use of the whole sacrament. 
 Let sophistry be removed, &c. 
 
 XI.—FROM THE CONFESSION OF WIRTEMBURG. 
 Chapter 19. Of the Eucharist. 
 
 The Confession of Wirtemburg was presented of the most renowned Prince 
 and Lord, Christopher Duke of Wirtemburg and Tecca, Earl of Montbel- 
 liard, through his ambassadors, to the assembly of the Council of Trent, the 
 24th day of the month of January, in the year 1552. 
 
 We believe and confess that the Eucharist (for so it pleased our 
 forefathers to call the Supper of the Lord) is a sacrament, insti- 
 tuted of Christ Himself, and that the use thereof is commended 
 to the Church, even to the latter end of the world. But because 
 the substance is one thing, and the use thereof another thing, 
 therefore we will speak of these in order. 
 
 Touching the substance of the Eucharist, we thus think and 
 teach; that the true body of Christ, and His true blood, is dis- 
 tributed in the Eucharist ;* and we refute them that say, that the 
 
 > 
 * Look before in the first observation upon the confession of Augsburg. 
 
3898 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 bread and wine of the Eucharist are only signs of the absent body 
 and blood of Christ.* Also, we believe that the omnipotency of 
 God is so great, that in the Eucharist He may either annihilate 
 the substance of bread and wine, or else change them into the 
 body and blood of Christ :+ but that God doth exercise this His 
 absolute omnipotency in the Eucharist, we have no certain word 
 of God for it; and it is evident, that the ancient Church was 
 altogether ignorant of it. For, as in Ezekiel, where it is said of 
 the city of Jerusalem, described on a tile,} ‘This is Jerusalem,” 
 it was not necessary that the substance of the tile should be 
 changed into the substance of the city of Jerusalem; so when it 
 is said of the bread, ‘This is my body,” it is not necessary that 
 the substance of bread should be changed into the substance of 
 the body of Christ. But for the truth of the sacrament it is 
 sufficient that the body of Christ is indeed present with the bread. 
 And indeed the very necessity of the truth of the sacrament doth 
 seem to require, that true bread should remain, with the true 
 presence of the body of Christ. For, as to the truth of the sacra- 
 
 * We do believe, out of the word of God, and by the perpetual and evident agree- 
 meut of the whole ancient and true Church, that the body of Christ hath always been, 
 is, and shall be, cireumscribed and local. Wherefore, as when He lived upon the 
 earth, He was nowhere else; so now, also, being above in heaven, He is there, and 
 nowhere else, in His substance, as Vigilius plainly affirmeth against Eutiches. Yet, 
 for all that, we do not affirm that the very body of Christ is only or simply absent, or 
 that the bread and wine are only simple and naked signs, or bare pictures, or nothing 
 else but certain tokens of Christian profession. For in such sense is there one only 
 action of the holy Supper, that yet notwithstanding it should be partly corporal, and 
 celebrated upon the earth (in which respect we doubt not to say that Christ’s body is 
 as far distant from us as heaven is from the earth); partly heavenly, the mind and 
 faith lifting up the heart unto God (in the which respect we acknowledge that the body 
 of the Lord is present in the Supper to our mind and faith). But that they be bare 
 and naked signs, how can we possibly affirm, which so often and so evidently have 
 insisted upon this, that the things signified are no less certainly given unto the mind, 
 than the signs themselves unto the body ? 
 
 + We see not how God may be said to be able to do that which is manifestly repug- 
 nant to His own will, concerning the everlasting truth of Christ’s body, as it hath been 
 opened unto us in the word of God. 
 
 } For a tile, the old translation reads the outside of a wall, apparently mistaking 
 later, in the Latin, for Jatus. But neither is the original confession free from error ; 
 for the words “Ἢ This is Jerusalem,” are not applied to the emblem of the tile in chapter 
 iv., but to that of the huir in chapter y. of Ezekiel.—Epitor. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 399 
 
 ment of baptism it is necessary that, in the use thereof, there 
 should be water, and that true water should remain; so it is 
 necessary in the Lord’s Supper, that there should be bread in the 
 use thereof, and that true bread should remain: whereas, if the 
 substance of bread were changed, we should have no proof of the 
 truth of the sacrament. Whereupon, both Paul, and also the 
 ancient ecclesiastical writers. do call the bread of the Eucharist, 
 even after consecration, bread. ‘ Let a man examine himself, 
 and so let him eat of that bread,” &c. And, ‘* Whosoever shall 
 eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,” &c. 
 (1 Cor. xi., 27, 28). And Augustine, in his Sermon to Young 
 Children, saith: “ That which you have seen, it is the bread and 
 the cup; the which thing also your eyes do witness unto you: 
 but that which your faith desireth to learn, is this; the bread is 
 the body of Christ, the cup is His blood.” 
 
 Now, as touching the use of the Encharist: first, although we 
 do not deny but that whole Christ is distributed, as well in the 
 bread as in the wine of the Eucharist ;* yet we teach that the use 
 of either part ought to be common to the whole Church. For it 
 is evident that Christ, being nothing at all terrified by any 
 dangers, which afterward human superstition invented, or by 
 other devices, gave unto His Church both parts to be used. Also, 
 it is evident that the ancient Church did use both parts for many 
 years: and certain writers do clearly witness, that they which do 
 receive bread alone, do not receive the whole sacrament sacra- 
 mentally (for so they speak); and that it is not possible to divide 
 one and the self-same mystery, without great sacrilege. Where- 
 fore, we think that the use of both parts is indeed Catholic and 
 apostolic, and that it is not lawful for any man, at his pleasure, 
 to change this institution of Christ, and a ceremony of such con- 
 
 * But we say, by the institution of God, that His body, by the delivering of the 
 bread, is given unto us as true meat; and that His blood, by the pouring of the wine, 
 is given unto us as distinctly as true drink ; yet both of them to be received with the 
 mind and with faith, and not with the mouth. Notwithstanding, that by this dispensa- 
 tion (which, in respect of the thing signified, is distinctly made, and in regard of the 
 signs themselves, severally distributed), nothing is divided in the humanity of Christ. 
 
400 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 tinuance in the ancient and true Church, and to take away from 
 the laity, as they call them, one part of the Eucharist. And it is 
 to be marvelled at, that they who profess themselves to defend 
 the ceremonies of the ancient Church, should so far swerve from 
 the ancient Church in this point. Moreover, seeing that the 
 word sacrifice is very large, and doth generally signify a holy 
 worship; we do willingly grant, that the true and lawful use of 
 the Eucharist may in this sense be called a sacrifice: howbeit 
 the Eucharist, according to the institution of Christ, is so cele- 
 brated, that therein the death of Christ is shewed forth, and the 
 sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is distributed to the 
 Church ; and so it is truly called an applying of the merit of the 
 passion of Christ, to wit, to them which receive the sacrament. 
 Neither do we condemn godly lessons, and prayers, which use 
 to go before and to follow consecration, as they call it, and the 
 dispensation of the Eucharist: yet, in the mean time, it is not 
 lawful for us to dissemble, or to allow of those errors which have 
 been added to this holy sacrament, rather by the ignorance of 
 private men, than by any lawful consent of the true Catholic 
 Church. One error is this, that of the worship, which ought to 
 be common to the Church, there is made a private action of one 
 priest; who, as he doth alone to himself mumble the words of the 
 Lord’s Supper, so also he alone doth receive the bread and wine. 
 For Christ did institute the Eucharist, not that it should be a 
 private action of one man, but that it should be a communion 
 of the Church. Therefore, to the right action of the Eucha- 
 rist, two persons at the least are requisite; to wit, the minister 
 of the Eucharist, who blesseth, and he to whom the sacra- 
 ment of the Eucharist is dispensed.* For, when Christ did 
 institute this sacrament, He did not eat thereof alone, but He did 
 dispense it to His Church, which then was present with Him, 
 saying, “ Take ye, eat ye,” &c.: and, “ Drink all ye of this,” &c. 
 
 * This we do so grant to be true, that, notwithstanding we do also know that the 
 Supper of the Lord is not private unto two, but that it appertaineth to the whole Church, 
 or at the least to some one part of the same. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 40] 
 
 (Matt. xxvi., 26,27). This institution of Christ, the ancient and 
 true Catholic Church did so severely observe, that it excommuni- 
 cated them, which, being present whilst this holy sacrament was 
 administered, would not communicate with the rest. Anacletus, 
 in his first epistle, saith, ‘‘ After that consecration is finished, let 
 all communicate, except they had rather stand without the church 
 doors ;’ and he addeth, “ For so both the apostles appointed, and 
 the holy Church of Rome keepeth it still.” Also, the Antiochian 
 Council, chapter 2, saith, ‘‘ All those which come into the Church 
 of God, and hear the holy Scriptures, but do not communicate 
 with the people in prayer, and cannot abide to receive the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord, according to a certain proper discipline, these 
 men must be cast out of the Church.” Dionysius, in his book, 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 “ De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia,” saith, “The bishop, when he hath 
 praised the divine gifts, then he prepareth the very holy and most 
 excellent mysteries. And those things which before he had 
 praised, being covered and hid under venerable signs, he bringeth 
 into sight, and, reverently shewing forth the divine gifts, both he 
 himself doth turn to the holy participation thereof, and doth exhort 
 the others to participate in them. To conclude, when the holy 
 communion is received, and delivered to all, he, rendering thanks, 
 doth make an end of these mysteries.” Therefore we think it 
 necessary to the retaining of the institution of Christ, in the cele- 
 bration of the Eucharist, and that we may follow the example of 
 the ancient and true Catholic Church, that the private masses of 
 the priests be abrogated, and that the public communion of the 
 Lord’s Supper be restored. 
 
 Another error is this, that the Eucharist is such a sacrifice as 
 ought to be offered daily in the Church, for the purging of the 
 sins of the quick and the dead, and for the obtaining of other 
 benefits, both corporal and spiritual. This error is evidently con- 
 trary to the Gospel of Christ, which witnesseth, “ That Christ, by 
 one oblation, once only made, hath made perfect for ever those 
 that be sanctified” (Hed. x., 14). And because that Christ, by 
 
 His passion and death, hath purchased remission of sins for us 
 88 
 
402 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 (which, also, is declared unto us by the Gospel in the New Testa- 
 ment), therefore it is not lawful to sacrifice any more for sin; for 
 the epistle to the Hebrews saith, “Where there is remission of 
 sins, there is no further oblation for sin” (Hed. x., 18). For 
 whereas Christ saith, ‘‘ Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 
 xxii., 19), He doth not command to offer His body and blood in 
 the Supper unto God, but to the Church; that the Church, by 
 eating the body, and drinking the blood of Christ, and by shewing 
 forth the benefit of His death, may be admonished of that oblation 
 of the body and blood of Christ, which was once only on the cross 
 for the purging of our sins. For so Paul doth interpret this saying 
 of Christ, saying, ‘So often as ye shall eat (He doth not say 
 offer) this bread, and drink this cup, shew ye forth the death of 
 the Lord, till He conte” (1 Cor. xi., 26). And truly we confess 
 tbat the ancient ecclesiastical writers did call the Eucharist a sa- 
 crifice and an oblation; but they expound themselves that, by 
 the name of sacrifice, they mean a remembrance, a shewing forth 
 or preaching of that sacrifice, which Christ did once offer upon 
 the cross; as, also, they call the memorial of the passover and of 
 pentecost, the passover and pentecost itself. 
 
 The third error is this, that many do think, that the oblation 
 (as they call it) of the Eucharist is not of itself a propitiation for 
 sins, but that it doth apply the propitiation and merit of Christ to 
 the quick and the dead. But we have already shewed, that the 
 Eucharist properly is not an oblation, but is so called, because it 
 is a remembrance of the oblation which was once made on the 
 cross. Moreover, the application of the merit of Christ is not 
 made by any other outward instrument, than by the preaching of 
 the Gospel of Christ, and by the dispensing of those sacraments 
 which Christ hath instituted for this use; and the merit of Christ, 
 being offered and applied, is not received but by faith. “‘ Preach 
 the Gospel to every creature” (for by the ministry of the Gospel 
 the benefits of Christ be offered and applied to creatures ; that is, 
 either to the Jews or to the Gentiles; and it followeth,) “He 
 that shall believe and be baptized, he shall be saved ;” (because 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 403 
 
 that by the receiving of the sacrament, and by faith, the benefits, 
 offered and applied, be received), (Mark xvi., 15, 16). ‘The 
 Gospel is the power of God to salvation, to every one that be- 
 lieveth” (Rom. i., 16), that is, the ministry of the Gospel is the 
 instrument ordained of God, whereby God is able and effectual 
 to save all those which believe the Gospel. Therefore the preaching 
 of the Gospel doth offer, or, if it liketh any man so to speak, 
 doth apply salvation to all men; but faith doth receive sal- 
 vation, offered and applied. Now, in the private mass, bread 
 and wine are so handled, that the priest doth neither pub- 
 licly declare the Gospel of Christ, but doth softly mumble 
 to himself certain words, and especially the words of the 
 Supper, or of consecration ; neither doth he distribute bread and 
 wine to others, but he alone taketh them; therefore, there can be 
 no applying of the merit of Christ in the private mass. This did 
 our true Catholic elders well perceive ; who, as we have declared 
 before, did so severely require, that they which were present at 
 the mass, and did not communicate, should be excommunicated. 
 The fourth error is this, which we have already touched ; in 
 that they do require that the words of the Supper, or of consecra- 
 tion, be rehearsed silently in the Eucharist; seeing that these 
 words are a part of that Gospel, which, according to the com- 
 mandment of Christ, is to be preached to all creatures. For, 
 although our ancestors did sometimes call the Eucharist a mys¢ery, 
 yet they did not so call it with this purpose, that they would not 
 have the words of the Supper to be rehearsed before the Church 
 in the Eucharist publicly, and in a tongue commonly known; but 
 because that in the Eucharist one thing is seen and another thing 
 understood. For Christ Himself is also calied a mystery (1 Tim. 
 11., 16); who, nevertheless, is not to be hid, but to be preached 
 to all creatures. And because that, in the receiving of the sacra- 
 ment, it is necessarily required that we should have faith, and 
 “ faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 
 x., 17); it is most necessary that, in the Eucharist, the word of 
 the Supper—that is, the word of the Son of God—should be pub- 
 
404 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 licly rehearsed : for this word is the preaching of the Gospel, and 
 the shewing forth of the death of Christ. Therefore that the 
 Church may understand what is done in the Eucharist, and what 
 is offered unto her to be received, and that she may confirm her 
 faith, it is necessary that, in the Eucharist, the words of the Lord’s 
 Supper should be rehearsed publicly. 
 
 The fifth error is this, that one part of the Eucharist is used in 
 shew of a singular worship of God, to be carried about, and to be 
 laid up. But the Holy Ghost doth forbid that any worship of 
 God should be appointed without the express commandment of 
 God. “ Ye shall not do, every one of you, that which seemeth 
 good in his own eyes” (Deué. xii., 8). And again: “ That which 
 1 command thee, that only shalt thou do to the Lord: see that 
 thou add nothing thereunto, nor detract anything from it” (ver. 
 82). And, “ in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines 
 the precepts of men” (Matéé. xv., 9). Clemens, in his “ Second 
 Epistle to James,” and “ De Consecr. Dist. 2, cap. Tribus,” saith, 
 “ Certainly let so great burnt-offerings be offered on the altar, as 
 may be sufficient for the people; but if so be that any remain till 
 the next day, let them not be kept, but with fear and trembling, 
 by the diligence of the clerks let them be consumed.” We are 
 not ignorant how they used to elude these words of Clemens, by 
 feigning a difference betwixt the work of those that are ready to 
 die, and of those that be ready to consecrate. But it is evident 
 that the bread, which useth to be carried about, and to be laid up 
 to be adored, is not reserved for those that be weak, but in the 
 end is received of them that do consecrate. Cyril, or, as others 
 think, Origen, ‘‘ Upon the Seventh Chapter of Leviticus,” saith, 
 “ For the Lord, concerning that bread which he gave to His dis- 
 ciples, said unto them, ‘ Take it, and eat it, &c. He did not 
 defer it, neither did He command it to be reserved till the next 
 day. Peradventure, there is this mystery also contained therein, 
 that He doth not command the bread to be carried in the highway, 
 that thou mayest always bring forth the fresh loaves of the word 
 of God, which thou carriest within thee,” &c. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 405 
 
 XII.—FROM THE CONFESSION OF SUEVELAND. 
 Chapter 18. Of the Eucharist. 
 
 The Confession of the Four Cities was presented, both in the German and 
 also in the Latin tongue, to the same most sacred emperor, Charles V., in 
 the same assembly held at Augsburg, in the same year, by the ambassadors 
 of the cities of Strasburg, Constance, Meinengen, and Linden. And we 
 have in the titles called it the Confession of Sueveland, for that those four 
 cities, by whom it was presented, are commonly counted neighbours to 
 Sueveland, 
 
 As touching this venerable sacrament of the body and blood of 
 Christ, all those things which the evangelists, Paul, and the holy 
 Fathers have left in writing thereof, our men do sincerely teach, 
 commend, and inculcate. And thence they do, with a singular 
 endeavour, always publish this goodness of Christ towards His 
 own, whereby He doth no less at this day than He did in that 
 His last Supper, vouchsafe to give, by the sacraments, His true 
 body and His true blood, to be eaten and to be drunk, indeed, as 
 the meat and drink of their souls, whereby they may be nourished 
 unto life eternal. He giveth it, I say, to all those who, from their 
 hearts, have given their names to be reckoned among His dis- 
 ciples, when as they do receive this Supper, according to His 
 institution ; so that now He may live and abide in them, and they 
 in Him, and be raised up by Him in the last day to a new and 
 immortal life, according to those words of eternal truth, ‘‘ Take 
 and eat, this is my body,” &c.; ‘‘ Drink all ye of this; this cup 
 is my blood,” &c. (Matt. xxvi., 26—28). Now, our preachers 
 do most diligently withdraw the minds of the people, both from 
 all contention, and also from all superfluous and curious inquiry, 
 unto that which only is profitable, and whereunto only Christ our 
 Saviour had respect; to wit, that, being fed with Him, we may 
 live in Him, and through Him, and lead such a life as is accept- 
 able to God, holy, and therefore everlasting and blessed; and 
 withal, that we, among ourselves, may be one bread and one body, 
 which are partakers of one bread in that holy Supper. Whereby 
 it cometh to pass, that we do very religiously and with a singular 
 
406 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 reverence, both administer and receive the divine sacraments ; that 
 is, the holy Supper of Christ. By these things (which are thus, 
 indeed, as we have set them down), your sacred majesty, O most 
 gracious emperor, doth know how falsely our adversaries do boast, 
 that our men do change the words of Christ, and tear them in 
 pieces by human glosses ; that in our Suppers nothing is admi- 
 nistered but mere bread and mere wine; and also that among us 
 the Supper of the Lord is contemned and rejected. For our men 
 do very carefully teach and exhort, that every man do, in a simple 
 faith, embrace these words of the Lord, rejecting all devices of 
 men, and false glosses; and, removing away all kinds of waver- 
 ing, do wholly addict their mind to the true meaning thereof; and, 
 to conclude, do oftentimes, with as great reverence as they may, 
 receive the sacraments, to be the lively food of their souls, and to 
 stir up in them a grateful remembrance of so great a benefit; the 
 which thing also useth now to be done among us, much more 
 often and reverently than heretofore was used. Moreover, our 
 preachers have always hitherto, and at this day do offer themselves 
 with all modesty and truth, to render a reason of their faith and 
 doctrine, touching all those things which they believe and teach, 
 as well about the sacrament as about other things, and that not 
 only to your sacred majesty, but also to every one that shall 
 demand it. 
 Chapter 19. Of the Mass. 
 
 Furthermore, seeing that after this manner Christ hath insti- 
 tuted His Supper, which afterward began to be called the mass ; 
 to wit, that therein the faithful, being fed with His body and 
 blood unto life eternal, should shew- forth His death, whereby 
 they are redeemed: our preachers, by this mean giving thanks, 
 and also commending this salvation unto others, could not choose 
 but condemn it, that these things were everywhere neglected. 
 And, on the other side, they which do celebrate the masses, do 
 presume to offer up Christ unto His Father for the quick and the 
 dead ; and they make the mass to be such a work, as that, by it 
 alone almost the favour of God and salvation is obtained, how- 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 407 
 
 soever they do either believe or live. Whereupon that most 
 shameful, and twice and thrice impious, sale of this sacrament 
 hath crept in; and thereby it is come to pass, that nothing at this 
 day is more gainful than the mass. Therefore, they rejected 
 private masses, because the Lord did commend this sacrament to 
 His disciples, to be used in common. Whereupon Paul com- 
 mandeth the Corinthians, when they are to celebrate the holy 
 Supper, to stay one for another; and denieth that they do 
 celebrate the Lord’s Supper, when as every man taketh His own 
 Supper whilst they be eating (1 Cor. xi., 833; 20). Moreover, 
 whereas they boast, that they do offer up Christ instead of a sacri- 
 fice, they are therefore condemned of our men, because that 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews doth plainly witness, that, as men do 
 once die, so Christ was once offered, that He might take away 
 the sins of many, and that He can no more be offered again, than 
 He may die again (Heb. ix., 25—28). And, therefore, having 
 offered one sacrifice for sins, He sitteth for ever at the right hand 
 of God, waiting for that which remaineth; to wit, that His 
 enemies, as it were a footstool, may be trodden under His feet: 
 for with one oblation hath He consecrated for ever them that are 
 sanctified (Hed. x., 12—14). 
 
 And whereas they have made the mass to be a good work, 
 whereby any thing may be obtained at God’s hands, our preachers 
 have taught, that it is repugnant to that which the Scripture doth 
 teach in every place ; that we are justified, and receive the favour 
 of God, by the Spirit of Christ, and by faith: for which matter, 
 we alleged before many testimonies out of the Scriptures. So, in 
 that the death of the Lord is not commended to the people in the 
 mass, our preachers have shewed that it is contrary to that which 
 Christ commanded, to receive these sacraments in remembrance 
 of Himself (Luke xxii., 19); and Paul, that we might shew forth 
 the death of Christ till He come (1 Cor. xi., 26). And whereas 
 many do commonly celebrate the masses, without all regard of 
 godliness, only for this cause, that they may nourish their bodies, 
 our preachers have shewed, that that is so execrable a thing before 
 
408 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 God, that if the mass, of itself, should nothing at all hinder god- 
 liness, yet worthily, and by the commandment of God, it were to 
 be abolished: the which thing is evident, even out of Isaiah only 
 (ch. ii., 18). For our God is a Spirit, and truth, and therefore 
 He cannot abide to be worshipped but in spirit and truth (John 
 iv., 24). And how grievous a thing this unreasonable selling of 
 the sacraments is unto the Lord, our preachers would have men 
 thereby to conjecture, that Christ did so sharply, and altogether 
 against His accustomed manner, taking unto Himself an external 
 
 kind of revengement, cast out of the temple those that bought | 
 
 and sold (Matt. xxi., 12): whereas they might seem to exercise 
 merchandise only in this respect, that they might further those 
 sacrifices which were offered according to the law. 
 
 Therefore, seeing that the rite of the mass, which was wont 
 to be celebrated, is so many ways contrary to the Scripture of 
 God, as also it is in every respect diverse from that which the 
 holy Fathers used, it hath been very vehemently condemned 
 amongst us out of the pulpit, and, by the word of God, been made 
 so detestable, that many, of their own accord, have altogether 
 forsaken it; and elsewhere, by the authority of the magistrate, it 
 is abrogated. The which thing we have not taken upon us for 
 any other cause than for that, throughout the whole Scripture, 
 the Spirit of God doth detest nothing so much, neither command 
 it so earnestly to be taken away, as a feigned and false worship 
 of Himself. Now, no man that hath any spark of religion im 
 him, can be ignorant, what an inevitable necessity is laid upon 
 him that feareth God, when, as he is persuaded, that God doth 
 require a thing at his hands. For any man may easily foresee 
 how many would take it at our hands, that we should change any- 
 thing about the holy rite of the mass; neither were there any 
 
 which would not rather have chosen, in this point, not only not. 
 
 to have offended your sacred majesty, but even any prince of the 
 lowest degree. But when as here withal they did not doubt, but 
 that, by that common rite of the mass, God was most grievously 
 provoked, and that His glory, for the which we ought to spend 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 409 
 
 our lives, was darkened, they could not but take it away, lest 
 that they also, by winking at it, should make themselves partakers 
 with them in diminishing the glory of God. Truly, if God is to 
 be loved and worshipped above all, godly men must tolerate 
 nothing less, than that which He doth hate and detest. And that 
 this one cause did constrain us to change certain things in these 
 points, we take Him to witness, from whom no secret is hid. 
 
 Such is the summary of Protestant doctrine, as it presents 
 itself to us in the authoritative confessions of the various leading 
 churches of Europe. To say that they are identical, would be to 
 assert more than a comparison of them would warrant: to declare 
 them all at variance, and little consistent with each other, would 
 be to hazard an assertion destitute of any foundation in truth. 
 It may fearlessly be asserted that, in all important points, they 
 agree, whether in profession or protestation. They generally 
 agree in what they require and what they reject. This could 
 surely not have been the result of accident; for to suppose that 
 men, far removed from each other, of different nations and of dif- 
 fering speech, should, by some hap-hazard good fortune, come to 
 such agreement, is to ignore all our experience of human affairs. 
 This agreement has been before noticed, not as first existing in 
 the sixteenth century, but in the antecedent succession of ages, 
 wher occasions called for confessions and protestations. 
 
 It is unnecessary for me to indicate the origin of this common 
 agreement in the positive and the negative of Protestant confes- 
 sions. That is sufficiently seen in the one only recognised basis 
 of authority among them all; viz., the Holy Scriptures. There 
 may be differences as to the amount of deference to be allowed to 
 Church authority, or the independency of private judgment, and 
 the sophistry of adversaries may make much of such differences ; 
 but the proof of the consent of common sense with Church 
 authority, and the absence of practical difficulty, whatever of 
 theoretical men may conjure up, shew that the word of God is 
 
 a safe guide, not leading to confusion, but to peace and unity in 
 3.6 
 
410 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the churches of the saints. It was a simple knowledge of the 
 Scriptures, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which brought 
 about the work of the Reformation, and made it what itis. On 
 the subject of the Lord’s Holy Supper, the several expressions are 
 consentaneous, and all fearlessly referred for their authority to 
 the unerring Word. Adhering to the same, whatever verbal 
 alterations the lapse of time may make desirable, or even neces- 
 sary, no man need be afraid of the divine authority of his faith, 
 nor, if held in sincerity, can such faith be unproductive of good 
 works. Here faith and its fruits have been seen for centuries, 
 in happy combination and vigorous exercise, bringing glory to 
 God and happiness to man, while the system to which our doc- 
 trine is opposed has been openly proved the blight of the creature's 
 happiness, and the annihilation of the glory of the Creator. I 
 will now proceed to shew that there were other churches, even in 
 the middle ages, in which the fatal doctrines of Rome had no 
 influence whatever: when the attempt was made to induce or 
 compel uniformity, the effort failed, leaving us a more striking 
 evidence that the decrees of Lateran and of Trent were unknown, 
 in the earlier ages, to churches independent of Italian influences. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 41] 
 
 CHAPTER. 
 
 THE BELIEF OF THE GREEK CHURCH ON THE ARTICLE OF 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 
 
 I HAVE purposely abstained, hitherto, from producing any 
 authorities from the later Greek Church, to shew that it did not 
 agree with the Roman, because I intended to give a brief sketch 
 of its belief on the subject of our enquiry separately. I will now 
 proceed to do so, following, in great measure, Mons. Claude,* in 
 his reply to Arnaud, who has thoroughly examined every branch 
 of the subject, and very satisfactorily shewn that there is more 
 disparity between the doctrine of the Greek and Roman Churches, 
 than between the Greek and English. It will be seen, in short, 
 that the Greek Church has retained most of the phraseology of 
 the very early Greek Fathers, but that the Church of Rome has 
 run from the more sober statements of Augustine, even far beyond 
 the figurative and poetical language of the primitive Greek 
 Fathers, till they have interpreted, with the strictest literalness, 
 every flowery and imaginative expression of the first ages. 
 
 Now, the decided difference which exists between the Greek and 
 Roman Church, is plainly seen in the fact, that in no one work of 
 a pure Greek is there any such word as that of μετουσίωσις (transub- 
 stantiation) ever used, with reference to the sacramental change, 
 notwithstanding that efforts have been perseveringly sustained to 
 bring about a perfect identity of faith and confession by the Church of 
 Rome.t The Greeks, however, have adhered to their general terms, 
 
 * See Claude’s Catholic Doct. of Euch. in all Ages, book iii. 
 + Ibid, book ii., ce. 5, for instances. 
 
412 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 μεταβάλλεσθαι, μεταποίεισθαι, μεταβαίνειν, μεταῤῥυθμίζειν, μετασκευάζειν, 
 ζο. Now, when we come to consider this argument, it is of great 
 weight ; for there could be no difficulty in the use of a word by 
 the Greek Church, if that word properly expressed their belief,— 
 nay, if it had done so, it could not well have been avoided by 
 ‘their theological writers. But no such word is found in the 
 works of John Damascene, Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople, Photius, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Zonaras, Germain, 
 Balsamon, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabasilas, Mare of Ephesus, Fere- 
 rmaias the patriarch, Metrophanus, and as many others whose 
 works are extant, nor any such expression as supports the 
 idea of transubstantiation. And this will appear much more 
 remarkable, if we call to mind the definite and careful language 
 finally adopted by the Western Church, as it is seen in the decrees 
 and catechisms of councils and popes. This was clearly exem- 
 plified in the experience of Mr. Basire, who, being the king's 
 chaplain, visited the Greek Churches about the middle of the 
 seventeenth century. In writing to Mr. Claude, he says, “ The 
 Greek Church does nowhere teach transubstantiation. I mean in 
 their public symbols, confessions and catechisms, &c.; several of 
 which I have, upon this account, carefully perused, but could not 
 find in any of them the least trace either of this term of transub- 
 stantiation, or the thing itself signified thereby, which doctrine 
 was altogether unknown to the Greek Fathers. I matter not 
 some private doctors amongst them; for I know that a certain 
 monk, of the number of these false Greeks, had secretly inserted 
 μετουσίωσις (transubstantiation) in his catechism, which I saw at 
 Constantinople; but he was severely checked for it by the true 
 Greeks.’* And this difference becomes still more marked, when 
 
 * Dico in specie Ecclesiam Greecam, transubstantiationem nullibi asserere, 
 neque voce, neque re. De publicis instrumentis, puta symbolis, confessionibus, cate- 
 chismis, &c., intellegi volo: quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem, neque in eorum 
 vel unico, μετουσίωσειως vocis, ut et rei ipsius, priscis patribus Grecis prorsus ignote 
 vel vola vel vestigium. Privatos eorum doctores nil moror, quoniam non sum nescius 
 quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Grecorum hieromonachum in suam catechesin quam mihi 
 videre licuit Constantinopoli, illam vocem eTOVotwaews intrusisse, qui vel ideo yero- 
 rum Grecorum censuram haud effugit. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 418 
 
 we compare the language of the false and true Greeks; that is, of 
 those who have adopted the creed of the Church of Rome, and of 
 those who have not. In the former, there is found all that we 
 find in the writers of the West, with a constant reference to sub- 
 stance, accidents, &c.; but in the pure Greeks, the expressions 
 are always general, and without any special or particular references 
 of any sort. 
 
 It is also manifest that the writers of the modern Greek Church, 
 even when using strong language, did not mean to teach the 
 Romish doctrine; for they use expressions equally strong, when 
 they speak on other subjects. I will give but one instance: many 
 more may be seen in Claude's Catholic Doctrine, book iii. The 
 quotation is from Cabasilas, archbishop of Thessalonica, about the 
 year 1350. He writes: 
 
 «The Church is represented, in the mysteries of religion, not as in 
 the signs; but as the members are in the heart, the branches of the 
 tree in the root, and the vine-leaves in the vine, as speaks our Lord. 
 For here is not only a communion of names, or a reference of likeness, 
 but it is the identity of the thing itself; for the mysteries are the body 
 and blood of Jesus Christ. Now they are the real nourishment of the 
 Church, and when she partaketh of them she doth not change them 
 into a human body, hke unto other food, but she herself is changed 
 into them, μεταβάλλεται εἰς ἐκεῖνα, forasmuch as the most excellent part 
 has the predominancy. Behold the iron, when it is joined with the 
 fire, it becomes fire, and it does not make the fire become iron, for the 
 fire effaces all the properties of the iron; so, in like manner, if any one 
 could see the Church οἵ Christ in that respect, whereby it is united to 
 Him and partakes of His flesh, he would behold nothing but the body 
 of Christ; and therefore St. Paul says, you are the body of Christ and 
 each of you are His members; for, when he calls Him the head and 
 us the meinbers, he does not represent to us thereby the cares of His 
 providence, nor our subject to Him in the same sense as we call our- 
 selves the members of our parents or friends, by an hyperbolical way of 
 speaking. But he means what he says: that the faithful, by the effi- 
 cacy of the blood, live the life which is in Jesus Christ, and have their 
 real dependence on Him as their head and are clothed with His body.” 
 
 Mr. Claude, in remarking on Mr. Arnaud’s partial quoting of 
 this passage, says: “‘ It needs not now be demanded of Mr. Arnaud, 
 
414 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 why he cut short this passage of Cabasilas, seeing the reason ma- 
 nifestly appears ; for if we take but the pains to compare what he 
 alleges from this author touching the Eucharist, with what I now 
 related touching the Church, we shall soon find that these last 
 expressions are far stronger and more significant than what he says 
 concerning the sacrament. He excludes the bare communion of 
 name and resemblance between Christ and the Church, and estab- 
 lishes a perfect identity. He says the Church is changed into the 
 body and blood of Jesus Christ. He uses the comparison of iron 
 inflamed, which others apply to the Eucharist; and, as if he 
 designed to make us understand that the Church is Christ's body, 
 in a literal and complete sense, he assures us this is no hyper- 
 bole, and that St. Paul speaks the same thing. I am greatly 
 deceived, if there can be anything found so pressing and compre- 
 hensive in relation to the Eucharist, either in this author, or any 
 other of the true Greeks; and this shews, on one hand, how vain 
 and groundless Mr. Arnaud’s triumphs are, and, on the other, 
 how requisite and necessary a thing it is for men to shew the 
 substantial conversion, clearly and expressly, in the doctrines of 
 a Church, before it be concluded she believes it.”* 
 
 But that the Greeks do not believe that the consecration makes 
 the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ, in the sense in 
 which the Church of Rome receives and teaches that doctrine, is 
 at once sufficiently manifest, from the way in which they speak of, 
 and act towards, the unconsecrated elements, and particular por- 
 tions of them, specially separated. The following, from Claude's 
 ‘© Catholic Doctrine,” will shew clearly what I mean: 
 
 “« We may likewise see here another example of what I say, even in 
 the very bread of the Eucharist before its consecration. The Greeks 
 have two tables, one which they call the prothesis and the other the 
 great altar. They place on the former of these the symbols, and 
 express, by divers mystical actions, part of the economy of the Son of 
 
 God, that is to say, His birth, life, and sufferings. They solemnly 
 carry them afterwards to the great altar, where they consecrate them, 
 
 * Claude’s Cath. Doct. bk. iii. c. 2. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 415 
 
 so that, before this, it is but simple bread and wine, yet on which they 
 represent the principal passages of the life of Christ, and they say them- 
 selves that then the bread and wine are but a type or figure; yet do 
 they speak concerning them almost after the same manner before they 
 are consecrated as after. Germain, the patriarch of Constantinople, 
 calls them the body and blood of Jesus Christ; he says that the saints 
 and all the just enter with Him, and that the cherubims, angels, and 
 all the host of immaterial spirits march before Him, singing hymns and 
 accompanying the great King our Saviour Christ, who comes to His 
 mystical sacrifice and is carried by mortal hands. Behold, says he, the 
 angels that come with the holy gifts; that is to say, with the body and 
 blood of Jesus Christ, from Mount Calvary to. the sepulchre. And in 
 another place, the translation of holy things, to wit, of the body and 
 blood of Jesus Christ, which come from the prothesis, and are carried 
 to the great altar, with the chernbic hymn, signifies the entrance of our 
 Saviour, Christ, from Bethany into Jerusalem. He says, moreover, 
 that our Saviour is carried in the dish, and shews Himself in the bread, 
 Χριστὸν ἐν tw dptw ὁρώμενον. And as yet it is no more than bread 
 and wine unconsecrated. 
 
 * Arcudius observes, some call this bread the dead body of Jesus 
 Christ. He says, farther, that Gabriel de Philadelphia calls it the 
 imperfect body of Christ, and proves the symbols are called in this 
 respect, ἅγια, θέεια, αῤῥητα, Kai ἄχραντα μυστήρια, the holy, divine, and 
 unutterable mysteries, which are the same names they give them after 
 their consecration.* 
 
 «When they carry them from the prothesis to the great altar, the 
 choir loudly sing that which they call the cherubic hymn, in which are 
 these words, ‘ Let the King of kings, and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ 
 our God, draw near to be sacrificed, and given to the faithful for food.’ 
 At which time their devotion is so excessive, that Arcudius did not 
 scruple to accuse the Greeks in this respect of idolatry.} Goar clears 
 them of this crime, yet says himself that some bow, others kneel and 
 cast themselves prostrate on the ground, as being to receive the King 
 of the world invisibly accompanied with His holy angels, that all of them 
 say their prayers or recommend themselves to the prayers of the priests, 
 and that they usually speak to our Saviour Christ, as if He was _per- 
 sonally present, praying to Him, in the words of the good thief, ‘ Lord, 
 remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.’{ The priests 
 answer, ‘The Lord God be mindful of us all, now and for ever.’ 
 
 * Arcud. lib. de Euch. c. 20, 21. t Ibid. lib. iii. de Eueh. 
 + Goar in Euch. notis in Miss. Chrys. 
 
416 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 “They repeat these words without ceasing, till he that carries the 
 symbols is entered the sanctuary, and then they cry out, ‘ Blessed is 
 he that cometh in the name of the Lord.’ And yet, so far, there is not 
 any consecration, and much less a conversion of substance. 
 
 «Whilst the symbols are still on the table, they separate a particle 
 from the rest of the bread in remembrance of our Saviour, and call the 
 remainder the body of the Virgin Mary. They afterwards lay another 
 small piece on the right side of the first, in honour of the holy Virgin, 
 to the end they may say, in effect says Goar, παρέστιν ἢ βασιλίσσα ex 
 δεξιῶν σοῦ ἐν ἱματισμῷ χρυσῷ περιβλημένη πεποικιλιμένη---- The queen 
 is at Thy right hand, in a vestment of gold wrought with divers colours.’ 
 They set by another small piece in honour of St. John Baptist, another 
 in honour of the apostles, and several others for a remembrance of other 
 saints. Goar tells us, they separate nine pieces after this manner, 
 besides those of our Saviour, and the blessed Virgin His mother, and 
 that this is done to represent the whole celestial court.* They after- 
 wards carry all these to the great altar, where the consecration is per- 
 formed; but when they speak of these particles, they call one of them 
 the body of the Virgin Mary, the other the body of St. John, the other 
 the body of St. Nicholas, and after the same manner all the rest. I 
 know Goar denies they are thus called, affirming the Greeks say only 
 θεοτόκου μεσίδα, ‘the particle of the Virgin,’ and not ‘ the body of the 
 Virgin.” I know, likewise, that Arcudius seems not to be agreed in 
 this point: and perhaps the Latins have at length caused the Latinised 
 Greeks to leave this way of speaking. But Goar himself says, that 
 some amongst the Latins have been so simple to imagine, that the 
 Greeks believe the real presence of the body of the blessed Virgin in 
 her particle of bread ; and what likelihood is there persons, endued with 
 the least sense, should fall into this opinion, if the expressions of the 
 Greeks gave them not some reason for it? Arcudius assures us that, 
 in his time, there was a certain person in Poland, otherwise both pious 
 and learned, who persuaded a lady of Russia to receive no more the 
 sacrament from the hands of the priests of her religion, because they 
 administered not the body of Jesus Christ, but that of the Virgin Mary 
 and St. Nicholas, ὅθ. ἡ This man’s mistake, to whom Arcudius gives 
 another kind of character than that of a calumniator, was no otherwise 
 occasioned but by the manner of speaking usual amongst the Greeks, 
 who called these particles the body of this or the other saint. For it 
 is not likely he invented this fable himself, which is so impertinent and 
 
 * Goar in Euch, notis in Miss. Chrys. + Areud, lib. 111. de Euch, c. 9. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 417 
 
 ridiculous. Hottinger affirms,* there is to be seen in the library of 
 Zurich a manuscript, which bears the name of one Peter Numagen, in 
 which is expressly mentioned that the Greeks affirm the remainder of 
 the consecrated bread (which is to say, of that bread from whence the 
 great particle has been taken in remembrance of our Saviour, and 
 which they distribute to the people at the end of the action, calling it 
 ἀντιδωρον), to be the remainder of the body of the Virgin Mary. Guy 
 Carmus relates the same thing: ‘the thirteenth error of the Greeks,’ 
 says he, ‘is, that they affirm the remainder of the consecrated bread 
 to be the remains of the body of the blessed Virgin.’ 
 
 ‘Germain, the patriarch of Constantinople, speaks after this manner. 
 ‘We need not doubt,’ says he, ‘ but there are great spiritual blessings 
 and advantages which do follow from the communication of this bread, 
 which is the body of the blessed Virgin.’+ And the same kind of 
 expressions are to be seen in Boucher’s relation touching the Greeks. 
 ‘They all of them hold,’ says he, ‘a most ridiculous and extravagant 
 opinion ; for they believe that, under these particles of the consecrated 
 host, is really contained the body of the Virgin, after the same manner 
 as the body of her Son under the principal parts of the said host, so 
 that they receive these fragments with new prayers and preparatives in 
 honour of the mother of our Saviour.’ I do not doubt but that Boucher 
 is mistaken, as well as those mentioned by Goar, and this good man of 
 Poland, mentioned by Arcudius, in imputing to them such a ridiculous 
 superstition ; but it is certain the occasion of this charge was the manner 
 of the Greeks expressing themselves, who attribute to these fragments 
 and particles of bread the name of the body of the Virgin and saints in 
 the same manner as they call the great particle our Saviour’s body.” 
 
 Now, these passages must be really very troublesome to a 
 Romanist, for they prove too much for his doctrine. The lan- 
 guage, the procession, the prostrations, would all do very well to 
 prove all that he requires, only, unfortunately, they are used of 
 and to the bread and wine wnconsecrated, and of those portions 
 which are never consecrated for a sacramental use. It is not to 
 be denied, indeed, that these expressions, and the conduct which 
 accompanies them, are highly censurable as superstitious in them- 
 selves, and likely to convey erroneous notions; but they entirely 
 ignore the idea of a substantial transmutation, as all confess, 
 
 * Histor. Kecl., part iv., p. 20. + Theoria rer. Eccles. 
 t Sacred Nosegay, lib. iv., ὁ. 3. 
 8. 
 
418 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 though no general words could more strongly express such an 
 idea than those which have been quoted. 
 
 The next point to which I shall allude, in which the Greek 
 Church shew themselves not only not coincident with, but anta- 
 gonistic to, the Church of Rome, is in what they teach of those 
 who receive the body and blood of Christ in the holy communion. 
 It has been already shewn that Augustine, and the other early 
 Fathers, most emphatically teach that no profane person, no 
 unworthy communicant, can receive the thing signified in the 
 Lord’s Supper. It is apparent that the doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation necessarily involves the reception of the inward as well as 
 the outward part by all. Now, the Greeks are clear upon this 
 point; and if they were not, we have only to call in as witnesses 
 the writers of the Church of Rome, who have been engaged con- 
 troversially with them, to prove the point. The following will 
 shew that in this matter the Greek Church is decidedly Protestant 
 in its character, and can by no possibility believe as Trent decrees, 
 and Rome to-day teaches. 
 
 “Tt is an opinion generally received amongst the Greeks, that the 
 wicked who participate of the Eucharist, do not receive the body of 
 Jesus Christ. And that they do hold this opinion may be proved by 
 the testimony of several good authors. 
 
 “« Prateolus expressly mentions this amongst their errors. ‘They 
 affirm,’ says he, ‘that those who live in the practice of any known sin 
 do not receive the body of Jesus Christ, although they draw near to the 
 table of our Lord, and receive the consecrated bread from the hands of 
 the priest.’* 
 
 ‘«« Possevin, the Jesuit, confirms the same thing. ‘ They err,’ says 
 he, ‘in affirming those that are defiled with sin do not receive the Lord’s 
 body when they come to the altar.’+ 
 
 “Nicholas Cabasilas does fully set forth the belief of the Greek 
 Church touching this point. ‘ The causes,’ says he, ‘ of our sanctifica- 
 tion, or, if you will, the dispositions which our Saviour requires of us, 
 are purity of soul and love of God, an earnest desire to partake of the 
 sacrament, and such a thirst after it as shall make us run to it. These 
 are the things which procure our sanctification, and with which it is 
 
 * Prateol. Elen. Heresic. lib. vii., cap. de Grecis. + Possevin. in Mose. p. 49. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 419 
 
 impossible but those that come to the communion must partake of Jesus 
 Christ, and without which it is impossible they should.’* And a little 
 further, endeavouring to prove that the souls separate from their bodies, 
 do receive the same as the faithful which are living in this world, of the 
 sacrament. ‘If the soul,’ says he, ‘has no need of the body whereby 
 to receive sanctification, but on the contrary the body has need of the 
 soul, what more of the mystery do the souls receive which are clothed 
 with their bodies, than those which are stripped of them? Is it that 
 they behold the priest and receive the gifts from him? But the souls 
 that are out of the body have the eternal priest, who is to them more 
 than all these things, being the same, likewise, that administereth it to 
 them alive, who receive it as they ought to do. For all those to whom 
 the priests ‘administer it, cannot be said truly to receive it. The priest 
 administers it to ali that come to him, but our Saviour gives it only to 
 those that are worthy to partake of it; whence it clearly appears that 
 it is our Saviour alone who, by means of this sacrament, consecrates 
 and sanctifies the souls as well of the living as the dead.’ 
 
 “ Leo Allatius has made a catalogue of Simeon, the Abbot of St. 
 Mamant’s works, who lived about the end of the eleventh century, and 
 whom the Greeks call ‘Simeon the Divine.’ Now, in one of his trea- 
 tises, there is a hymn, expressly relating to this subject, before us, to 
 wit, that the wicked do not partake of the body of Jesus Christ when 
 they receive the sacrament. llatius tells us that he has seen this par- 
 ticular piece (being a manuscript), in a certain library in Italy, and that 
 the title of it is, ‘That they which receive unworthily the sacraments 
 do not receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ.’ And it is unto this 
 whereunto relates what Nilus says in his sentences, ‘ Keep yourselves 
 from all corruption, and partake every day of the mystical supper, for 
 it is after this sort that the body of Jesus Christ becomes ours.’} And 
 what we find in the verse of Psellus on the canticle of canticles, Jesus 
 Christ gives His body tu the children of the Virgin; that is to say, to 
 the Church; for thus does He speak to them (but it is only to those 
 that are worthy), whom He calls His near kindred : ‘ come, my friends, 
 eat and drink, and be merry, my brethren, you that are my brethren in 
 good works, eat my body and drink my blood.’} And these words of 
 Joanicius Cartanus, the saints are made partakers of holy things, not 
 they that are unworthy, and sinners who having not cleansed themselves 
 from their sins remain still polluted ;’ and elsewhere, ‘when we shall 
 
 * Gabisil. in explicat. Litur. cap. 2. 
 + Apud. Allat. de Simeon Nil. in par. Bibl. Patr. Greeco-Lat. tom. ii. 
 1 Comm. trium. Patr. in Cant. Cant. 
 
420 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 draw near unto God with love, fear, reverence, and repentance, and be 
 in charity with all men, then shall we be meet partakers of the body 
 and blood of Christ.’* 
 
 The reasoning of Claude upon this is irresistible, as follows: 
 “ Now, if you would know of what importance the argument is, 
 which we draw from this doctrine of the Greeks, you need but 
 read what Chifflet, the Jesuit, and others, have written touching 
 a passage of the confession attributed to Alcuinus, which bears, 
 ‘That the virtue of this sacrifice is so great, that it is the body 
 and blood of Jesus Christ only to the just sinners; tanta est 
 virtus hujus sacrificii ut solis Justis peccatoribus corpus sit et 
 sanguis Christi.t If a sacrifice, or sacrament,’ says this Jesuit, 
 ‘be the body and blood of Jesus Christ to some only, and not to 
 all, what remains, then, but to confess that Alcuinus has been the 
 forerunner of Berengarius and Calvin, and that he has denied the 
 real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? He tells us, this pas- 
 sage has given him no small trouble, and endeavours to expound 
 it, saying, that Alcuinus speaks of the body and blood of Christ 
 in respect of their salutiferous effect which appertains only to the 
 just. But the authors of the ‘ Office of the Blessed Sacrament’ 
 having told us, that it seems we must read, ‘ Tanta est virtus 
 sacrificii ut solis justis, non peccatoribus sanguis sit et corpus 
 Christi,’ they have added, ‘ that this expression has not been used 
 since the heresy of Berengarius, and that the schoolmen, who 
 have been more scrupulous as to terms, have, after the rise of the 
 heresies touching this mystery, avoided it. {| Which is as much as 
 to say, in my opinion, that if we believe transubstantiation, as the 
 Church of Rome has believed it since the time of Berengarius’s 
 condemnation, we cannot be of this belief, that the Eucharist is 
 only the body of Jesus Christ to the faithful, and not to the 
 wicked. And, in effect, if the substance of bread be really 
 changed into that cf Christ’s body, it hence evidently follows that 
 
 * Apud Allat. de perpet. Cons. lib. iii. 
 + Chifflet preefat. ad Lector. in Confess. Alcu. 
 { In their historical and chronological table, under the title of B. Alcuin. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 421 
 
 all those that communicate thereof, be they either righteous or 
 wicked, do receive this body as it is; that is to say, in its proper 
 substance, covered with the veil of accidents. So that the Greeks, 
 asserting the Eucharist not to be the body of Christ to sinners 
 (as I have already shewed), makes the proof I draw hence con- 
 cerning their not believing of transubstantiation to be solid and 
 convincing. 
 
 But it is further evident what the opinion of Cabasilas was as 
 to the thing which was received in the Supper. For he reasons 
 that the dead enjoy the fruition of the self-same eating as those 
 who partake of the mysteries on earth. 
 
 «<The purity of the soul,’ says he, ‘the love of God, faith, an 
 earnest desire to partake of this holy mystery, a secret joy which accom- 
 panies this desire, a fervent appetite and thirst which makes us run to 
 it, these are the things which procure our sanctification, with which 
 qualifications it is not possible but those that approach the communion 
 do partake of Jesus Christ, and without which it is impossible they 
 should. Now, all these things depend only on the soul, and are not 
 corporeal. ‘There is nothing, then, which hinders the souls of the dead 
 from having these things as well as the living. If, then, these souls 
 are in the state and disposition requisite for the receiving of the mys- 
 tery, if he to whom it belongs to bestow sanctification and consecration 
 is always willing to sanctify, and ever desires to communicate himself 
 in all places, what can then hinder this participation?’ And a little 
 further: ‘It is evident,’ says he, ‘ by the things now mentioned, that 
 whatsoever belongs to this mystery is common as well to the dead as 
 living.’ And a little lower: ‘The participation of the holy gifts is a 
 thing which necessarily attends the souls after death. If their joy and 
 repose sprang from any other principle, it might be said that even this 
 would be the reward of that purity wherein they are, and this table 
 would be no longer needful to them. But it is certain that, whatsoever 
 makes up their delights and felicity, whether you call it Paradise or 
 Abraham’s bosom, or those happy seats free from sorrow and cares, or 
 that you call it the kingdom of heaven itself; all this, I say, is no more 
 than this bread and wine. For these things are our mediator, who is _ 
 entered as our forerunner into the holy places, who alone conducts us 
 to the Father, who is the only Sun of our souls, which at this time 
 appeareth and communicates Himself to all them that are in the bands 
 of the flesh in the manner He Himself pleases, but He shall then visibly 
 
422 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 manifest Himself without a veil, when we shall see Him as He is, and 
 shall gather together the eagles about the dead body.’ ” 
 
 But this matter is carried still further by the same writer, for 
 he shews elsewhere what kind of eating it is he means, and that it 
 can be no other than spiritua/. It is true he does not attempt to 
 fix the modus operandi ; for, when speaking of the dead, he asks, 
 “‘ Are they in a worse condition in this respect than the living ? 
 No, sure ; for our Saviour communicates Himself to them in such 
 a manner as is best known to Himself.” He afterwards inquires 
 into the causes of the sanctification of the living and their parti- 
 cipation of Jesus Christ, and says: “It is not to have a body, nor 
 to come with feet to the holy table, nor to receive the communion 
 with our hand and mouth, nor to eat or drink, but that it is the 
 purity of the soul, faith, love of God, and other motives of piety, 
 these are the things which make us necessarily partakers of Jesus 
 Christ, and without which it is not possible to be so.” 
 
 This appears by the sequel of his reasoning; and what he says 
 concerning the dead, the same he says concerning the living 
 which dwell in deserts, and that cannot personally come to the 
 Lord’s table. ‘‘ Jesus Christ,” says lie, “ sanctifies them invisibly 
 with this sanctification. How can we know this? I answer, 
 because they have the life in themselves, and they would not have it 
 were they not partakers of this mystery. For our Saviour Him- 
 self has said, ‘ Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and 
 drink His blood, you have no life in you.’ And for a further 
 confirmation of this, He has caused to be brought to several of 
 these saints the gifts by the ministry of angels,” It is evident he 
 attributes to these inhabitants of deserts the same participation of 
 Jesus Christ, the same manducation of His flesh and blood which 
 we receive in the sacrament without the least difference ; whence it 
 follows that our communion with Jesus Christ, by means of the 
 sacrament, is purely spiritual, and that our eating of His flesh is 
 spiritual likewise, there being no need of adding the reception of 
 His substance into our stomachs. 
 
 But yet this does more plainly appear by what follows. “The 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 423 
 
 gift,” says he, “is indeed communicated to the living by means 
 of the body, but it first passes to the substance of the soul, and 
 afterwards communicates itself to the body by the ministry of the 
 soul. Which St. Paul meant when he said, that he that is joined 
 to the Lord, is one and the same spirit with Him, because this 
 union and conjunction is made first of all in the soul. This 
 being the seat of this sanctification, which we obtain by the 
 exercise of our virtues. This is likewise the seat of sin. It is 
 here wherein is the band of servitude, by which the sacrament 
 links us to God. The body has nothing but what it derives from 
 the soul, and as its pollutions proceed from the evil thoughts of 
 the heart, from the heart, likewise, comes its sanctification, as well 
 that of the virtues as that of the mysteries. If, then, the soul 
 has no need of the body to receive sanctification, but the body, 
 on the contrary, of the soul, why, then, must the souls, which are 
 yet clothed with their bodies, be greater partakers of the mystery 
 than those stripped of them ?” 
 
 The reflections and conclusions of Mons. Claude, from all this, 
 are most just and pertinent. “ We must be strangely prepossessed 
 with prejudice, if we do not acknowledge that this author only 
 establishes the sanctifying and spiritual communion, and not that 
 of the proper substance of the body and blood of our Saviour ; for 
 if we suppose the bread to be the body of Jesus Christ in sancti- 
 fication and virtue, it is easy to comprehend what he means; but 
 if we suppose transubstantiation, how shall we then understand 
 what he says—viz., that the gift is indeed received by the body, 
 but it immediately passes to the soul, and afterwards commu- 
 nicates itself from the soul to the body? Does not the substance 
 of the body of Jesus Christ descend immediately from the mouth 
 jnto the stomach, and does it not remain there till the change of 
 the species ? How, then, shall we understand Him when He says, 
 that our communion with Jesus Christ is first established in the 
 soul? For it is certain, that to judge of it in the sense of tran- 
 substantiation, it would be established, on the contrary, first of all 
 in the body, which would be the first subject that would receive 
 
424 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 the substance of the flesh and blood of our Lord. How shall we 
 understand the conclusion he draws from all this discourse ; to 
 wit, that the souls of the dead are no less partakers of this mystery 
 than those of the living, for the living do communicate after two 
 manners, spiritually and substantially, whereas the dead only in 
 one? How, in fine, shall we understand what he means in saying, 
 that the body has no other sanctification, by means of the mystery, 
 than that which comes to it from the soul? [5 it nowise sancti- 
 fied by touching the proper substance of the Son of God.” 1 
 shall pretend to add nothing to this; for aught more condem- 
 natory of Rome’s peculiar dogmas of the corporeal presence it 
 would be impossible to find. 
 
 But one of the most necessary consequences of transubstantia- 
 tion is the adoration of the sacrament. We have already seen 
 that a strong proof of the ignorance of the ancient Church, is the 
 absence of all intimation of, and direction for, the adoration of the 
 host. But this same defect is apparent in the ritual of the modern 
 Greek Church. In the midst of much superstition, as has been 
 already shewn, and in prostrations of an almost idolatrous nature 
 before the unconsecrated bread and wine, there is yet an entire 
 absence of any prescribed worship of the elements after consecra- 
 tion. This is wholly unaccountable on the idea of belief in 
 transubstantiation. But, in fact, we have the strongest of all 
 evidence on the subject,—the protestations of the Greeks them- 
 selves, and the confessions of their Popish adversaries. What 
 stronger proofs could we have on any subject? It has been 
 already shewn, that to the elements before consecration so much 
 external respect is paid, as would lay the Greeks open to the 
 charge of idolatry, if it were given after consecration. Now, 
 this shews most clearly that the modern Greeks recognise the 
 same distinction as did the ancients between δουλεία and λατρία. 
 The following passages will put this matter beyond the possibility 
 of dispute : . 
 
 Stephen Stylite vindicates himself from the charge of idolatry 
 by the following reasoning, which, while we cannot acknowledge 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 425 
 
 its validity as a proof of the propriety of image worship, is 
 unquestionable evidence against the adoration of the Eucharist 
 with supreme worship. Stephen writes as follows: 
 
 «What crime do we commit, when we represent, by an image, the 
 human shape of Jesus Christ, who has been seen, and whom we 
 worship? [5 this to adore a creature, or do you think it may be truly 
 said that we adore the matter, when we adore a cross, be it made of 
 what stuff it will? We adore the holy vestments and sacred vessels, 
 without incurring any censure, for we are persuaded that by prayer 
 they are changed into holy things. Will you banish, likewise, from 
 the Church, the antitypes of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, because 
 they are the image and true figure of this body and blood? We 
 worship and kiss them, and by partaking of them obtain sanctifi- 
 cation.” 
 
 Damascene, also, who lived about the same time as Stephen, 
 and stiffly maintained the same cause, thus argues: 
 
 “1 worship not,” says he, ‘‘ the matter, but the author of the matter, 
 who has Himself become matter for my sake, and exists in it, to the 
 end He may give me salvation by it; and, as to the matter by which 
 salvation is procured me, I will ever worship it, not as the Divinity— 
 God forbid—for how can that be God which has been taken out of 
 nothing ? although it be true that the body of God is God by means 
 of the union of the two natures in unity of person, for the body is made 
 without conversion that which it hath been anointed, and remains what 
 it was by nature, to wit, living flesh, endued with a reasonable soul and 
 understanding, which has had a beginning, and been created. As to 
 the other matter, by which salvation has been obtained for us, I honour 
 and worship it, as being full of the divine grace. The blessed wood of 
 the cross, is it not matter ? The holy and venerable Mount Calvary, is 
 it not matter? The Rock of Life, wherein was the sepulchre of Jesus 
 Christ, and which was the spring of our resurrection, was it not matter ? 
 Those black letters wherewith the holy Gospels were written, are they 
 uot matter? This holy table, from whence we receive the bread of 
 life, is it not matter? In fine, the body and blood of our Lord, are 
 they not matter? You must either, then, overthrow the veneration 
 and worship of all these things, or grant the adoration of the images of 
 God, and His friends the saints. ”+ 
 
 * Vita S. Stephani junioris apud Damascen. Biblii. + Orat. i. de Imag. 
 31 
 
426 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 How different is the language of the same man, when arguing 
 for the adoration of the divine persons in the Trinity : 
 
 “T adore,” says he, “one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I 
 give to Him alone the worship of Latria; I worship one God, one 
 Divinity ; but I adore likewise the Trinity of persons, God the Father, 
 God the Son, clothed with human flesh, and God the Holy Ghost, which 
 yet are no more than one God. I worship not the creature besides 
 the Creator, but I adore the Creator who hath made me, and who, 
 without the loss of His dignity, or suffering any division, has descended 
 to me to honour my nature, and make me partaker of the divine 
 nature. I do also, together with my God and King, adore the enclo- 
 sure of His body, if a man may so express himself, though not as a 
 vestment, or fourth person, God forbid, but as having been declared 
 God, and made without conversion, that which it hath been anointed. 
 If you say,” says he, in another place a little farther, “ that we ought 
 only to be joined with God in spirit and understanding; abolish, then, 
 all corporeal things, tapers, incense, prayers uttered with an articulate 
 voice ; nay, even the divine mysteries, which consist of matter, to wit, 
 the bread and wine, the oil of unction, the sign of the cross, the reed, 
 and lance, which pierced His side, to make life issue out from thence. 
 Hither the veneration of all these things must be abolished, which 
 cannot be done, or not reject the worship of images.’’* 
 
 Thus, to what he calls indifferently “‘ bread and wine,’ “ the 
 body and blood of Christ,” he assigns but a subordinate, though, 
 it must be acknowledged, superstitious amount of reverence, as to 
 the other things mentioned. It is impossible to prove anything 
 like the adoration of the host from such passages as these. 
 
 But the advocates of the Church of Rome candidly acknow- 
 iedge this defect in the religious worship of the Greeks. Claude 
 quotes the following testimonies, which I have not the means of 
 verifying.| Sacranus, canon of Cracow, when reckoning up the 
 errors of the Muscovites, who, it is well known, belong to the 
 Greek Church, says: “Before the cup is prepared, they light 
 torches, and expose to the people’s sight, with exceeding great 
 devotion, the bread, which is to be consecrated, with the wine and 
 hot water, which they pour into the chalice. They carry these 
 
 * Orat. i. de Imag. + Cath. Doct. bk. iii. cap. 7. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 427 
 
 about, and the people bow down before them with the greatest 
 testimonies of respect and veneration. But afterwards, when the 
 bread is placed on the altar, and consecrated, there is no venera- 
 tion shewed it, nor do they make any elevation of 10. 
 
 John de Lasko, archbishop of Gnesne, and ambassador from 
 Poland to Rome in the beginning of the sixteenth century, makes 
 exactly the same charges as does Sacranus. But Peter Scarga, a 
 Jesuit, in a book which he has written against the Greeks, de uno 
 pastore, charges them that ‘“ At mass they worship on their knees 
 the bread before it is consecrated ; but after its consecration they 
 give no honour to the most holy body of Jesus Christ.” 
 
 But Antony Caucus, who, at the command of Pope Gregory 
 XITI., enquired particularly into the same matter, testifies of the 
 Greeks : 
 
 ‘They yield no reverence, honour, veneration, nor worship to the 
 most holy sacrament of the Eucharist consecrated with leavened bread, 
 according to their custom, they carry it to the sick without lights and 
 torches. They keep it in their churches in a bag hanging against a 
 wall in a little wooden box, and yet burn tapers before the images of 
 all the saints.” 
 
 Aud when he sets himself to the opposing of this error, he thus 
 writes : 
 
 «There is no people (that I know of) who profess the Christian 
 religion that shew less respect and veneration to the holy sacrament, 
 than the Greek nation. They adore and reverence their leavened bread 
 before it is consecrated, even to the very idolising of it, but after 
 scarcely rise up to respect it. Their priests carry the Eucharist in 
 their bosoms to the sick, without any lights, and that which is most 
 absurd is, they keep it in their churches in a little wooden box, tied up 
 in a bag, and hanged against a wall without any lights before it, as if 
 it were a profane thing to the scandalising of all pious people. I 
 believe they have this custom from the heretical sacramentaries, who 
 deny the virtue of this most holy sacrament. They are, moreover, so 
 superstitious and covetous, that when deceased persons have bequeathed 
 them any legacy, they light candles before the images of all the saints, 
 drawing near to them with the greatest testimonies of reverence when 
 
 * Religio, Ruthenor. art. 20. 
 
428 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 they enter the churches, but they turn their backs to the holy sacrament 
 ofthe Eucharist. I wondered to see them do thus, and, being desirous to 
 inform myself of the reason of this irreverence, shewing them how griev- 
 ously they erred, in that they testified a greater respect to the saints 
 who are the servants and friends of our Saviour than to Himself, who 
 is their Lord and Master. ‘These Fathers gave me no other answer but 
 that there was no commané which enjoined this respect and adoration. 
 This answer is heretical, as I shall hereafter manifest; for John Oeco- 
 lampadus (that arch-heretic of our time, the ringleader of the sacramen- 
 taries, asserted that our Saviour was not contained in the sacrament of 
 the Eucharist) has, likewise, written, and publicly taught, that we ought 
 in no wise to adore the Eucharist with an adoration of Latria, terming 
 all them idolaters that did so.” 
 
 I shall conclude this chapter with some very express testimo- 
 nies from the pens of modern Greeks, which give their belief in 
 their own words. These, it will be remembered, are of more 
 value than anything which can be found now on either side of the 
 controversy. It will be seen, by this testimony, that the doctrine 
 of a substantial change of the elements was not known to the 
 Greek Church in the ages immediately following the Reformation. 
 
 Christopher Angelus, a Greek, who, in the sixteenth century, 
 suffered much from the Turks, and at length came to England, 
 where he died, gives the following statement in his account of the 
 Greek Church: ‘‘ The priest,” says he, “ carrying in his hands 
 the holy things, draws near to the people, and stops at the door 
 of the sanctuary, where at once he distributes to every one the 
 body and blood of our Lord; that is to say, bread and wine 
 mixed, saying, this servant of God receives, in the name of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the remission of his sins. 
 Amen.” * 
 
 Metrophanus Critopulus, patriarch of Alexandria, in reply to 
 the question as to whether or not Christ is corporeally present in 
 the Eucharist, answers : 
 
 “We call the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice, but a sacrifice that is 
 Spiritual and commemorative ; spiritual, as having nothing of carnal in 
 
 * Status et ritus Ecclesie Greece a Christoph Angelo. cap. xxiii. 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 429 
 
 it, according to that of our Saviour, the words which I speak to you are 
 spirit and life. Commemorative, as being performed in remembrance 
 of the sacrifice once offered on the cross, according to that other expres- 
 sion of our Saviour, do this in remembrance of me; which is what is 
 ' taught by St. Chrysostom, and the whole Church, saying, this is done 
 in remembrance of what was done then; do this, says our Saviour, in 
 remembrance of me. We offer not any other sacrifice, as did hereto- 
 fore the high priest, under the Old Testament, but we offer ever day 
 the same, or, to speak better, we commemorate this sacrifice. But we 
 never believed Christ was bodily present in the mystery.” 
 
 Meletius, metropolitan of Ephesus, when asked by the divines 
 of Leyden, “‘ Whether we may pray to angels, or the Virgin Mary, 
 and religiously worship them, and whether we must believe the 
 bread to be transubstantiated in the sacrament, ᾿Λποφαίνομαι λέγων 
 ὅτι ὄυδεν TOLOUTWY κατέχειν προσήκει, OU τὲ μην δόγματα ἐξεστί μοι δοξάζειν 
 ἀνθρώπινα, πλὴν τὰ παρὰ κυρίου ἢ τῶν ἀυτοῦ μαθητῶν; answers, I de- 
 clare there are none of these things to be believed, for I may 
 not believe the doctrines of men before those of Christ and His 
 apostles.” 
 
 Another very important document is given by Mr. Claude: “ It 
 is a declaration of the sense of the Greek Church, drawn up by a 
 Greek doctor, named Jeremias. It says, ‘The different use of 
 the mystery of the Eucharist has produced different sentiments, 
 some celebrating it with unleavened bread, others with that which 
 is leavened and kneaded, some believing it to be only a sign, 
 others that the bread is changed and altered by the Word. Those 
 that believe the change are the western people, which administer 
 this sacrament according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, 
 and all the rest hold the sign except the eastern people; for the 
 Eastern Church differs from both these, and yet teaches a doctrine 
 that is easy, full of piety, and free from contradiction. She 
 affirms, then, that the bishop, or priest, in the divine service, 
 holds the place of Christ, making the propitiation for the sins of 
 the people, and that, by the holy invocation of God’s name, and 
 mention of the divine words of our Saviour, the spiritual grace 
 descends that sanctifies the bread and wine, and changes them, 
 
430 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 not into the sensible, but spiritual, body of Jesus Christ. And 
 as to those that assert the substance of bread and wine is 
 changed into the natural flesh of Jesus Christ, if they understand 
 hereby a supernatural change after a spiritual manner, those 
 that do thus speak, concur in their opinion with the Eastern 
 Church. But seeing they will have this to be sensibly effected, 
 our Church does therein disagree with them, although they have 
 recourse to another way of speaking, in telling us of accidents 
 and species, and such like things, which none of the ancients 
 ever thought of, much less mentioned. 
 
 And, lastly, I shall quote from the confession of faith of Cyril- 
 lus Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, in the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century, whose interesting history will be found in 
 Claude (bk. iii. c. 12). On the subject of our inquiry, this con- 
 fession runs thus : 
 
 “We believe that the second sacrament, which the Lord has insti- 
 tuted, is that which we call the Eucharist, for in the night in which He 
 was betrayed, taking bread and blessing it, He said to His apostles, 
 ‘Take, eat, this is my body ;’ and, taking the cup, He gave thanks, 
 and said, ‘ Drink ye all of this; this is my blood, which is shed for 
 you; do this in remembrance of me.’ And St. Paul adds: ‘ As often 
 as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shew the Lord’s 
 death.’ This is the plain, true, and lawful tradition, of this admirable 
 mystery, in the administration and understanding of which, we confess 
 and believe a real and certain presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, to 
 wit, that which faith offers and gives us, and not that which transub- 
 stantiation has rashly invented and teaches. For we believe the 
 faithful eat the body of Jesus Christ in the sacrament, not in a sen- 
 sible chewing of Him with the teeth, in the communion, but in 
 communicating by the sense of the sou]. For our Lord’s body is not 
 in the mystery, what our eyes behold, and what we take, but that 
 which faith (which receives after a spiritual manner) presents and 
 gives us. Wherefore, it is certain, if we believe we eat and parti- 
 cipate ; but if we believe not, we are deprived of this benefit.” 
 
 It was my intention to have gone at some length into the 
 history of the Syrian Church in Malabar,—and to shew that, before 
 Xavier's missionary visit to India, in the sixteenth century, and 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 431 
 
 the subsequent crusade for the establishment of Popery by fraud 
 and force under Menizes, the Pope's archbishop of Goa, that ancient 
 Church was comparatively free from Romish error,—but the inten- 
 tion must be abandoned. To any one wishing to become acquainted 
 with the evidences of this fact, I would mention the “ History 
 of Christianity in India,” by the Rev. J. Hough, where will be 
 found an account of the proceedings of each of the above person- 
 ages, in seeking to effect the object of their voluntary expatriation. 
 To the same work are added, as an appendix, the decrees of the 
 Synod of Diamper, in the year 1599, which, in numberless 
 instances, and in the plainest language, acknowledge all we assert. 
 I will give but one decree of the many bearing upon our subject, 
 from which may be at once seen the anti-Romish character of the 
 ancient Syrian Church. The decree is on “Masses for the Dead,” 
 and runs as follows: 
 
 “Whereas there is nothing that is so great a help to the souls 
 of the faithful that are in the fire of purgatory as the holy sacrifice 
 of the mass, of which there is no memory remaining in this 
 diocese ; that holy sacrifice having been instituted for the health 
 and remedy of the living and of the dead: wherefore the synod 
 doth exhort al] the faithful of this bishopric to accustom them- 
 selves to procure masses to be said for the souls of their deceased 
 friends, and to leave something by will that they may have masses 
 said for their own souls, which will be much more profitable for 
 them than the feasts that they used to make for their kindred and 
 others invited to their funerals ; which custom shall be left off, 
 and instead thereof they shall give a dole to the poor, which is 
 also very profitable to the souls of the departed. And that the 
 decree relating to such masses may have its due effect, the synod 
 doth command, that all that shall be found to have died worth 
 two thousand fanams, and have left nothing for a certain number 
 of masses to be said for their souls, shall have so much taken out 
 of their estates before they shall be divided among the heirs, as 
 shall procure the saying of five masses for their souls, which shall 
 be deposited by the executors in the hands of the churchwardens, 
 
432 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 by them to be distributed among five priests, that they may be 
 the sooner said; and, where there are more than five priests, the 
 alms shall be given to the five eldest, there not being sufficient to 
 divide among them all; and where there is only the vicar of the 
 Church, the whole shall be given to him: which custom of pro- 
 curing masses to be said for the souls of the faithful departed this 
 life, as it is used in the universal Church, so it is what this synod 
 is extremely desirous to introduce into this bishopric, wherein it 
 has been totally disused, recommending this matter earnestly to 
 the preachers and confessors, to persuade all Christians to it in 
 their sermons and confessions, and to the vicars to do the same 
 in their admonitions.” 
 
 No plainer confession could be needed of the novelty of masses 
 in the Malabar Church, which there, as elsewhere, the emissaries 
 
 ¢ 
 
 of the Pope were ‘ extremely desirous of introducing.” The same 
 acknowledgment of innovation is frequently made in these decrees, 
 and really shew, more plainly than anything else at the present 
 hour, the onslaught which was made, by the wily and unscrupulous 
 Menizes, on the doctrine of these Syrian Christians. Records we 
 might have had, doubtless, in abundance, but for the destruction 
 (demanded by the decrees of the same council) of all the ancient 
 Syrian books of theology. But it was not enough to burn the 
 books of these ancient Christians, but their bodies were also com- 
 mitted to the flames. The dreadful atrocities of the “ Inquisition 
 of Goa,” which the Synod of Diamper decreed supreme over that 
 branch of the Indian Church, are well known, and shew the per- 
 manency of character of the Romish Church for craft and cruelty, 
 in obliterating the ancient creed of Christians, antecedently 
 independent of her jurisdiction, and in silencing the voice of 
 opponents by the sure conviction of the dungeon, the rack, and 
 the faggot. Rome is the double tyrant of both the body and the 
 soul; and in both worlds—the present and the future. We must, 
 however, cease to wonder at her pretensions among men, when we 
 recollect that her predicted character is, that she seeks to lord it 
 over even the Deity Himself (2 Thess. 11., 4). 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST 438 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Tuus have I, certainly at greater length than was at first con- 
 templated, considered the ¢rwe doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, as 
 it meets us in the inspired records of its original institution, and 
 also in the notices of a similar character which we find regarding 
 it in the writings of the apostles. The import of our Redeemer's 
 words, and the sense in which they were understood in every cen- 
 tury, have been fully considered; and it is found that the claim 
 to establish the modern Romish doctrine upon anything in anti- 
 quity is deceptive, if not baseless. ‘The argument, both positive 
 and negative, is fatal to such a pretence; for the most that can 
 be brought in support of transubstantiation from antiquity is, the 
 warm expressions of the early Church, which apply the name of 
 the thing signified to the thing signifying. Beyond this, there is 
 literally zo ground whatever to support such a claim, but every 
 imaginable argument against it. Whether we regard the absence 
 of objections respecting this doctrine by the heathen, or the 
 omission of all directions in the ancient liturgies for worship, and 
 the other consequences of the corpcreal presence,—whether we 
 consider the simultaneous rise of both objections on the one hand, 
 and rubrical directions on the other, when, in later times, the 
 tenet concerned was insisted upon, or the qualifying and limiting 
 phrases of the Fathers themselves, or still more the unanimous 
 protestations of the whole anti-Romish world since the Reforma- 
 tion, as to the doctrine and its consequences,—I think we must 
 equally arrive at the conclusion, that transubstantiation was not 
 taught in the ancient Church, but is a doctrine of modern growth. 
 
 It seemed necessary, in seeking to establish the true doctrine, first 
 3K 
 
454 THE TRUE DOCTRINE 
 
 to dislodge the false ; having done which, I have endeavoured to 
 exhibit the sound view of the most solemn of religious ordinances, 
 in the very words used by the various churches of Protestant 
 Christendom. I believe these are, as nearly as possible, consen- 
 taneous with each other, and with the infallible word of God. 
 
 The object which Dr. Waterland had in view when he wrote 
 his valuable treatise, still claims attention ; for there is a large 
 class of persons, generally outside the Church of England, which 
 sinks the estimate of sacramental ordinances into that of bare 
 memorials, or, at best, significant rites, considering them as only 
 physical representations of invisible things or operations. The 
 existence of such opinions will always make the treatise of 
 Waterland valuable to the Church; and, in the ¢trwe doctrine 
 of the Holy Eucharist, I could hardly pass them by without 
 notice, though it was not my fist object to combat them. The 
 concluding words of the author referred to shall be mine in 
 reference to this branch of the subject :—“‘ What I have endea- 
 voured all the way, has been to maintain the dignity of a venerable 
 sacrament, by the ight of reason, Scripture, and antiquity, against 
 unreasonable attempts to depreciate or undervalue it. The com- 
 mon methods of subversion begin with lessening the work of 
 preparation, and then go on to sink the benefits; the next step 
 in the progress is to reduce the whole to a bare memorial, a 
 memorial of an absent friend, master, or chief martyr: passing 
 over the divine perfections of our Lord, and the all-sufficient 
 merits of what he has done and suffered for us. Now, in order 
 to build up again, as others pull down, the business of these 
 papers has been to shew, that the sacramental memorial is a 
 memorial of Christ God-man, who died a willing sacrifice for the 
 sins of mankind ; and that it is not a bare memorial, or represen- 
 tation of something once done and suffered, but a real and present 
 exhibition of the graces, comforts, or blessings accruing therefrom, 
 to every worthy receiver ; that, therefore, proper acknowledgments 
 and engagements are expected from us, and those require suitable 
 preparations and qualifications, and a deportment thereto cor- 
 responding ; in a word, self-examination and _ self-approbation 
 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 435 
 
 beforehand, serious resolutions of amendment at the time, and a 
 conscientious care afterwards, to persevere in well-doing to our 
 lives’ end.” 
 
 But while these /ow views have now in great measure lost their 
 direct influence, it is not to be supposed that they are powerless, 
 and wholly unconnected with the directly opposite view, which 
 would make the sacraments charms, and invest them with a 
 superstitious and even magical influence. The low views which 
 have prevailed are constantly assigned as the grounds why other, 
 even the Popish, should now be propagated. Hatremes not only 
 meet, but even beget each other. The oscillation of the pendulum 
 to the left is what gives it its power for a like oscillation to the 
 right. Minds of a less devout, though not necessarily of an 
 undevout character, embrace the low or Socinian view; while the 
 devotional, but ill-informed or ill-regulated, run to the supersti- 
 tious. These mutually repel at one point, but attract at another ; 
 and the close connection between the two states is seen in this, 
 that when either class changes, it does not halt at the middle and 
 safe point between, but runs across to the opposite. Medio tutis- 
 simus is the wise motto well adhered to in the Church of England. 
 
 It is no necessary part of my undertaking to shew the devo- 
 tional bearing of this important question. The ¢rwe doctrine 
 must undoubtedly be influential on practice, and aids may be 
 very useful both for preparation and in participation ; but these 
 already exist, numerous and good. I can only hope that such as 
 may peruse what I have written or collated, may by it be grounded 
 in their most holy faith, and feel greater confidence not only in 
 protesting against the errors of Rome, but in the substantive belief 
 of the doctrines of their own Church. It appears to me that no 
 one can rise from a sifting examination of this important subject, 
 without an ejaculation of heartfelt praise to God for the wonderful 
 providences which secured to us the BLEssrp REFORMATION. 
 
 END OF BOOK II. 
 
rin: 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
aul 
 πὰ 
 αἰνή ΤῊ 
 
 het Ν 4 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tur history of this Tract is curious, from the varied treatment it has 
 met with at the hands of the Romanists, as well as the influence it has 
 exercised in our own Church. 
 
 It was undoubtedly written in the middle of the ninth century at the 
 request of Charles the Bald, who reigned from the year 840 to 877, to 
 oppose the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which Paschasius about that 
 time first propounded. Its author has gone under several names, Ratramn, 
 Intramn, and Bertram.* 
 
 The learned Cave, in his Historia Litteraria,+ thus sums up the fate of 
 this Tract: “ All who have taken their first lessons in Theology know, how 
 plainly, how learnedly he treateth the subject of the Eucharist in his book 
 concerning the Body and Blood of Christ, and how clearly he rejecteth the 
 dogma of Transubstantiation as it is explained in the Romish Schools. 
 Wherefore the Papists from their desire to banish this tract to Anticyra, or 
 rather to Orcus itself, (for it has been stamped with the black mark of 
 condemnation by the Censors of Trent, and Louvain, by Sixtus Senensis, 
 Bellarmine, Genebrard, Possevin, Gregory of Valentia, Gretzer, &c.) have 
 attacked it with every instrument of hostility. Some endeavour to diminish 
 the Author’s reputation ; others calumniate him as a heretic, desirous of 
 change, as a monk kicking against his superiors. The staid manners of 
 the man, and his fame untouched through so many ages, clearly refute 
 this. Others loudly exclaim, that his work is corrupt and interpolated. 
 Against this, the faith of so many ancient Manuscripts must be taken, and 
 that of the Easter Homily by our own Ailfric, who flourished in the year 
 960, which is borrowed almost word for word from the tract of Ratramn. 
 Lastly, others would prove that John Erigena, and not Ratramn, is its 
 author. What then? As if John Scotus were not his equal, both in age 
 and learning. But in truth, the candid confession of John Mabillon easily 
 convicteth this party; for he confesseth, that he found the name of 
 
 * Moreri. Diction. Hist. tom. ix. + P. 530, ed. 1688, 
 
lV PREFACE. 
 
 Ratramn* at the beginning of an ancient Manuscript 800 years old, in 
 the monastery of Lobez. Indeed, Antony Sanders made mention of this 
 Manuscript long before in his Catalogue of the Belgian Libraries, part 
 i. p. 303. And in very truth, men, in other respects grave and learned, 
 work wondrous hard at trifles, when they undertake to prove, that Ratramn 
 in this Tract favours the doctrine of the Romish Church, or, at least, does 
 not oppose it; from which, nevertheless, it is as far distant as the Hast is 
 from the West. What can they produce worthy of so huge a promise ? 
 Let these new champions of Transubstantiation, as far as I am concerned, 
 go on with it; let them transform Ratramn into Paschasius himself for I 
 would as soon believe them to be one and the same person, as that Ratramn 
 held on this point the same doctrine with Paschasius, and the Romish 
 Church of the present day.” 
 
 Bellarmine against all authority, and without a shadow of proof, asserts 
 that Ratramn was the innovator, and Paschasius the defender of the 
 Catholic doctrine, when the fact is the very reverse.t In his account of 
 Ecclesiastical writers,{t he only makes incidental mention of Ratramn 
 under the head “ Paschasius,” in these words: “He [Paschasius] was the 
 first author who wrote in a copious and systematic way on the truth of the 
 Lord’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, against Bertram, who first brought 
 it into doubt.” 
 
 The Tract is now universally admitted to have been written by Ratramn, 
 and in answer to Paschasius. The question then remains, whether he is to 
 be considered as holding or denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 Here the Romanists themselves are divided ; at one time condemning him, 
 at another time claiming him as making with them. Bellarmine’s opinion 
 is clear from his own words above quoted. The Tract also stands in the 
 Index of prohibited books, made by the Council of Trent, A.D. 1559, and 
 is retained in most of the succeeding Indices. One published at Strasbourg, 
 A.D. 1609, has a curious judgment given by the University of Douay, and 
 approved by the Censors. This Index is a reprint of a former Edition of 
 1571 ; from which Bishop Ridley’s Biographer, in his account of Ratramn’s 
 Tract, gives the following version of the passage.§ “Although we care 
 not greatly for this book of Bertram’s, whether it be extant or no, yet 
 because it is often printed, and read of many, and the heretics know by a 
 catalogue of forbidden books that he was a Catholic Priest, and dear unto 
 Charles the Great (ce. the Bald), and because we comment upon other 
 writers of the same age, and extenuate their errors oftentimes by a favour- 
 
 * This shews Ratramn was his real name. 
 
 + See Dupin Biblioth. des Auteurs Ecclesiast. Siecle xi. 
 { P. 276. ed. Colon. 1613. § Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 172. 
 
PREFACE. Vv 
 
 able construction of them, by the same reason we may allow Bertram, and 
 acknowledge him; for their is nothing worthy of reprehension in him, 
 setting aside a little obscurity in his style, and his ignorance in using some 
 dark words and sentences, which, with marginal notes affixed, may manifest 
 the true sense and meaning of the Author.” 
 
 Of this principle we find such instances as these ; “invisible” is sub- 
 stituted for “visible,” and “substance” explained by “accidents.” 
 
 After the genuineness of the Tract was put beyond all doubt by the 
 discovery of the Manuscripts, M. Boileau, doctor of the Sorbonne, published 
 an exact transcript of the Lobez Manuscript, and at the same time in an 
 excessively loose French translation, “has made,” as Dr. Hopkins says, 
 “not so much a translation as a conversion of Bertram.” In the Appendix 
 to the Edition of 1688, Dr. Hopkins fully exposes Dr. Boileau’s artifices. 
 Whether Ratramn will bear the sense there put upon him may be seen 
 from Cave’s opinion above quoted, and the use which has been made of 
 this Tract in our own Church, both before her infection with Romish errors, 
 and at the time she freed herself from them. 
 
 In the Appendix we have reprinted from Lisle Collection of Saxon 
 Treatises, with one exception, mentioned page 63, the Saxon Homily of 
 Aalfric, Abbot of St. Alban’s and also of Malmesbury, who flourished 
 about the year 960. Its agreement with the tract of Ratramn is not only 
 doctrinal, but very often verbal, as will be seen by comparing the sections 
 of Ratramn to which we have referred. It was set forth, together with the 
 two Epistles of Ailfric, by Abp. Parker, with his own subscription, that of 
 the Abp. of York and thirteen Bishops, under the title of “A Testimony of 
 Antiquity, shewing the Ancient Faith of the Church of England, touching the 
 Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, here publicly preached, and 
 also received in the Saxons time, above 700 years ago.” This Sermon was 
 appointed in the reign of the Saxons to be pronounced to the people before 
 they should receive the Communion on Easter Day.* 
 
 To come to later times. This tract of Ratramn seems to have formed 
 a link in the history of the English Church, connecting us as well at the 
 Reformation, as in Saxon times, with the views of Primitive Antiquity. 
 
 The Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation was retained in our Church 
 as embodied in the Mass book throughout the reign of Henry the VIII. 
 Bp. Ridley was one of the first of our divines who returned to a sounder 
 judgment on this point of doctrine. He passed the year 1545 in retirement 
 at his vicarage of Hearne, whither he carried with him this Tract of 
 vatramn. He then first saw the unsoundness of the Romish Doctrine 
 
 * See Strype, Parker, vol. i. p. 472. 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 of Transubstantiation, without falling into the low views of the foreign 
 reformers.* This change of opinion he communicated to Abp. Cranmer 
 about 1546; whereupon they both set to examine the subject with more 
 than ordinary care,t and the primitive and Catholic doctrine was accord- 
 ingly embodied in the first reformed Communion Service of 1549. 
 
 Bp. Ridley himself thus acknowledged his debt to Ratramn before the 
 Commissioners at Oxford, A.D. 1555, 
 
 “ Here I would beg you, Reverend Sirs, you Mr. Prolocutor, and you 
 the other Commissioners, deign to understand that I do rest not only on 
 those things which heretofore I have written in my former responsions and 
 confirmations, but that I have also for confirmation of my opinion whatever 
 Bertram hath writ, a man learned and orthodox, and ever accounted 
 Catholic for these 700 years until this our age. His Tract, whoever will 
 read and weigh, considering the age of the writer, his learning, godliness, 
 allegations of ancient Fathers, and his manifold and weighty arguments, 
 I cannot but very much marvel, how he can with a good conscience, if he 
 fear God, speak against him in this matter of the Eucharist. This man 
 was the first that pulled me by the ear, and forced me from the common 
 error of the Roman Church, to a more diligent search of Scripture and 
 Ecclesiastical writers on this matter ; and these things I speak before God, 
 Who knoweth that I lie not in what I say. 
 
 There are two old English translations in the Bodleian, with the dates 
 1548 and 1549. There was a translation made in 1623 by Sir Humphrey 
 Lynde, and reprinted in 1686, Dr. Hopkins, Canon of Worcester, published 
 two editions of the text, with an English translation ; the first in 1686, the 
 latter in 1688, after Dr. Boileau’s edition had appeared, with the Appendix 
 before referred to. 
 
 Our first intention was merely to revise the translation of Dr. Hopkins ; 
 but as the work advanced, it seemed necessary to re-translate the Tract 
 
 entirely. 
 HW. 
 W. C. €. 
 * Ridley’s Life of Ridley, pp. 163, 165. + See Strype, Cranmer, 908, 
 
 } The original is given in Ridley’s life of Ridley, App. p. 685. 
 
HERE BEGINNETH 
 
 ek BOOK OF RAT RAM N 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. 
 
 1.—You have bidden me, O glorious Prince, to make known to your 
 Majesty, what I think touching the mystery of the Body and Blood 
 of Christ. A command no less worthy of your magnificent and princely 
 estate, than difficult for my poor ability. For what can be more worthy 
 of a Prince, than to take care that he himself be Catholic in his 
 judgment, concerning the sacred mysteries of Him, Who hath deigned 
 to commit to him his kingly throne, and to endure not that his subjects 
 should think diversely concerning the Body of Christ, in the which 
 it is certain that the whole sum of Christian redemption doth consist ? 
 II.—For whilst some of the faithful say, that the mystery of the piftrences 
 
 touching 
 
 Body and Blood of Christ, which is daily celebrated in the Church, christ’s 
 
 : 3 6 Pins ft Body and 
 is performed under no figure, or veil, but with the naked exhibition Blood in 
 
 of the Truth itself; others testify, that these things are contained ish τ 
 under the figure of a mystery, and that it is one thing, which appeareth 
 to the bodily senses, and another, upon which faith gazeth. There is 
 then clearly no small diversity of judgment among them. And though 
 the Apostle writeth to the faithful, “that they should all think and, ¢,,. ;. 
 speak the same thing, and that there should be no schisin among!” 
 them ;” yet by no small schism are they divided, who give utterance 
 to such diverse opinions touching the mystery of the Body and Blood 
 of Christ. 
 
 I1iI.— Wherefore your Royal Highness, being provoked with zeal ratramn 
 
 " i 2 ὃ 4 ) consulted, 
 for the faith, and with no easy mind pondering on these things, and 
 
Vill APPENDIX. 
 
 being desirous that, as the Apostle commandeth, ‘ all men should 
 think and speak the same thing,” doth diligently search into this secret 
 verity, that so you may recall to it them that are out of the way. 
 Wherefore you do not disdain to ask the truth in this matter even from 
 the most humble ; for you well know that so great and secret a mystery 
 cannot be acknowledged unless God reveal it, Who without respect 
 of persons sheweth forth the light of His truth by whomsoever He 
 chooseth. 
 
 IV.—Pleasant as it is to me to obey your command, yet no less 
 difficult is it with my slender ability to dispute on a subject so far 
 removed from human senses, and into which no one can penetrate 
 except by the teaching of the Holy Ghost. Wherefore, in submission 
 to your Majesty’s command, yet with entire confidence in His aid, 
 of Whom I am about to treat, I will strive to open what I think on 
 this matter, in what words I can, not leaning to. my own wit, but 
 following the steps of the Holy Fathers. 
 
 V.—Your excellent Majesty inquireth, whether the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, which in the Church is taken by the mouth of the faithful, 
 be made so in a mystery or in truth; that is, whether it containeth 
 any hidden thing, which lieth open to the eye of faith alone; or 
 whether without the veil of any mystery, the sight gazeth on that Body 
 outwardly, which the eye of the soul inwardly beholdeth, so that the 
 whole matter standeth forth open and manifest. And, whether it be 
 the very same Body which was born of Mary, suffered, died, and was 
 buried, which rose again, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right 
 hand of the Father. 
 
 Vi.—Let us look closely into the first of these two questions, and 
 let us define what Figure is, and what Truth, that we be not hindered 
 by doubtful ambiguity, but that, keeping somewhat certain before our 
 eyes, we may know whither we ought to direct the course of our 
 reasoning. 
 
 VII.—Figure is a certain outshadowing, which exhibiteth what it 
 meaneth under some sort of veil; for instance, when we would speak 
 of the Word, we say Bread; as in the Lord’s Prayer, we pray that 
 God would give us our daily Bread. Or as Christ in the Gospel saith, 
 “Tam the living Bread, Which came down from heaven.” Or when 
 He calleth Himself Vine, and His disciples the Branches; saying 
 
APPENDIX. 1X 
 
 “1 am the True Vine, and ye are the Branches.” All these passages John xv.,5. 
 express one thing, and hint at another. 
 
 VIII.—But Truth is the shewing forth of a plain matter, veiled Te), 
 under no shadowy images, but conveyed to us in clear, open, and (to 
 speak more plainly yet) natural significations; as when we say that 
 Christ was born of the Virgin, suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried. 
 Nothing is here shadowed forth under the veil of figure, but the truth 
 of the matter is exhibited in the natural signification of the words; 
 nor must aught else be understood than is expressed. But in the 
 former instances it is not so. For substantially Christ is not Bread, 
 nor is Christ a Vine, nor are the Apostles Branches. So that in this 
 case a Figure is presented in the expression, but in the former Truth, 
 that is, the naked and open signification. 
 
 IX.—Now let us return to the subject, with a view to which this This Sa- 
 
 ramment 
 
 hath been said, namely, the Body and Blood of Christ. For if thatpreved ee 
 
 be in figure 
 mystery be performed under no figure, then it is not rightly called ‘om the 
 
 a mystery, since that cannot be called a mystery, in which there το Ποῖον 
 nothing hid, nothing removed from our bodily senses, nothing concealed 
 under any veil. But that bread, which by the ministry of the Priest 
 is made the Body of Christ, sheweth one thing outwardly to man’s 
 senses, and proclaimeth another thing inwardly to the souls of the 
 faithful. Outwardly, the form of bread, which it was before, is presented, 
 its colour is exhibited, its taste is perceived ; but inwardly, a far different 
 thing is signified; and that much more precious, much more excellent, 
 for it is heavenly, for it is divine; that is, Christ’s Body is shewn forth, 
 which is beheld, is taken, is eaten, not by the boats senses, but by the 
 gaze of the believing soul. 
 
 X.— Likewise the wine, which by the Priest’s consecration is made 
 the Sacrament of Christ’s Blood, sheweth one thing outwardly, and 
 inwardly containeth another. For what outwardly appeareth but the 
 substance of wine? ‘Taste it, there is the savour of wine: smell it, 
 there is the scent of wine: behold it, there is the colour of wine. But 
 if thou dost consider it inwardly, then it is no longer the liquor of wine, 
 but the liquor of the Blood of Christ, that to the souls of believers 
 savoureth when tasted, is recognized when beheld, is approved when 
 smelt. Since no one can deny that this is so, it is plain, that that 
 Bread and Wine are in a figure the Body and Blood of Christ. As to 
 
 b 
 
x APPENDIX. 
 
 outward appearance, neither the nature of flesh is recognized in that 
 Bread, nor the fluid of blood in that Wine; yet after the mystic 
 consecration, they are no longer called bread or wine, but Christ’s 
 Body and Blood. 
 
 argument ΧΤ- ΤΡ nothing is here taken in figure, as some say, but all is 
 
 nar’! seen in truth, then faith hath no operation here; since [in that case ] 
 nought is performed spiritually, but the whole, whatever it be, is 
 received altogether corporally. In that faith, according to the Apostle, 
 
 Hebd. xi,leis “the evidence of things not seen,” that is, not of visible but of 
 invisible substances, we shall [on their view] receive nothing according 
 to faith, since thus, we pass judgment on it, whatever it be, by our 
 bodily senses. And nothing is more absurd than to take mere bread 
 for flesh, and to call mere wine blood. Nor will that be any longer 
 a mystery, in which nothing secret, nothing hidden, is contained. 
 
 There XII.—And how shall that be called the Body of Christ, where no 
 
 eonioal change is perceived to be made? For every change is either from not 
 
 τ natural being to being, or from being to not being, or from one being to 
 
 change 3 3 she 5 : Ε 
 wrought another, But in this Sacrament, if it be considered simply and in 
 
 elements. truth*, and naught else be believed than what is seen, we know of no 
 change at all being made. For it hath not passed from not being to 
 being, which passage holdeth in things produced, where the things 
 had no former existence, but have, in order to their production, passed 
 from not being into being. But here the bread and wine had a real 
 existence, before they passed into the Sacrament of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ. Nor is there any passage from being to not being, 
 which passage holdeth in things which undergo decay and annihilation. 
 For that which perisheth, once existed, nor can any thing undergo 
 destruction, which hath never been. Now asthe nature of the creature 
 is perceived to remain in very truth as it was before, it is clear there 
 is no change of this kind herein wrought. 
 
 XII!I.—Further, there is not here that change, which is from one 
 kind of being to another, which we see in things that undergo change 
 of quality, (for example, when that which was before black is altered 
 into white,) for we here detect no change in taste, colour, or smell. 
 If then there is no change at all, it is the same which it was before. 
 
 * i.e. as truth was defined -above. 
 
APPENDIX. ΧΙ 
 
 But in truth it is somewhat else, since the bread is made the Body, 
 and the wine the Blood of Christ. Christ Himself hath said, “ Take, Meera 
 eat, this is My Body.” Likewise speaking of the cup, He saith, 
 “Take, drink, this is the Blood of the New Testament, which shall be hedegpie 5 
 shed for you.” cakes 
 XIV.—They therefore, who will here take nothing figuratively, but 
 will have the whole matter consist in simple truth, must be asked, in 
 what respect that change takes place, by which the elements come to 
 be, what they were not before, (namely, bread and wine,) but the Body 
 and Blood of Christ? For according to the nature of the creatures, 
 and their form as visible things, neither the bread nor wine have ought 
 changed in them. And if they have undergone no change at all, they 
 are nought else than they were before. 
 XV.—Your Highness perceiveth, illustrious Prince, whither their They who 
 
 hers - ᾿ ; will admit 
 opinion tendeth, who think thus: they deny that, which they are believed nofigurein 
 
 to affirm, and are convicted of overthrowing that, which they believe. st, ou. 
 They indeed faithfully confess the Body and Blood of Christ, and by then 
 so doing, without doubt they profess that the elements. are not that 
 same thing, which they were before; and if they are other than they 
 were before, they have undergone some change. Since this cannot be 
 denied, let them say in what respect they are changed. For no bodily 
 change can be seen in them. They must therefore confess, either that 
 they are changed in respect of something else than their corporeal 
 substance, and that therefore they are not what in truth they seem to 
 
 be, but somewhat else, which they evidently are not in their proper 
 essence: or, if they will not acknowledge this, they are forced to deny 
 
 that they are the Body and Blood of Christ, which is impious, not only 
 
 to say, but even to think. 
 
 XVI.—Yet because they do confess that they are the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, and that they could not be so, but by a change for the 
 better; and since this change is not corporally but spiritually wrought, 
 it followeth, that we must acknowledge it to be done in a figure, since 
 under the veil of corporeal bread and corporeal wine, the spiritual Body 
 and the spiritual Blood of Christ do exist. Not that two things co-exist 
 diverse between themselves, namely body and spirit, but one and the same 
 thing hath in one respect the nature of bread and wine, in another is the 
 Body and Blood of Christ. As far as they are corporally handled, they 
 
Analogy 
 from the 
 
 ΧΙ APPENDIX. 
 
 are in their nature, corporeal creatures, but in their power, and as 
 they are spiritually made, they are the mysteries of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ. 
 
 XVII.—Let us consider the font of Holy Baptism, which is styled, 
 
 Siemon not without reason, the Fountain of Life, because it forms afresh those 
 
 of Holy 
 
 Baptism. who descend into it with the newness of a better life, and gives back 
 
 Analogy 
 
 alive to righteousness those who were dead in sin. Hath it this power, 
 in that it is, as we see it, the element of water? Unless it received 
 a sanctifying grace, it could by no means wash away the stain of sin. 
 Unless it possessed a life-giving power, it could in no sort give life 
 to those who are dead—dead, I mean, not in the flesh, but in soul. 
 For in that font, if we have respect to that alone, which meeteth the 
 bodily senses, we see the mere element of water subiect to corruption, 
 and able to wash the body only. But the power of the Holy Ghost 
 is added thereunto by the consecration of the Priest; and it is made 
 efficacious to wash not the body only, but the soul too, and by its 
 spiritual virtue to remove spiritual stains, 
 
 XVIII.—See how in one and the same element two things are 
 contained, the one contrary to the other, that which is subject to 
 corruption giving incorruption, that which hath not life conveying life. 
 We know then that in this font there is that, which corporeal sense 
 can touch, and therefore subject to change and corruption; and again 
 there is that, which faith only can behold, and therefore neither 
 corruptible nor mortal. If you ask what washeth the body outwardly, 
 it is the element, but if you ponder on that which purgeth the inward 
 parts, it is a quickening power, a sanctifying power, a power of 
 immortality. Wherefore in its proper nature it is a corruptible fluid, 
 but in a mystery it is a healing power. 
 
 XIX.—So too the Body and Blood of Christ, considered outwardly, 
 are creatures subject to change and corruption. But if you weigh the 
 power of the mystery, they are life, giving immortality to such as 
 partake thereof. They are then not the same, as they are seen, and 
 as they are believed; according to that they are seen, they feed a 
 corruptible body, themselves corruptible; according to that they are 
 believed, they feed our souls, which shall live for ever, themselves 
 immortal. 
 
 XX.—The Apostle too, writing to the Corinthians, saith, “ Know 
 
APPENDIX. ΧΙ 
 
 ye not, that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed ‘rom the 
 baptism of 
 
 through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and {ΑΘ ἘΕΊΠΕῖΣ 
 in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink ὅπ in the 
 
 the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that} Co” *» 
 followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” We observe that the sea 
 
 and the cloud bore the likeness of Baptism, and that the Fathers of 
 
 the Old Testament were baptised in them, that is, in the cloud, and in 
 
 the sea. Could then the sea, in respect of what it was to outward 
 
 sight, an element, have the power of Baptism? Or could the cloud 
 
 in respect of what it was to outward sight, a condensation of thick air, 
 
 have power to sanctify the people ? Yet we dare not say that the 
 Apostle, who spake in Christ, did not with truth affirm that our Fathers 
 
 were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea. 
 
 XXI.—And though that baptism bore not the form of the Baptism 
 of Christ, which at this day is performed in the Church, yet no sane 
 person will dare deny that of a truth it was baptism, and that in it 
 our Fathers were baptised, unless he madly presume to contradict the 
 words of the Apostle. Wherefore both the sea and the cloud conveyed 
 the cleansing of sanctification, not in respect of their bodily substance, 
 but in respect of that, which they inwardly contained, the sanctification 
 of the Holy Ghost. For in them there was both a visible form, apparent 
 to the bodily senses, not in image, but in truth; and also a spiritual 
 power, which shone forth within, discernible not by the eye of the flesh, 
 but of the soul. 
 
 XXII.—In like sort the manna, which was given to the people from Analogy 
 heaven, and the water, which flowed from the rock, had a corporeal manasa 
 existence, and were meat and drink for the bodies of the people ; yen rou the 
 the Apostle calleth that manna and that water spiritual meat and 
 spiritual drink. How so? because in those corporeal substances the 
 spiritual power of the Word was contained, which was meat and drink 
 to the souls rather than the bodies of believers. And although that 
 meat and that drink foreshewed the mystery of the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, Who was to come, which the Church now celebrates, yet St. 
 
 Paul affirmeth that our Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and 
 drink the same spiritual drink. 
 
 XXIII.—Perchance you ask, what same? the very same, which 
 at this day the company of the faithful eateth and drinketh in the 
 
X1V APPENDIX. 
 
 Church. For we may not think them diverse, since one and the same 
 Christ gave His own Flesh for food, and His own Blood for drink, 
 to that people, who, in the desert, were baptized in the cloud and 
 in the sea, and now in the Church feedeth the congregation of the 
 faithful with the Bread of His Body, and giveth them to drink of 
 the stream of His Blood. 
 
 XXIV.—The Apostle intending to intimate thus much, after saying 
 our Fathers ate the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual 
 
 1Cor.x.,4. drink, immediately addeth, “ For they drank of that spiritual Rock 
 that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” To the end we 
 might understand, that in the wilderness the same Christ was in the 
 spiritual Rock, and gave the stream of His Blood to the people, Who 
 afterwards exhibited in our age His Body taken of the Virgin, and 
 hanged upon the cross, for the salvation of believers, and shed from 
 it the stream of His Blood, to the end we might not only be redeemed 
 by it, but also have it for our drink. 
 
 XXV.—In very deed this is wonderful, since we cannot comprehend 
 its depth, nor weigh its value. He had not as yet assumed man’s 
 nature; He had not as yet tasted death for the salvation of the world; 
 He had not as yet redeemed us with His Blood; and still our Fathers 
 in the desert, by means of that spiritual meat, and that invisible drink, 
 did eat His Body and drink His Blood, as the Apostle testifieth when 
 
 1 Cor.x.,4.he saith, ‘Our Fathers ate the same spiritual meat, and drank the 
 same spiritual drink.” Here we must not enquire how that could be 
 done, but must believe that it was done. For He who now in the 
 Church by His Almighty power spiritually changeth bread and wine 
 into the Flesh of His Body, and the stream of His own Blood, at that 
 time too wrought invisibly, so that the manna, which was given from 
 heaven, and the water, which flowed from the Rock, became His Body 
 and His Blood. 
 
 είχαν,  XXVIL.—This David understood and testified in the Holy Ghost, 
 
 i saying, “ Man did eat Angels’ food.” For it were a fond thing to sup- 
 pose that the corporeal manna, which was given to the Fathers, feedeth 
 the host of heaven, or that they use such diet, who are satisfied with 
 the feast of the Divine Word. Of a truth the Psalmist, or rather the 
 Holy Ghost speaking in the Psalmist, teacheth us, both what our 
 Fathers received in that heavenly manna, and what the faithful ought 
 
APPENDIX. XV 
 
 to believe in the mystery of Christ’s Body. In either surely is Christ 
 signified, who feedeth the souls of believers, and is Angels’ food. ‘This 
 too He doth and is, not by bodily taste, nor by becoming bodily food, 
 but by the power of the spiritual Word. 
 XXVII.—We know also on the testimony of the Evangelist, that Argument 
 
 from the 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, before He suffered, “ took bread, and when prone ere 
 He had given thanks, He gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘This 15 tion. 
 Ξ Ξ Luke xxii. 
 
 My Body, which is given for you: do this in remembrance of Me.’ 19, 20. 
 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘ This cup is the New 
 Testament in My Blood, which shall be shed for you.’” We see that, 
 though Christ had not yet suffered, He still, even then, wrought the 
 mystery of His Body and Blood. 
 
 XXVIII.—For sure am I, no believer doubteth that the bread 
 which He gave to His disciples, saying, “ This is My Body, which 
 is given for you,” was made the Body of Christ; or that the cup of 
 which He also said, “‘ This cup is the New Testament in My Blood, 
 which shall be shed for you,” contained the Blood of Christ. As 
 then, a little before His passion, He was able to change the substance 
 of bread and the creature of wine, into His own Body, which was to 
 suffer, and into His Blood, which was afterward to be shed ; so too 
 in the desert he had power to change the manna and the water from 
 the rock, into His own Flesh and Blood, though long time was to pass 
 ere that Flesh was to hang on the cross for us, or that Blood to be 
 shed for our cleansing. 
 
 XXIX.— Here too we must consider, how His words are to Bevanyae 
 taken, “‘ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His43. 
 Blood, ye shall not have life in you.” He doth not say that His 
 Flesh, which hung on the cross, should be cut in pieces, and eaten 
 by His disciples, or that His Blood, which He was to shed for the 
 redemption of the world, should be given to His disciples to drink. It 
 had been an horrible crime for His disciples to drink His Blood, or 
 to eat His Flesh, as the unbelieving Jews then understood Him. 
 
 XXX.—Wherefore in the words following, He saith to His disciples, 
 who received His words not in unbelief but in faith, though they did 
 not fully see, how those words were to be understood, “ Doth this John vi., 
 offend you ? what and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where ” ~ 
 He was before?” as though He said, “ Think not that My Flesh is 
 
XV1 APPENDIX. 
 
 to be corporally eaten, or My Blood corporally drunk by you, that 
 it is divided, or to be hereafter divided into parts, for after My resur- 
 rection ye shall see Me ascend into Heaven with the fulness of My 
 entire Body, and Blood. Then shall ye understand that My Flesh 
 is not to be eaten by believers, as the faithless suppose, but that bread 
 and wine truly, yet mystically changed into the substance of My Body 
 and Blood, is to be received by them.” 
 
 qohnvi.,  _XXXIJ.—And immediately he addeth, “ It is the Spirit that quick- 
 eneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” He saith that the flesh profiteth 
 nothing as those unbelievers understood it, but otherwise it giveth life, 
 as it is mystically received by the faithful. And why so? He Himself 
 declareth, saying, “ It is the Spirit that quickeneth.” Wherefore in 
 this mystery of the Body and Blood, it is the spiritual working that 
 giveth life, without which working those mysteries avail nothing; they 
 may feed the body, but cannot feed the soul. 
 
 XXXII.—Here ariseth that question, which very many propose 
 when they say, that these things are done, not in figure, but in truth ; 
 in speaking thus, they are proved to contradict the writings of the Holy 
 Fathers. 
 
 St. Augus. XXXILI.—St. Augustine, a chief doctor of the Church, in his third 
 
 quoted, book of Christian Doctrine, thus writeth:* “ ‘ Except ye eat’ (saith 
 the Saviour) ‘the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye 
 shall not have life in you.’ He seemeth to command a flagitious 
 crime. His words therefore are in a figure, bidding us communicate 
 in the Lord’s passion, and faithfully store up in our memory, that His 
 Flesh was crucified and wounded for us.” 
 
 XXXIV.—We see this doctor saith, that the mystery of the Body 
 and Blood of Christ is celebrated by the faithful under a figure ; for 
 carnally to receive His Body and Blood is not, he saith, an act of 
 religion, but a crime. So were they minded, who in the Gospel took 
 our Saviour’s words not spiritually but carnally, who departed from 
 Him, and followed Him no more. 
 
 XXXV.—The same Father in his Epistle to Boniface the bishop, 
 among other things, thus writeth :} “‘ We often speak in this manner, 
 
 * St. August. eoncerning Christian Doctrine, book iii. ch. 16. 
 + St. August. Epist. xeviil. § 9. 
 
APPENDIX. XVil 
 
 when the Pasch draweth nigh, To-morrow or the next day is the Lord's 
 Passion, though He suffered so many years ago, and that but once for 
 all. Likewise we say on the Lord’s day, On this day the Lord rose 
 again, though so many years have passed since He rose. Why then 
 is none so foolish, as to charge us with falsehood for so speaking? It 
 is because we name the days after their likeness to those, on which 
 the things themselves were done ; whence that is called the day of His 
 resurrection, which is not so indeed, but like it in the revolution of 
 time: and by reason of the celebration of the Sacrament, that is said 
 to be done on this very day, which not on this day, but in former time 
 was done. Was not Christ once sacrificed in His own Person? and 
 yet in the Sacrament He is offered up for the people, not only during 
 all the Paschal solemnity,* but every day. Wherefore he lieth not, 
 who, when questioned, answereth that Christ is now sacrificed. For 
 if Sacraments had not some resemblance to those things, of which they 
 are the Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all. But from 
 this resemblance they oft-times take the names of the things themselves. 
 As then after a certain sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the 
 Body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ, the Blood 
 of Christ, so too the Sacrament of the faith+ is the faith.” 
 XXXVI.—We see St. Augustine saith, that Sacraments are one 
 thing, and the things of which they are Sacraments another. For the 
 Body, in which Christ suffered, and the Blood, which flowed from His 
 side, are the things themselves; whilst the mysteries of these things 
 are the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, which are 
 
 * “The ancients commonly included fifteen days in the whole solemnity of the 
 Pasch, that is, the week before Easter Sunday, and the week following it: the one 
 of which was called the Pasch of the Cross, and the other, the Pasch of the Resur- 
 rection. The general name Pascha, which is of Hebrew extract from Pesach, which 
 signifies the Passover, will comprise both. For the Christian Passover includes as 
 well the Passion as the Resurrection of our Saviour, Who is the true Paschal Lamb 
 or Passover, that was sacrificed for us. And, therefore, though our English word, 
 Easter, be generally used only to signify the Resurrection, yet the ancient word, 
 Pascha, was taken in a larger sense, to denote as well the Pasch of the Crucifixion, 
 as the Pasch of the Resurrection.” Bingham, Antiq. b. xx. ch. 5. αὶ 1. 
 
 + The Sacrament of the faith] That is, Baptism, as the words of St. Augustine 
 immediately following shew. ‘When the answer is made [i.e. at Baptism] that the 
 little one believeth, who hath not yet the affection of faith, the answer that he hath 
 faith is made on account of the Sacrament of faith, and that he turns to God on 
 account of the Sacrament of conversion.” 
 
XVlil APPENDIX. 
 
 celebrated in memory of the Lord’s passion, not only during the whole 
 Paschal solemnity in every year, but also every day throughout the 
 year. 
 
 XXXVII.—And although the Body of Christ, in which He once 
 suffered, is one, and His Blood, which was shed for the salvation of the 
 world, is one, yet the Sacraments of these things have assumed the 
 names of the things themselves, so as to be called the Body and Blood 
 of Christ; and this, from their likeness to the things, which they shadow 
 forth ; even as the Passion and the Resurrection, which are celebrated 
 every year, are so called, though He suffered and rose again in His 
 own Person but once, nor can those days now be recalled, since they 
 have passed away. Yet the days, on which the Passion or Resurrection 
 of the Lord is commemorated, are so called in that they have a resem- 
 blance to those days, on which the Saviour once suffered and rose 
 again. 
 
 XXXVITI.—Whence we say, To-day or to-morrow or the next day 
 is the Passion or the Resurrection of the Lord, though the very days, 
 on which these things were done have for many years passed away. 
 So we may say, The Lord is sacrificed, when the Sacrament of His 
 passion is celebrated, though He were but once sacrificed in His own 
 
 1 Petia. Person for the salvation of the world, as the Apostle saith, ‘“ Christ 
 hath suffered for us, leaving you an example that ye should follow His 
 steps.” Not that He suffereth in His own Body every day—that He 
 did once—but He hath left us an example, which is daily presented to 
 believers in the mystery of the Lord’s Body and Blood; so that whoso 
 approacheth thereto, may know that he must have fellowship with Him 
 in His sufferings, the image whereof he waiteth for in these sacred 
 
 Prov.xxiii,, Mysteries, according to that saying of Wisdom, “ Thou hast drawn 
 
 ᾿ near to the table of ἃ mighty one, consider diligently what is set before 
 thee, knowing that thou thyself must prepare the like.”* To draw 
 near to a mighty one’s table, is to become a partaker of the Lord's 
 offering. To consider what is set before us, is to discern the Lord’s 
 Body and Blood. Of which whoso partaketh, let him consider that he 
 ought to prepare like things, that He may imitate Him by fellowship 
 
 * knowing ... like] These words are not in the Hebrew. The Septuagint version 
 has them, and it is evident that they existed in some old Latin versions, as they are 
 quoted by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. They are not in the Vulgate. 
 
APPENDIX. ΧΙΧ 
 
 in His death, the memory whereof he confesseth, not by believing only, 
 but also by tasting. 
 
 XXXIX.—So St. Paul to the Hebrews: “ For such an High Priest He, vi. 
 became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and 
 made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high 
 priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for His own sins, and then for the 
 people’s ; for this the Lord Jesus Christ did once, when He offered up 
 Himself.” What He did once, He daily repeateth; He once offered 
 Himself for the sins of the people, yet the same oblation is every day 
 celebrated by the faithful, but in a mystery ; so that what the Lord 
 Jesus Christ by once offering Himself fully accomplished, this in 
 remembrance of His passion is every day performed by the celebration 
 of the mysteries. 
 
 XL.—Yet it is not false to say that in those mysteries the Lord is 
 sacrificed, or suffers, since they have a likeness to that death and 
 passion, the representations of which they are. Whence they are styled 
 the Lord’s Body and the Lord’s Blood, for they take the name of those 
 things, of which they are the Sacraments. Hence St. Isidore, in his 
 book of Etymologies, speaketh thus:* “ Sacrificiwm sacrifice is so 
 called from sacrum factum, a thing made sacred, because it is conse- 
 crated by mystical prayer, in remembrance of the Lord’s passion on 
 our behalf. Whence by His command, we call that the Body and 
 Blood of Christ, which, though made of the fruits of the earth, is 
 sanctified, and becomes a Sacrament by the invisible operation of the 
 Spirit of God. The Sacrament of this bread and cup the Greeks call 
 Eucharist, which the Latins interpret Bona Gratia, Good grace. And 
 what can be better than the Body and Blood of Christ? [Now the 
 bread and wine are for this cause compared to the Lord’s Body and 
 Blood, because as the visible substance of this bread and wine doth 
 nourish and cheer the outward man, so the Word of God, which is the 
 living Bread, doth refresh the souls of the faithful by the participation 
 of Himself.” + ] 
 
 XLI.—This Catholic doctor also teacheth, that this holy mystery 
 of our Lord’s passion is to be celebrated in memory of the Lord’s 
 passion on our behalf. By so saying, he shews that the Lord’s passion 
 
 * St. Isidore, Orig. book vi. ch. 19. 
 + The words in brackets are not in the present copies of Isidore. 
 
XX APPENDIX. 
 
 Was once accomplished, but that the memory of it is represented in 
 sacred and solemn rites. 
 
 XLII.—So that the bread which is offered, though taken from the 
 fruits of the earth, is by consecration changed into Christ’s Body, and 
 the wine, though it hath flowed from the Vine, yet by the consecration 
 in this divine mystery is made the Blood of Christ, not indeed visibly, 
 but, as this doctor saith, by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God, 
 
 XLIII.—Whence they are called the Body and Blood of Christ, 
 because they are received not as what they outwardly appear, but as 
 they are made inwardly by the operation of the Spirit of Gud. And 
 as through this invisible power they have a nature far different from 
 that which outwardly appeareth, he maketh a distinction, saying, that 
 bread and wine are for this cause compared to the Lord’s Body and 
 Blood; because as the visible substance of bread and wine doth nourish 
 and make cheerful the outward man, so the Word of God, which is the 
 living Bread, doth refresh the souls of the faithful by the participation 
 of Himself. 
 
 XLIV.—Now in saying this, he most plainly confesseth, that in 
 the Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood, whatever is outwardly 
 received, is fitted for the refreshing of the body. But the Word of 
 God, which is the invisible Bread, and existeth invisibly in that 
 Sacrament, doth, by the participation of Himself, invisibly feed the 
 souls of the faithful with a quickening virtue. 
 
 XLV.—Hence too, the same doctor saith, ‘‘ There is a Sacrament 
 in the celebration of any thing, when it is so performed, that it be 
 understood to signify somewhat, which must be spiritually taken.” By 
 these words he sheweth that every Sacrament in divine matters containeth 
 within itself some secret thing, and that it is one thing, which appeareth 
 to the outward eye, whilst it is another, which must be taken on faith 
 and not on sight. 
 
 XLVI.—Immediately after he sheweth what Sacraments the faithful 
 ought to celebrate. ‘‘ The Sacraments are Baptism and Chrism,* the 
 Body and the Blood. These are called Sacraments, because under the 
 
 * “Tt is usual with the ancients to divide the proper Sacraments, Baptism and the 
 Eucharist, each of them into two or more, meaning the several parts or rites belonging 
 to them. Thus Isidore speaks of four Sacraments in the Church, which are, Baptism, 
 Chrism, the Body of Christ, and the Blood of Christ. As therefore the Bread and 
 
APPENDIX. ΧΧῚ 
 
 covering of bodily things the power of God secretly worketh the salva- 
 tion, which lieth in them. Whence from their hidden and sacred 
 virtues they are called Sacraments.” He afterward saith, “ It is called 
 in Greek mysterion, a mystery, because it hath a secret and hidden 
 dispensation.” 
 
 XLVII.—What are we hence taught, save that the Body and Blood 
 of the Lord are styled mysteries, because they have a secret and hidden 
 dispensation; or, in other words, that it is one thing, which they out- 
 wardly shew, and another, which they inwardly and invisibly do work. 
 
 XLVIII.—For this reason too they are called Sacraments, because 
 under the covering of bodily things, the power of God doth secretly 
 dispense salvation to the faithful recipient. 
 
 XLIX.—From all that we have heretofore said, it hath been proved, es 
 that the Body and Blood of Christ, which in the Church are received nse 
 by the mouths of the faithful, are figures in respect of their visible 
 nature. But in respect of their invisible substance, that is, the power 
 of the Word of God, they are truly the Body and Blood of Christ. 
 Wherefore as far as they are visible creatures, they feed the body, but 
 in virtue of a more powerful substance, they both feed and sanctify the 
 souls of the faithful. 
 
 L.—Now we must examine the second question proposed, and see, Second 
 whether the self-same Body, which was born of Mary, which suffered, ae 
 died, and was buried, and which sitteth at the right hand of the Father, 
 be that, which daily in the Church is received by the mouths of the 
 faithful in the mystery of the Sacrament. 
 
 LI.—Let us enquire what is the judgment of St. Ambrose on thisst. Am- 
 point. He saith in his first book of the Sacraments,* “ Of a truth it is quoted. 
 marvellous that God should rain down manna on our Fathers, and feed 
 them from day to day with heavenly food. Whence it is said, ‘ Man Bo.xxviii, 
 did eat Angels’ food’ Yet all they who ate that bread, perished in the 
 wilderness. But that food, which thou receivest, that living Bread, 
 which came down from heaven, ministereth in a hidden way the sub- 
 
 Wine are called two Sacraments, though they be but two parts of the same Eucharist, 
 so the washing and the unction are called two Sacraments, though they be but two 
 rites of the same Sacrament of Baptism.” Bingham, Auntiq. b. xii. ch. 1. § 4. 
 
 * St. Ambr. concerning Mysteries, c. vili. § 47. 
 
XX APPENDIX. 
 
 stance of everlasting life, and whoso eateth of this Bread, shall never 
 die, and this is the Body of Christ.” 
 
 LII.—See in what sense this doctor saith that the Body of Christ 
 is that food, which the faithful receive in the Church; he saith, “ that 
 living Bread which came down from heaven, ministereth in a hidden 
 way the substance of everlasting life.” Doth it, as it is seen, and cor- 
 porally taken, and pressed by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat, 
 and received into the belly, doth it so minster the substance of ever- 
 lasting life? In that respect, it nourisheth only the flesh which shall 
 die, and ministereth no incorruption, nor can we truly say of it, 
 “ Whoso eateth of this shall never die.” For that which the body 
 receiveth, is corruptible, nor can it secure to the body, that it should 
 never die, since that which is subject to corruption, cannot give ever- 
 aa lasting life. There is then in that Bread a life, which appeareth not 
 =D. to the bodily eye, but is seen by the eye of faith, which is the living 
 
 Bread, that came down from heaven, and of which it may with truth 
 be said, ‘‘ Whoso eateth of this, shall never die;” and, ‘ This is the 
 Body of Christ.” 
 
 LII1I.—And afterward, speaking of the Almighty power of Christ, 
 he saith, “Can not the word of Christ therefore, which from nothing 
 could make that which was not, change those things which are, into 
 that which they were not? For is it not a greater work to produce 
 new things, than to change the nature of things that are ?” 
 
 LIV.—St. Ambrose saith, that in that mystery of the Blood and 
 Body of Christ a change is made, and that a wondrous change, because 
 divine, and ineffable, because incomprehensible. Let them who will 
 take nothing here according to any hidden virtue, but will weigh every 
 thing as it outwardly appeareth, let them say, in what respect the 
 change is here made ? For in respect of the substance of the creatures, 
 they are after consecration what they were before. Bread and wine 
 they were before, and after consecration they are seen to remain of the 
 same nature. So that a change hath inwardly been wrought by the 
 mighty power of the Holy Spirit, and this is that which faith gazeth 
 upon, this is that which feedeth the soul, this is that which ministereth 
 the substance of eternal life. 
 
 LV.—Afterward he addeth, ‘“‘ Why dost thou here require the order 
 
APPENDIX. XX 
 
 of nature in the Body of Christ, when the Lord Jesus Himself was 
 born of the Virgin, beside the order of nature δὰ 
 
 LVI.—Now perhaps some one who heareth this may rise up and 
 say, ‘That which we see is the Body of Christ, and that which we 
 drink is His Blood; yet we must not enquire how it is so made, but 
 stedfastly hold that it doth so become.’ Thou seemest indeed to think 
 aright, yet if thou dost diligently consider the force of thy words, thou 
 dost indeed faithfully believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, 
 (for if it were an object of sight, thou wouldest say, ‘ I see,’ and not, 
 41 believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ,’) but now since it is 
 faith, that beholdeth the whole matter, whatever it be, and the eye of 
 the flesh perceiveth nought, thou must understand that what we look 
 upon is the Body and Blood of Christ not in nature, but in power. 
 Wherefore [St. Ambrose] saith, ‘we must not here look for the order 
 of nature, but must adore the power of Christ, which changeth what- 
 soever He willeth, how He willeth, into what He willeth ; which createth 
 what was not, and when created, changeth it into what it was not before.’ 
 The same author addeth, “ It was surely the true Flesh of Christ 
 which was crucified, which was buried; therefore this is truly the 
 Sacrament of His Flesh. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims, ‘ This yea 
 is My Body.’” 
 
 LVII.—How carefully, how warily is this distinction drawn! Of 
 the Flesh of Christ, which was crucified, which was buried, that is, in 
 respect of which Christ was crucified, and buried, he saith, ‘ This was 
 surely the true Flesh of Christ ;” but of that, which is received in the 
 Sacrament, he declareth, ‘‘ Therefore this is truly the Sacrament of 
 that Flesh.” Here he distinguisheth between the Sacrament of the 
 Flesh, and the Flesh itself; inasmuch as he saith, that He was crucified 
 and buried in that true Flesh, which He took of the Virgin; but that 
 the mystery, which is now performed in the Church, is the Sacrament 
 of that true Flesh, in the which He was crucified. Here He openly 
 teacheth the faithful, that the Flesh, in which Christ was cruciffed and 
 buried, is no mystery, but true and natural; while the Flesh, which 
 now in a mystery containeth the similitude of the former, is not Flesh 
 in its nature, but in a Sacrament. For in its nature it is bread, but 
 sacramentally it is the true Body of Christ, as the Lord Jesus Himself 
 declareth, “‘ This is My Body.” 
 
XXIV APPENDIX. 
 
 LVIII.—Also below [he addeth,] « The Holy Ghost by the mouth 
 
 of the prophet hath in another place declared to thee what we eat and 
 
 25. =xxiv. what we drink, when He saith, ‘ O taste and see that the Lord is good ; 
 blessed is the man that trusteth in Him.’” Doth that bread when 
 corporally tasted, or that wine when corporally drunk, show how good 
 the Lord is? All the taste it hath is corporeal, and pleaseth the 
 palate. What? is to taste the Lord, to perceive ought corporeal ? 
 Wherefore he inviteth us to try the flavour of that which is spiritually 
 tasted, he inviteth us in that drink and that bread to hold no corporeal 
 notion, but to understand the whole spiritually, since the Lord is a 
 Spirit, and blessed is the man that trusteth in Him. 
 
 LIX.—And afterward, “ Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is 
 the Body of Christ. Wherefore it is not corporeal, but spiritual food.” 
 What can be plainer? what more manifest ? what more divine? For 
 he saith, “ Christ is in that Sacrament.” He saith not, That bread 
 and that wine is Christ ; did he say this, he would declare that Christ 
 was mortal and subject to corruption, (which God forbid.) For what- 
 soever is in that food the object either of corporeal sight or taste, is of 
 a surety subject to corruption. 
 
 LX.—He addeth, “‘ Because it is the Body of Christ.” Here you 
 will start up and say, See he openly confesseth that the bread and the 
 wine are the Body [and Blood] of Christ. But mark how he con- 
 cludeth, “‘ Wherefore it is not corporeal, but spiritual food.” Do not 
 then apply your bodily senses ; they can discern nought here. Of a 
 truth it is the Body of Christ, yet not His corporeal, but His spiritual 
 Body ; it is the Blood of Christ, yet not His corporeal, but His 
 spiritual Blood. N ought then is to be understood here corporally, but 
 all spiritually. It is the Body of Christ, yet not corporally ; it is the 
 Blood of Christ, yet not corporally. 
 
 LXI.—Afterward he addeth, “ Hence the Apostle, when speaking 
 
 We x» of its type, saith, ‘Our Fathers ate spiritual meat, and drank spiritual 
 
 drink.’ For the Body of God is a spiritual Body, the Body of Christ 
 
 is the Body of a divine Spirit; for Christ is a Spirit, as we read in the 
 
 Lam. iv, Book of Lamentations, ‘ Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our 
 ; face.’ ”* 
 
 * This passage is applied to Christ by Justin Martyr, Irenzus, Tertullian, Origen, 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Augustine. Christ in regard of His Divine Nature is often 
 
APPENDIX. XXV 
 
 LXII.—Most clearly hath he taught us, how we ought to understand 
 the mystery of Christ’s Body and Blood. For after saying, “ Our 
 Fathers ate spiritual meat and drank spiritual drink,” (where no one 
 doubteth that the manna they ate, and the water they drank, were 
 corporeal,) he goeth on to define in what sense that mystery, which 
 is performed in the Church, is the Body of Christ. He saith, “ God’s 
 Body is a spiritual Body.” Of a truth Christ is God, and the Body, 
 which He took of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, was buried, and 
 rose again, was a real Body, that is, the Body which ever remained 
 the object of sight and touch. Whilst that Body, which is called the 
 mystery of God, is not corporeal, but spiritual; and if spiritual, then 
 an object neither of sight, nor touch. Wherefore St. Ambrose goeth 
 on to say, ‘‘ The Body of Christ is the Body of a divine Spirit.” Now 
 a divine Spirit in its proper essence is nought corporeal, nought cor- 
 ruptible, nought tangible. But this Body, which is celebrated in the 
 Church, is in respect of its visible nature, both corruptible and tangible. 
 
 LXIII.—How then is it called the Body of a divine Spirit? Of 
 a truth, as it is spiritual, that is, as it doth subsist, being invisible, 
 impalpable, and therefore incorruptible. 
 
 LXIV.—Whence in the following words, ‘“ because Christ is a 
 Spirit, as we read, ‘Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our face ;’” 
 he openly sheweth in what respect it is held to be the Body of Christ; 
 namely, as the Spirit of Christ is therein, that is, the power of the 
 divine Word, which doth not feed only, but also purge the soul. 
 
 LXV.—Wherefore the same author goeth on to say, “ Lastly, that Ps.civ., 15. 
 food strengtheneth our heart, and that drink maketh glad the heart 
 of man, as the Prophet testifieth.” Doth then corporeal food strengthen, 
 and corporeal drink make glad the heart of man? No. But to shew 
 of what meat and drink he is speaking, he significantly adds, that meat 
 and that drink. What is that meat and that drink? Of a truth it 
 is the Body of Christ, the Body of a divine Spirit, and (that he may 
 impress this more clearly upon us) Christ the Spirit, of whom Scripture zam. iv., 
 saith, ‘Christ the Lord is the Spirit before our face.” By all which ἘᾺΝ 
 
 spoken of by the Fathers as the Spirit, and the Spirit of God, as Bp. Bull has shewn. 
 Def. Fid. Nic. I. ii. 95. Agreeable to this are the following passages of Scripture, 
 which he cites; Markii.8. Rom.i. 3,4. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Heb. ix. 14. 1 Pet. iii. 
 18, 19, 20. John vi. 63 with 56. 
 
 d 
 
ΧΧΥΪ APPENDIX. 
 
 it is clearly shewn, that nothing should be understood corporally in that 
 food, and that drink, but all should be spiritually taken. 
 
 LXVI.—For the soul, which is meant by the heart of man in this 
 place, is not fed by corporeal meat, or corporeal drink, but is nourished 
 by the Word of God, and groweth thereby. Which the same doctor 
 affirmeth yet more clearly in his fifth book of the Sacraments,* where 
 he saith, ‘It is not that bread which goeth into the body, but that 
 Bread of eternal life, which in a hidden manner doth minister substance 
 to our soul.” 
 
 LXVII.—The subsequent part of the passage most clearly sheweth, 
 that St. Ambrose spoke thus, not of common bread, but of the Bread 
 of the Body of Christ. For he is speaking of that daily Bread for 
 which the faithful pray. 
 
 LXVIII.—And he therefore addeth, “If it is your daily Bread, 
 why do you receive it but once a year, as the Greeks in the East are 
 wont to do. Receive then daily that which daily may profit, and live 
 so, that day by day you may be worthy to receive.” It is clear then 
 of what Bread he is speaking; namely, of the Bread of the Body of 
 Christ, which supporteth the substance of our soul, not by that, which 
 passeth into the body, but by that, which is the Bread of everlasting 
 life. 
 
 LXIX.—By the authority of this most learned man, we are taught, 
 that the difference is wide between the Body, in which Christ suffered, 
 and the Blood, which when hanging on the cross He shed from His 
 side, and that Body, which in the mystery of Christ’s passion is daily 
 celebrated by the faithful, and that Blood, which is taken by the mouths 
 of the faithful, that to them it may be the mystery of that Blood, by 
 which the whole world was redeemed. For that bread and that drink 
 are not the Body and Blood of Christ in respect of what meeteth the 
 eye, but as they spiritually minister in a hidden way the substance of 
 life. But the Body, in which Christ once suffered, bore no other 
 appearance than that in which it really subsisted. It was that, which 
 truly} was seen, was touched, was crucified, was buried. In like sort 
 the Blood, which flowed from His side, did not appear one thing out- 
 wardly, and veil another thing inwardly; true Blood flowed from a 
 
 * St. Ambr. on the Sacraments, Ὁ. v. c. 4. + 1.6. not figuratively, see § 7, 8. 
 
APPENDIX. XXVll 
 
 true Body; but now the Blood of Christ, which the faithful drink, 
 and His Body, which they eat, are one thing in nature, and another 
 in signification. They are one thing as they feed the body with 
 corporeal food, and another thing, as they satisfy the soul with the 
 substance of everlasting life. 
 
 LXX.—Of which matter St. Hierom, in his commentary on the St. Hierom 
 Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians, writeth thus:* “ The Blood τος 
 of Christ, and the Flesh of Christ, are taken in two senses. They are 
 either that spiritual and divine Flesh [and Blood], of which He Himself 
 saith, ‘My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed ;’ or John vi., 
 the Flesh, which was crucified, and the Blood, which was poured pe 
 by the soldier's spear.” 
 
 LXXI.—The difference is not small with which this doctor distin- Christ's 
 
 : ἢ ‘ ς ᾿ ν Body and 
 guisheth concerning the Body and Blood of Christ. For whilst he Bes 
 
 saith that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are daily taken by the two senses. 
 faithful, are spiritual; while the Flesh, which was crucified, and the 
 Blood, which was poured out by the soldier's spear, are not said to be 
 spiritual, or divine; openly doth he insinuate, that these two differ from 
 one another no less than things corporeal and spiritual, visible and 
 invisible, divine and human. And, because they differ, they are not 
 the same; but the spiritual Bread, which is taken by the mouths of 
 the faithful, and the spiritual Blood, which is daily presented to be 
 drunk by believers, differ from the Flesh, which was crucified, and the 
 Blood, which was poured out by the soldier’s spear, as the testimony 
 of this author sheweth ; therefore they are not the same. 
 LXXII.—For that Flesh, which was crucified, was made of the 
 Virgin’s flesh, bound together by bones and sinews, and marked out 
 by the lines of human members, and animated with the breath of a 
 reasonable soul, for its own proper life, and befitting motions. But, 
 on the other hand, that spiritual Flesh, which spiritually feedeth the 
 company of the faithful, as to the form which it outwardly beareth, 
 is made of grains of corn by the baker’s hand, is bound together by 
 no sinews or bones, is not parted into various members, is animated 
 by no reasonable substance, hath no power to exercise any motions 
 of its own. For whatsoever therein giveth us the substance of life, 
 
 * §. Hier. on the Ep. to the Eph. ο. 1. 
 
XXVll APPENDIX. 
 
 ἴῃ its power is spiritual, in its efficacy invisible, in its virtue divine. 
 It is far different, as to its outward appearance, and as to that, which 
 in the mystery is believed. Moreover, the Flesh of Christ, which was 
 crucified, had no other outward show than what it inwardly was, inas- 
 much as it was the very flesh of a very man, a true body consisting 
 in the nature of a true body. 
 
 The Sacra J,XXIII.—It is further to be considered, that in that Bread; not 
 
 mental 
 
 ΩΝ the Body of Christ alone is figured, but also that of the people who 
 ane oele believe in Him. Wherefore it is made of many grains of corn, as the 
 Oe Body of faithful people is made up of many, that believe through the 
 
 word of Christ. 
 LXXIV.—For which reason, as that Bread is taken to be the Body 
 of Christ in a mystery, so likewise are the members of the people that 
 believe in Christ signified in a mystery. And as that Bread is called 
 ? the Body of believers not corporally, but spiritually ; so also we must 
 understand the Body of Christ not corporally, but spiritually. 
 Asis also _1,.X XV.—So too, with the wine, which is called the Blood of Christ, 
 
 the water 
 
 ee water is ordered to be mixed, nor is the one allowed to be offered without 
 
 the other ;* because, as the head cannot be without the body, nor the 
 
 * This custom prevailed universally, and from the earliest times, in the Christian 
 Church, both in the East and West. Justin Martyr of Syria, St. Ireneeus of Gaul, 
 and St. Cyprian of Carthage, bear testimony to the fact in the second and third 
 centuries. It is probable, that the cup which our Saviour blessed at the Last Supper, 
 contained water as well as wine; for the Paschal cup, which He used in instituting 
 the Eucharist, was always so prepared by the Jews. The reasons which St. Cyprian 
 (Ep. Ixiii.) gives for this custom are the same as those of Ratramn. He saith; 
 “ Holy Scripture declareth that water signifieth the people,” quoting Rev. vii. 15. 
 “Which we see too in the Sacrament of the Cup. For since Christ, Who bore our 
 sins, beareth us all also, we perceive that in tle water the people is understood, in the 
 wine the Blood of Christ is represented. But when in the cup water is mixed with 
 wine, then the people is united to Christ, and the company of believers is closely 
 joined to Him, in Whom they believe. Which union of water and wine in the cup 
 of the Lord is so intimate, that the elements when mingled cannot be separated one 
 from the other. Whence nothing whatever can separate the Church (i.e. the people 
 built up in the Church, and faithfully and firmly abiding in that which it believeth,) 
 from Christ, or prevent that love continuing firm and undivided. Thus in consecrating 
 the cup of the Lord, water cannot be offered alone, as also wine cannot be offered 
 alone ; for if the wine be offered by itself, the Blood of Christ beginneth to be without 
 us; and if the water be alone, the people beginneth to be without Christ: but when 
 both are mingled together, and joined each to each by an intimate union, then a 
 spiritual and heavenly Sacrament is produced.” Bingham gives a further account of 
 this custom. Ant. b. xv. ὁ. ii. ὃ 7. 
 
APPENDIX. ΧΧΙ͂Χ 
 
 body without the head, so neither can the people be without Christ, nor 
 Christ without the people. Moreover, the water in that [part of the] 
 Sacrament beareth the image of the people. If therefore that wine, when 
 consecrated by the office of the Minister, is corporally changed into the 
 Blood of Christ, the water also, which is mixed with it, must necessarily 
 be corporally changed into the blood of the faithful people. For where 
 the consecration is one, there followeth also one operation ; and where 
 the cause is the same, the mystery which followeth is the same also. But 
 we see no change made in the water, as to bodily substance ; and there- 
 fore, there is no corporeal change in the wine. Whatever in the water sig- 
 nifieth the people of Christ, is taken spiritually ; whatever therefore in 
 the wine representeth the Blood of Christ, must be taken spiritually too. 
 LXXVI.—Again, things that differ from each other, are not the The ele- 
 
 ments not 
 
 same. The Body of Christ, which died, which rose again, and being imcormupt- 
 5 ible, there- 
 
 made immortal “dieth no more, nor hath death any more dominion ἴοτο ποῦ 
 
 Christ's 
 . . . . "Αἵ 
 over Him ;” that Body is eternal, and no longer subject to suffering. Roly ana 
 Ε 5 5 : ἃ. 
 But the Body, which is celebrated in the Church, is temporal, not a 
 om.vi. ,9. 
 
 eternal; corruptible, not incorruptible. They differ then from each 
 other, and therefore are not the same. Now if they be not the same, 
 how are they said to be the very Body and very Blood of Christ ? 
 
 LXXVII.—For if it be the Body of Christ, and if it be truly* said 
 that it is the Body of Christ; then it is in verity the Body of Christ ; 
 and if it be in verity the Body of Christ, then it is the incorruptible 
 and impassible, and therefore eternal, Body of Christ. And therefore, 
 this Body of Christ, which is celebrated in the Church, must be 
 incorruptible and eternal. But no one can deny that that thing is 
 corrupted, which is broken into parts and distributed to be taken ; 
 which is ground by the teeth, and passeth into the body. But in truth 
 that which is presented outwardly, is one thing, and that which is by 
 faith believed, another; that which appertaineth to the bodily senses, 
 is corruptible, but that which faith believeth, is incorruptible. That 
 therefore which outwardly appeareth, is not the thing itself, but its 
 image ; but that which is perceived and understood by the soul, is the 
 very thing itself. 
 
 LXXVIII.—Whence St. Augustine in his exposition of St. John’s st. Augus- 
 
 quoted, 
 
 * i.e, not figuratively, see § 7, 8. 
 
XXX APPENDIX. 
 
 Gospel,* when treating of the Body and Blood of Christ, saith thus; 
 “ Moses ate manna, and Aaron ate, and Phinees ate, aud many more 
 ate there, who pleased God, and died not. Wherefore? Because they 
 spiritually understood that visible food, they were spiritually an hun- 
 gred, they spiritually tasted, that spiritually they might be satisfied. 
 For we too at this day receive visible food; yet the Sacrament is one 
 thing, the virtue of the Sacrament another.” ‘The same Father addeth ; 
 
 Johnvi.,50.° This is the Bread which came down from heaven, this Bread the 
 manna, this Bread the altar of God signified. Those things were 
 Sacraments, differing in signs, yet the same in the thing signified. 
 
 1 Cor. x. Listen to the Apostle Paul; ‘ For I would not have you ignorant, 
 brethren, how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed 
 through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
 the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat;’ that is to say, the 
 same spiritually, for corporally they were diverse ; they ate manna, and 
 we eat another meat; yet spiritually they ate the same as we.” He 
 addeth, “‘and did all drink the same spiritual drink.’ They drank 
 one, we another, diverse only in outward show, which yet in spiritual 
 power signified this very same thing. For how did they drink of the 
 same drink? ‘They drank,’ he saith, ‘ of the spiritual Rock, which 
 followed them, and that Rock was Christ.’ Thence had they meat, 
 whence they had drink. In figure the Rock was Christ, but the true 
 Christ was in the Word and in Flesh.” 
 
 Johnvi,s0.  LXXI{X.—Again (it is written), “this is the Bread which came 
 down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” But 
 this hath reference to the virtue of the Sacrament, not to the visible 
 part of the Sacrament; to him, who eateth inwardly, not outwardly ; 
 who feedeth on it in his heart, not who presseth it with his teeth. 
 
 LXXX.—Again he introduceth our Saviour’s words, when in a fol- 
 
 John vi., lowing passage he speaketh thus, “ ‘ Doth this offend you that I said, 
 
 eee I give My Flesh to you to eat, and My Blood to drink ? What and 
 if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ?’ 
 What meaneth this? He here resolveth that, which troubled them, 
 He here layeth open that, at which they were offended. For they 
 thought He would give them His own Body ; whilst He said that He 
 
 « St. Augustine on St, John, ch. vi. Tract. Tapp ΗΠ: 
 
 Sx 
 
APPENDIX. ΧΧΧῚ 
 
 was about to ascend into Heaven whole and entire. When ye shall 
 see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before, ye shall then 
 at least see of a surety, that He giveth not His Body, in the way in 
 which ye think; then at least shall ye of a surety understand, that His 
 grace is not consumed by the teeth. And He saith, ‘It is the Spirit 
 that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.’” 
 
 LXXXI.—Again he addeth after some interval, “‘If any man ’ Hom 
 (saith the Apostle) ‘hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.’ 
 ‘It is the Spirit therefore which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. John vi.,63. 
 The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life.’ 
 What meaneth, they are Spirit and they are Life? They are to be 
 understood spiritually. Dost thou understand them spiritually ? They 
 are Spirit and they are Life. Dost thou understand them carnally ἢ 
 Even then they are Spirit and they are Life, but not to thee.” 
 
 LXXXII.—By the authority of this doctor, when treating of our 
 Lord’s words concerning the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, we 
 are manifestly taught, that these words of our Lord are to be under- 
 stood spiritually, not carnally. As He saith Himself, “ The words Johnvi.,64. 
 
 ᾽ 
 
 that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life,” namely, the 
 words which concern the eating of His Flesh and the drinking of His 
 Blood. For He speaketh of that, at which His disciples were offended. 
 In order then that they might not be offended, our divine Master 
 recalleth them from the flesh to the spirit, from the objects of bodily 
 sight to the understanding of things invisible. 
 
 LXXXIII.—We see then, that that food of the Lord’s Body, and 
 that drink of His Blood, subsist truly as His Body, and truly as His 
 Blood, after a certain sort; namely, in that they are Spirit and Life. 
 
 LXXXIV.—Again: things which are the same, are comprehended 
 under one definition. Of the true Body of Christ it is said, that He 
 is very God, and very Man: God, begotten of God the Father before 
 the worlds; Man, born of the Virgin Mary in the end of the world. 
 But since this cannot be said of the Body of Christ, which in the 
 Church is mystically celebrated, we know that it is the Body of Christ 
 after a certain manner, the manner namely of figure and image, so that 
 the thing itself might be felt to be the truth.* 
 
 * i.e. That we may perceive Christ Himself, Who is the truth and the reality, 
 shadowed forth under the figure and image of the symbols. See § 100. 
 
He argues 
 from a 
 Prayer in 
 use in his 
 time. 
 
 He argues 
 
 from an- 
 other 
 Prayer. 
 
 XXX APPENDIX. 
 
 LXXXV.—In the prayers used after the mystery of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ, to which the people answer, Amen, the Priest speaketh 
 thus ;* “* We, who have received the pledge ot eternal life, humbly 
 beseech Thee to grant that we may receive by manifest participation 
 that, which we touch under the image of the Sacrament.” 
 
 LXXXVI.—Now a pledge and image are the pledge and image 
 of some other thing; that is, they do not respect themselves, but 
 somewhat else. For a pledge is the pledge of that thing, for which 
 it is given; an image is the image of that, the likeness whereof it 
 sheweth forth. For they do not openly exhibit, but only signify those 
 things, of which they are the pledge and the image. Wherefore, it 
 followeth, that this Body and Blood are the pledge and image of some 
 future thing, whereby that, which is now exhibited under a likeness, 
 shall hereafter be openly revealed. Since then they now represent 
 that, which shall hereafter be revealed, it followeth that that, which 
 is now celebrated, is one thing, while that, which shall be revealed 
 hereafter, is another. 
 
 LXXXVII.—Wherefore that, which the Church celebrated, is both 
 the Body and Blood of Christ; but yet as a pledge, as an image. The 
 Truth we shall then possess, when pledge and image shall be no more, 
 but the thing itself in verity shall appear. 
 
 LXXXVIII.—And in another Prayer,+ ‘O Lord, we beseech Thee, 
 let Thy Sacraments work in us, that which they contain; so that, what 
 we now celebrate in figure, we may receive in very truth.” He saith 
 that these things are celebrated in figure, not in truth, that is, in the 
 likeness, not by the exhibition of the thing itself. Now figure and 
 truth differ from one another; wherefore the Body and the Blood, 
 which is celebrated in the Church, differ from that Body and that 
 Blood, which is acknowledged to be already glorified in Christ’s Body. 
 This Body is the pledge and figure, but that is the truth itself. This 
 will continue to be celebrated till we come to that other; but when we 
 come to that Body, this shall be taken away. 
 
 LXXXIX.—It appeareth therefore that they differ as much from 
 
 * This prayer is not found in the present Roman Mass Book. It is extant in the 
 second book of the Sacraments of the Church of Rome, edited by Thomasius. Rome, 
 1680, p. 160. 
 
 + This Prayer is in the ordinary Roman Mass Book. 
 
APPENDIX. XXXII 
 
 each other, as a pledge doth from that thing, of which it is given to 
 us as the pledge, as much as an image doth from that thing, of which 
 it is the image, as much as the figure doth from the truth. We see 
 then that the mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is now 
 received in the Church by the faithful, is separated by a wide difference 
 from that, which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, was 
 buried, which rose again, which ascended into Heaven, which sitteth 
 at the right hand of the Father. For that which is done on our journey, 
 is to be spiritually received, because faith belieyeth that, which it seeth 
 not ; it spiritually feedeth the soul, and maketh glad the heart, and 
 giveth everlasting life, and incorruption, while we look not upon that, 
 which feedeth the body, which is pressed by the teeth, which is divided 
 into parts, but upon that, which is spiritually received in faith. But 
 that Body, in which Christ suffered and rose again, still existeth as 
 His proper Body, which He took of the body of the Virgin Mary, 
 which even after His resurrection could be handled and seen, as He 
 Himself said to His disciples, ‘“‘ Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath 
 not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.” 
 
 XC.—Let us hear also what St. Fulgentius saith in his book con- 
 cerning faith.* ‘Most firmly hold, and doubt not in any sort, that 
 the Only-Begotten Son, God the Word, when made Flesh, offered 
 Himself for us, a sacrifice and oblation to God for a sweet-smelling 
 savour. To Whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, animals were 
 sacrificed in the time of the Old Testament by Patriarchs, Prophets, 
 and Priests, and to Whom now, that is, in the time of the New Testa- 
 ment, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost, with Whom He 
 hath one and the same Divinity, the Holy Catholic Church throughout 
 the world ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of Bread and Wine in faith 
 and love. In those carnal victims there was a signification of the Flesh 
 of Christ, which He without sin was to offer for our sins, and of that 
 Blood, which for the remission of our sins He was to pour forth. 
 Whilst in this sacrifice there is the thanksgiving, and commemoration 
 of the Flesh of Christ, which He hath offered for us, and of the Blood, 
 which He hath shed for us. Of which the Blessed Apostle Paul speaketh 
 
 Lukexxiv., 
 39. 
 
 St. Fulgen- 
 tius quoted. 
 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘Take heed to yourselves and to the whole Acts xx , 
 28. 
 
 * Fulgertius on faith to Peter the deacon, ch. 19. 
 
St. Augus- 
 tine quoted 
 
 again. 
 
 15. vii., 9. 
 
 XXXIV APPENDIX. 
 
 flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to rule the 
 Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own Blood.’ In those 
 sacrifices, therefore, what was to be given us was figuratively signified ; 
 but in this sacrifice, what has already been given us, is evidently shewn.” 
 
 XCI.—When he saith, that in those sacrifices there was a signifi- 
 cation of what should be given us, but in this sacrifice a commemoration 
 of what has been given us, he clearly implieth, that, as the one had 
 a figure of things to come, so this sacrifice too is a figure of things past. 
 
 XCII.—By these words he most evidently sheweth, how great is the 
 difference between the Body, in which Christ suffered, and this Body, 
 which is for the commemoration of His passion and death. For the 
 one is His proper and true Body, and hath naught in it of mystery 
 or figure; the other is mystical, and sheweth one thing by a figure 
 outwardly, while it representeth another thing inwardly through the 
 understanding of faith, 
 
 XCIII.—Let me allege one other testimony of the Father Augustine, 
 whick will confirm what I have said, and conclude my discourse. In 
 his sermon to the people concerning the Sacrament of the altar,* he 
 thus speaketh; “ What ye now see on the altar of God, ye saw also 
 on the night that is past ; but as yet ye have not heard what it is, what 
 it meaneth, and of how great a thing it containeth the Sacrament. 
 What ye see then, is the bread and the cup, which even your eyes 
 declare to you; but the point in which your faith requireth instruction 
 is this; that the bread is the Body of Christ, the cup is the Blood of 
 Christ. This is but briefly stated, and it may suffice for faith, yet faith 
 requireth instruction. For the Prophet saith, ‘If ye will not believe, 
 ye shall not understand.’ Ye may therefore say to me, Thou hast 
 bidden us to believe; explain that we may understand. A thought like 
 the following may arise in some one’s mind; We know whence our 
 Lord Jesus Christ took flesh, from the Virgin Mary, He was suckled 
 as an infant, He was nourished, He grew, He came to years of man- 
 hood, He suffered persecution of the Jews, He was hung on the tree, 
 He was slain, He was taken down from the tree, He was buried, the 
 third day He rose again, He ascended into heaven on the day He 
 willed, thither He raised His own Body, thence He shall come to judge 
 
 * This sermon is extant at the conclusion of the letter of Fulgentius to Ferrandus 
 the deacon, concerning the Baptism of the dying thiopian. 
 
APPENDIX. XXXKV 
 
 the quick and dead, there He now sitteth at the right hand of the 
 Father. How then can the bread be His Body ? and the cup, or what 
 the cup containeth, how can it be His Blood? These, brethren, are 
 called Sacraments for this reason, because in them one thing is seen, 
 and another understood ; that which is seen hath a corporeal nature, 
 that which is understood, hath a spiritual fruit.” 
 XCIV.—This venerable author, in these words, instructeth us what 
 we ought to think of our Lord’s proper Body, which was born of Mary, 
 and now sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and in which He will 
 come to judge the quick and the dead, and what of that, which is placed 
 on the altar, and received by the people. The former is entire, is 
 neither cut nor divided, nor veiled under any figure; the latter, which 
 is set on the Lord’s Table, is a figure, because it is a Sacrament: as 
 it is outwardly seen, it hath a corporeal nature, which feedeth the body ; 
 as it is inwardly understood, it hath a spiritual fruit, which quickeneth 
 the soul. 
 XCV.—When ke would speak somewhat more openly and clearly of 
 this mystical body, he addeth the following words, ‘‘ Wherefore if ye 
 wish to understand the Body of Christ, hearken to the words of the 
 Apostle, ‘Ye are the Body and members of Christ.’ If therefore ye, (ον. xis 
 are the Body and members of Christ, your own mystery is laid on the*” 
 Lord’s Table, ye receive your own mystery, ye answer, Amen, to that 
 which ye are, and by so answering ye subscribe thereto. Thou hearest, 
 The Body of Christ, and thou answerest, Amen.* Be thou a member 
 of the Body of Christ, that this Amen may be true. But why so in 
 bread? Let us allege nought of our own, but let us hearken to the 
 Apostle, when he saith concerning that Sacrament, ‘ We being many ¢,. x., 
 are one bread, and one body, &c.’”’ τί: 
 XCVI.—St. Augustine sufficiently teacheth us, that, in the bread 
 which is placed on the altar, the Body of Christ is signified, as.well as 
 
 * This refers to the form of administering the Eucharist in the ancient Church, 
 which was thus. The Priest said, “‘ The Body of Christ,” and ‘‘ The Blood of Christ ;” 
 to each of which the people subjoined ‘‘ Amen.” By the time of Gregory the Great, 
 the form of delivery was a little enlarged ; for then they said, “The Body of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ preserve thy soul.” And by the time of Alcuin and Charles the Great, 
 it was augmented into this form, “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy 
 soul unto everlasting life ;’ which is very much the same with the former part of that 
 which is now used in our Liturgy. See Bingham, Ant. b. 15. ch. 5. § 8. 
 
He deter- 
 mines the 
 second 
 
 question in 
 
 the nega- 
 tive. 
 
 Luke xxii. 
 19. 
 
 1 Cor. xi., 
 26. 
 
 ἜΝ ἘΥῚ APPENDIX. 
 
 the body of the people who receive, to the intent he might plainly shew 
 Christ's proper Body to be that, in which He was born of the Virgin, 
 in which He was suckled, in which He suffered, in which He died, in 
 which He was buried, in which He rose again, in which He ascended 
 into heaven, in which He sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and 
 in which He shall come to judgment. But that, which is placed on 
 the Lord’s Table, containeth the mystery of that Body, as also again it 
 -containeth the mystery of the body of believing people, as the Apostle 
 testifieth, ‘“‘ We being many are one bread and one body in Christ.” 
 
 XCVII.—Your wisdom, most illustrious Prince, may understand, 
 that it hath been most clearly shewn, by the testimony of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, and the words of the Holy Fathers, that the bread, which is called 
 the Body of Christ, and the cup, which is called the Blood of Christ’ 
 is a figure, because it is a mystery ; and that the difference is not small 
 between the Body, which existeth in mystery, and the Body, which 
 suffered, died, and rose again. For the one is the proper Body of our 
 Saviour; no figure, no hidden signification, but the manifestation of 
 the reality itself is there acknowledged, and the vision of this believers 
 sull desire; for He is our Head, and with the vision of Him our 
 desire shall be satisfied ; inasmuch as He and the Father are One, not 
 in respect of the Body, which the Saviour hath, but in respect of the 
 fulness of the Godhead, which dwelleth in the Man Christ. 
 
 XCVIII.—But in this other, which is celebrated in a mystery, there 
 is a figure not only of the proper Body of Christ, but also of the people 
 that believe in Christ. For it beareth the figure of either body, that 
 is, of the Body of Christ, which suffered and rose again, and of the 
 people, who in Christ are born again and quickened from the dead. 
 
 XCIX.—Let us moreover add, that the bread and the cup, which is 
 both called and is the Body and Blood of Christ, doth represent the 
 memory of our Lord’s passion and death, as He saith Himself in the 
 ,Gospel, ‘* Do this in remembrance of Me.” Which the Apostle Paul 
 explaineth when he saith, ““ As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink 
 this Cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come.” 
 
 C.—We are taught both by our Saviour, and by St. Paul the Aposile, 
 that this bread and cup, which are placed on the altar, are placed there 
 in figure or in memory of the Lord’s death, that they may recall to our 
 present remembrance that which was done in times past, so that being 
 
APPENDIX. XXXV1i 
 
 put in remembrance of His passion, we may by it be made partakers 
 of the heavenly gift, whereby we have been freed from death ; knowing 
 well that when we shall arrive at the vision of Christ, we shall have no 
 need of such like instruments, to remind us what His boundless mercy 
 hath endured for us. For we shall then see Him face to face, we shall 
 not be reminded by the outward admonition of temporal things, but by 
 the contemplation of the Truth itself shall see, how we ought to render 
 thanks to the Author of our salvation. 
 
 CI.—Yet let it not be thought, from my saying this, that in the 
 mystery of the Sacrament, the Body and Blood of the Lord are not 
 received by the faithful, for faith receiveth that which it believeth, not 
 that which the eye beholdeth. It is spiritual meat, and spiritual drink, 
 spiritually doth it feed the soul, and giveth life, which shall satisfy for 
 ever, as our Saviour saith Himself, when commending to us this mystery, 
 
 > 
 
 “ΤΆ is the Spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.’ ies 
 CII.—In my desire to obey your Majesty’s command, I have pre- 
 
 sumed, though of slender powers, to dispute on a subject of no small 
 
 importance. 1 have followed no presumptuous opinion of my own, but 
 
 have had regard to the authority of the ancients. If you approve what 
 
 I have said, as Catholic, ascribe it to the merit of your own faith, which 
 
 disdained not to lay aside your kingly glory and magnificence, and to 
 
 enquire from an humble subject an answer of truth. But if it please 
 
 you not, ascribe it to my weakness, which hath failed sufficiently to 
 
 explain that, which it desired. 
 
 Here endeth the book of Ratramn on the Body and Blood of the Lord. 
 
We peter 
 ate ag 
 
 4 
 
 Sekai ὅς 
 
 ον 
 >! U Ν ne 
 
 wig path 4 
 
PASCHAL HOMILY, 
 BY ALFRIC, 
 
 PROM, CH BRE PRINT OR LG Rid. 
 
 ----4Φ. - 
 
 A Sermon of the Paschall Lambe, and of the Sacramentall Body and 
 Bloud of Christ our Saviour. Written in the old Saxon tongue 
 before the Conquest, and appointed in the reigne of the Saxons to 
 be spoken unto the people at Easter before they should receive the 
 Communion. London, Printed by John Haviland for Henry Seile. 
 1623. 
 
 MEN beloved, it hath beene often said unto you about our Saviours 
 resurrection, how he on this present day after his suffering mightily 
 rose from death. Now will wee open unto you through Gods grace, 
 of the holy housell, which ye should now goe unto, and instruct your 
 understanding about this mysterie, both after the old covenant, and 
 also after the new, that no doubting may trouble you about this lively 
 food. The Almighty God bade Moses his Captain in the land of 
 Egypt, to comand the people of Israel to take for every family 
 a lambe of one yeere old the night they departed out of the countrey 
 to the land of promise, and to offer that lambe to God, and after to 
 kill it, to make the signe of the Crosse with the lambes blood upon 
 the side posts, and the upper post of their doore, and afterward to 
 eat the lambes flesh rosted, and unleavened bread, with wilde lettisse. 
 
 God saith unto Moses, Eat of the lambe nothing raw, nor sodden 
 in water, but rosted with fire. Eat the head, the feet, and the inwards, 
 and let nothing of it be left untill the morning: if any thing thereof 
 remaine, that shall ye burn with fire. at it in this wise: Gird your 
 loines, and doe your shooes on your feet, have your staves in your 
 hands, and eat it in haste, this time is the Lords Passover. (Ha. xii, 
 9—11.) And there was slain on the night in every house throughout 
 
xl APPENDIX. 
 
 Pharaos reigne the first borne child: and Gods people of Israel were 
 delivered from that sodain death through the lambes offring and his 
 blouds marking. Then said God unto Moses; Keepe this day in your 
 
 remembrance, and hold it a great feast in your kinreds with a perpetuall. 
 
 observation, and eat unleavened bread alwayes seven days at this feast. 
 (Ha. xii., 14.) After this deed God led the people of Israel over the 
 red sea, with dry foot, and drowned therein Pharao and all his armie 
 together with their possessions, and fed afterward the Israelites fortie 
 yeeres with heavenly food: and gave them water out of the hard rocke, 
 untill they came to the promised land. Part of this storie wee have 
 treated of in another place, part wee shall now declare, to wit, that 
 which belongeth to the holy housell. Christian men may not now 
 keepe that old law bodily, but it behoveth them to know, what it 
 ghostly signifieth. That innocent lambe which the old Israelites did 
 then kill, had signification after ghostly understanding of Christs 
 suffering, who unguiltie shed his holy bloud for our redemption : 
 hereof sing Gods servants at every Masse, Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata 
 mundi miserere nobis: That is in our speech, Thou Lambe of God 
 that takest away the sinnes of the world have mercy upon us. Those 
 Israelites were delivered from that sodaine death, and from Pharaos 
 bondage by the lambes offering, which signified Christs suffering 
 through which wee be delivered from everlasting death, and from the 
 devil’s cruell reigne, if we rightly beleeve in the true Redeemer of 
 the whole world Christ the Saviour. That Lambe was offered in the 
 evening, and our Saviour suffered in the sixt Age of this World. This 
 Age of this corruptible World is reckoned unto the evening. They 
 marked with the lambes bloud upon the doores and the upper postes 
 Tau, that is the signe of the Crosse, and were so defended from the 
 Angell that killed the A‘gyptians first borne childe. And we ought 
 to marke our foreheads, and our bodies with the token of Christ’s 
 roode, that wee may be also delivered from destruction, when we shall 
 be marked both on forehead, and also in heart with the bloud of our 
 Lords suffering. Those Israelites eat the lambes flesh at their Kaster 
 time, when they were delivered, and we receive ghostly Christs body, 
 and drink his bloud, when we receive with true beliefe that holy 
 housell. That time they kept with them at Easter seven dayes with 
 great worship, when they were delivered from Pharao, and went from 
 
APPENDIX. xli 
 
 that Land. So also Christen men keepe Christs resurrection at the 
 time of Easter, these seven dayes, because through his suffering and 
 rising wee bee delivered, and be made cleane by going to this holy 
 housell, as Christ saith in his Gospell: Verily verily I say unto you, 
 ye have no life in you, except ye eat my flesh, and drinke my bloud. 
 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me, and 
 I in him, and hath that everlasting life, and I shall raise him up in 
 the last day. (John vi., 53, 54.) I am the lively bread, that came 
 downe from heaven, not so as your fore-fathers eat that heavenly bread 
 in the wildernesse, and afterward died. He that eateth this bread, 
 he liveth for ever. (John vi., 48—51.) Hee blessed bread before 
 his suffering, and divided to his Disciples, thus saying, Eat this bread, 
 it is my body, and doe this in my remembrance. (Matt. xxvi., 26; 
 Iuke xxii., 19.) Also hee blessed wine in one Cup, and said; Drinke 
 yee all of this: This is my bloud that is shed for many, in forgivenesse 
 of sinnes. (Matt. xxvi., 28.) The Apostles did as Christ commanded, 
 that is, they blessed bread and wine to housell againe afterward in his 
 remembrance. Even so also since their departure all Priests by 
 Christs commandement doe blesse bread and wine to housell in his 
 name with the Apostolike blessing. 
 
 Now some men have often searched, and doe yet often search, how 
 bread that is gathered of corne, and through fires heat baked, may be 
 turned to Christs bodie, or how wine that is pressed out of many 
 srapes, is turned through one blessing to the Lords bloud. Now say 
 we to such men, that some things be spoken of Christ by signification, 
 some thing by thing certaine. (See Ratramn, ὃ 8.) True thing is, 
 and certaine, that Christ was borne of a Maid, and suffered death 
 of his owne accord, and was buried, and on,this day rose from death. 
 (Ratr. ὃ 7.) He is said bread by signification, and a Lambe and a 
 Lion, and a Mountaine. He is called bread, because hee is our life 
 and Angels life. (John i. 29.) Hee is said to be a Lambe for his 
 innocencie (Rev. v., 5); A Lion for strength, wherewith he overcame 
 the strong Devill. (Js. ii., 2.) But Christ is not so notwithstanding 
 after true nature neither Bread, nor a Lambe, nor a Lion. Why is 
 then that holy housell called Christs Body, or his Bloud, if it be 
 not truly that it is called? ‘Truly the Bread and the Wine which by 
 the Masse of the Priest is hallowed, shew one thing without to humane 
 
 ἢ 
 
xhi APPENDIX. 
 
 understanding, aud another thing they call within to beleeving minds. 
 (Ratr. ὃ 9.) Without they be seene Bread and Wine both in figure 
 and in taste, and they be truly after their hallowing, Christs Body 
 and his Bloud, through ghostly mystery. 
 
 An Heathen Child is Christened, yet he altereth not his shape 
 without, though he be changed within. He is brought to the Font 
 stone sinfull, through Adams disobedience. Howbeit, hee is washed 
 from all sinne within, though hee hath not changed his shape without. 
 Even so the holy Font-water (Ratr. § 17), that is called the well-spring 
 of life, is like in shape to other waters, and is subject to corruption, 
 but the holy Ghosts might commeth to the corruptible water, through 
 the Priests blessing, and it may after wash the body and soule from 
 all sinne, through ghostly might. Behold now we see two things 
 in this one creature. (Ratr. ὃ 18.) After true nature that water is 
 corruptible water, and after ghostly mystery, hath hallowing might. 
 So also if wee behold that holy housell after bodily understanding, 
 then see wee that it is a Creature corruptible and mutable (Ratr. ὃ 19): 
 if we acknowledge therein ghostly might, then understand we that life 
 is therein, and that it giveth immortalitie to them that eat it with 
 beleefe. Much is betwixt the invisible might of the holy housell, and 
 the visible shape of his proper nature; it is naturally corruptible 
 bread, and corruptible wine: and is by might of God’s word truly 
 Christs body and his bloud: not so notwithstanding bodily, but 
 ghostly. 
 
 Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the body that 
 is hallowed to housell. (Ratr. § 71,72.) The body truly that Christ 
 suffered in was borne of the flesh of Marie, with bloud, and with bone, 
 with skin, and with sinewes, in humane lims, with a reasonable soul 
 living: and his ghostly body, which we call the housell, is gathered 
 of many cornes: without bloud, and bone, without lim, without soule; 
 and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but all is 
 ghostly to be understood. Whatsoever is in that housell, which giveth 
 substance of life, that is of the ghostly might, aud invisible doing. 
 Therefore is that holy housell called a mysterie, because there is one 
 thing in it seene, aud another thing understood. That which is there 
 seene, hath bodily shape: and that we do there understand, hath 
 ghostly might. Certainly Christs body which suffered death, and rose 
 
APPENDIX. xl 
 
 from death, never dieth henceforth: but is eternal and unpassible. 
 (Ratr. § 76, 77.) That housell is temporal, not eternall: corruptible, 
 and dealed into sundry parts: chewed between teeth, and sent into 
 the belly: howbeit neverthelesse after ghostly might, it is all in every 
 part. Many receive that holy Body, and yet notwithstanding, it is so 
 all in every part after ghostly mystery. Though some chewe lesse 
 deale, yet is there no more might notwithstanding in the more part, 
 then in the lesse, because it is all in all men after the invisible might. 
 This mystery is a pledge and a figure: Christs body is truth it selfe. 
 (Ratr. § 87, 88.) This pledge we doe keep mystically, untill that we 
 be come to the truth itselfe, and then is this pledge ended. Truly 
 it is so as we before have said, Christs Body and his Bloud: not 
 bodily but ghostly. And ye should not search how it is done, but hold 
 it in your beleefe that it is so done.* 
 
 But now heare the Apostles words about this mystery. Paul the 
 Apostle speaketh of the old Israelites thus, writing in his Epistle to 
 faithful men. All our Fore-fathers were baptized in the Cloud, and 
 in the Sea: and all they ate the same ghostly meat, and drank the 
 same ghostly drinke. (1 Cor. x., 1—4.) They dranke truly of the 
 stone that followed them, and that stone was Christ. Neither was 
 that stone then from which the water ranne, bodily Christ, but it 
 signified Christ, that calleth thus to all beleeving and faithful men: 
 Whosoever thirsteth, let him come to me and drinke. (John vii., 37, 
 38.) And from his bowels floweth lively water. This he said of the 
 holy Ghost, whom he receiveth which beleeveth on him. The Apostle 
 Paul saith, that the Israelites did eat the same ghostly meat, and 
 drinke the same ghostly drinke: because that heavenly meat, that 
 fed them forty yeeres, and that water which from the stone did flow, 
 had signification of Christs body and his bloud, that now be offered 
 daily in Gods Church. It was the same which we now offer, not 
 bodily, but ghostly. Wee said unto you erewhile (Ratr. ὃ 23), that 
 Christ hallowed bread and wine to housell before his suffering, and 
 said: This is my Body and my Bloud. Yet hee had not then suffered 
 (Ratr. ὃ 24, 25): but so notwithstanding hee turned through invisible 
 
 * Here follow two tales from the Vita Patrum, of which it is said in the margin, 
 ““These tales seeme to be infarced.” 
 
xliv APPENDIX. 
 
 might that bread into his owne Body, and that wine to his bloud, as he 
 before did in the wildernesse, before that he was borne to men, when 
 he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from 
 that stone to his owne bloud. 
 
 Very many ate of that heavenly meat in the wildernesse, and dranke 
 that ghostly drinke, and were neverthelesse dead, as Christ said. 
 (Ratr. § 78.) And Christ meant not that death which none can 
 escape, but that everlasting death, which some of that folke deserved 
 for their unbeleefe. Moyses and Aaron, and many other of that people 
 which pleased God, eat that heavenly bread, and they died not that 
 everlasting death, though they died the common death. They saw 
 that the heavenly meat was visible and corruptible, and they ghostly 
 understood by that visible thing, and ghostly received it. 
 
 The Saviour saith, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, 
 hath everlasting life. (John vi., 54.) And he bade them not eat that 
 body which hee was going about with, nor that bloud to drinke which 
 hee shed for us: but hee meant with those words that holy housell, 
 which ghostly is his body and his bloud, and hee that tasteth it with 
 beleeving heart, hath that eternall life. 
 
 In the old Law (Ratr. § 90), faithfull men offered to Gop divers 
 sacrifices, that had fore-signification of Christs body, which for our 
 sinnes, he himselfe to his heavenly Father hath since offered to 
 sacrifice. Certainly this housell which wee doe now hallow at Gods 
 Altar, is a remembrance of Christs body which hee offered for us, and 
 of his bloud, which hee shed for us: So he himselfe commanded, Doe 
 this in my remembrance. (Luke xxii., 19.) Once suffered Christ by 
 himselfe but yet neverthelesse his suffering is daily renewed at the 
 Masse through mystery of the holy housell. (Ratr. ὃ 38.) Therefore 
 that holy Masse is profitable, both to the living, and to the dead; as 
 it hath beene often declared. Wee ought also to consider diligently 
 (Ratr. § 73, 74), how that this holy housell is both Christs body, and 
 the body of all faithfull men, after ghostly mystery. As the wise 
 Augustine saith of it; If ye will understand of Christs body, heare the 
 Apostle Paul, thus speaking. (Ratr.§ 95.) Ye truly be Christs body, 
 and his members. (1 Cor. xii, 27.) Now is your mystery set on 
 Gods table, and ye receive your mystery; which mystery ye your 
 selves be. Be that which ye see on the Altar, and receive that which 
 
APPENDIX. xlv 
 
 ye yourselves be. Againe, the Apostle Paul saith by it: We many be 
 one bread, and one body. (1 Cor. x., 17.) Understand now and 
 rejoyce, many be one bread, and one body in Christ. He is our head, 
 and wee be his limmes. And the bread is not of one corne, but of 
 many. Nor the wine of one grape, but of many. So also wee all 
 should have one unitie in our Lord, as it is written of the faithfull 
 Army, how that they were in so great an unity, as though all of them 
 were one soule, and one heart. (Acts iv., 32.) Christ hallowed on his 
 Table the mystery of our peace and of our unitie: he which receiveth 
 _ that mystery of unity, and keepeth not the bond of true peace, he 
 receiveth no mystery for himselfe, but a witnesse against himselfe. 
 
 It is very good for Christen men, that they goe often to housell, 
 if they bring with them to the Altar unguiltinesse and innocency of 
 heart. To an evill man it turneth to no good, but to destruction, if he 
 receive unworthily that holy housell. 
 
 Holy bookes command that water be mingled to that wine which 
 shall be for housell (Ratr. § 75): because the water signifieth the 
 people, and the wine Christs bloud. And therefore shall neither the 
 one without the other be offred at the holy masse: that Christ may be 
 with us, and we with Christ; the head with the lims, and the lims 
 with the head. 
 
 We would before have intreated of the lambe which the old Israelites 
 offered at their Easter time, but that we desired first to declare unto 
 you of this mystery, and after how we should receive it. That 
 signifying lambe was offered at the Easter. And the Apostle Paul 
 saith in the Epistle of this present day, that Christ is our Easter, who 
 was offered for us, and on this day rose from death. The Israelites 
 did eat the lambes flesh as God commanded with unlevened bread and 
 wilde lettise : so we should receive that holy housell of Christs body 
 and bloud without the leaven of sinne and iniquitie. As leaven 
 turneth the creatures from their nature, so doth sinne also change 
 the nature of man from innocencie to foule spots of guiltinesse. 
 The Apostle hath taught how wee should feast not in the leven of 
 evilnesse, but in the sweet dough of puritie and truth. The herb 
 which they should eat with the unlevened bread is called lettise, and 
 is bitter in taste; so we should with bitternesse of unfained weeping 
 purifie our minde if we will eat Christs body. Those Israelites were 
 
xlvi APPENDIX. 
 
 not wont to eat raw flesh, although God forbade them to eat it raw and 
 sodden in water, but rosted with fire. He shall receive the body of 
 God raw, that shall thinke without reason that Christ was onely man 
 like unto us, and was not God. And he that will after mans wisdome 
 search of the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, doth like unto him that 
 doth see the lambes flesh in water; because that water in this place 
 signifieth mans understanding ; but we should understand that all the 
 mysterie of Christs humanity was ordered by the power of the holy 
 Ghost. And then eat we his body rosted with fire, because the Holy 
 Ghost came in fires likenesse to the Apostles in divers tongues. The 
 Israelites should eat the lambes head, and the feet, and the purtenance, 
 and nothing thereof must be left over night. If any thing thereof 
 were left, they did burne that in the fire, and they brake not the bones. 
 After ghostly understanding, we do then eat the lambes head when we 
 take hold of Christs divinitie in our beleefe. Again; when we take of 
 his humanitie with love, then eat we the lambes feet; because that 
 Christ is the beginning and end, God before all world, and Man in the 
 end of this world. What be the Jambes purtenance but Christs secret 
 precepts ; and these we eat when we receive with greedinesse the word 
 of life. There must nothing of the lambe be left unto the morning, 
 because that all Gods sayings are to be searched with great carefulnesse ; 
 so that all his precepts may be knowne in understanding and deed in 
 the night of this present life, before that the last day of the universall 
 resurrection doe appeare. If we cannot search out throughly all the 
 mysterie of Christs incarnation, then ought we to betake the rest unto 
 the might of the holy Ghost with trne humilitie, and not to search 
 rashly of that deepe secretnes above the measure of our understanding. 
 They did eat the lambes flesh with their loines girt. In the loines is 
 the lust of the body; and he which will receive that housell, shall 
 restraine the concupiscence, and take with chastitie that holy receit. 
 They were also shod. What be shooes but the hides of dead beasts. 
 We be truly shod if we follow in our steps and deeds the life of those 
 pilgrims which please God with keeping of his commandements. 
 They had staves in their hands when they ate. This staffe signifieth 
 a carefulnesse and a diligent overseeing; and all they that best know 
 and can, should take care of other men, and stay them up with their 
 helpe. It was injoyned to the eaters, that they should eat the lambe 
 
APPENDIX. xlvu 
 
 in haste. For God abhorreth slothfulnesse in his servants, and those 
 he loveth that seek the joy of everlasting life with quicknesse and 
 haste of minde. It is written, Prolong not to turne unto God, lest the 
 time passe away through thy slow tarrying. (Heclus. v., 7.) The 
 eaters might not breake the lambes bones. No more might the 
 “souldiers that did hang Christ breake his holy legs, as they did of the 
 two theeves that hanged on either side of him. And the Lord rose 
 from death sound without all corruption; and at the last judgement 
 they shall see him whom they did most cruelly hang on the crosse. 
 This time is called in the Hebrew tongue Pasca, and in Latine Transitus, 
 and in English a Passover; because that on this day the people of 
 Israel passed from the land of Augypt over the Red Sea, from bondage 
 to the land of promise. So also did our Lord at this time depart, 
 as saith John the Evangelist, from this world to his heavenly Father. 
 Even so we ought to follow our head, and to goe from the devill to 
 Christ, from this unstable world to this stable kingdome. Howbeit we 
 should first in this present life depart from vice to holy vertue, from 
 evil manners to good manners, if we will after this corruptible life goe 
 to that eternall life, and after our resurrection to Christ. He bring us 
 to his everliving Father, who gave him to death for our sinnes. To 
 him be honour, and praise of well-deing, world without end. Amen. 
 
j ἔν". ἘΠ 7) 
 WP ase Th beet a δ ee 
 
 7. ! 
 
ACPA ND BX! AG 
 
 I reex deeply grieved to be compelled to differ from the great body 
 of the Evangelical clergy and laity of the Church of England, and 
 others out of it, in the use of the term ‘baptismal regeneration.” 
 It is always a misfortune when the use of an ambiguous word is made 
 the test of orthodoxy ; and such I conceive to be the case with the 
 term referred to. Ido not say that there is not much in the baptismal 
 controversy beyond verbal distinction; but I do think that the use of 
 a phrase which has, within a recent period, changed its meaning, and 
 which is by one party used in its old signification, aud by the other 
 in its new, has embroiled the discussion of the question, and led to 
 much misunderstanding on both sides. I would with much diffidence 
 crave a consideration of the following views on the subject. 
 
 The term ‘‘ regeneration” is used but twice in the whole of the 
 Bible, and that twice is in the New Testament. It first occurs in 
 Matthew xix., 28: ‘Aud Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto 
 you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the 
 Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon 
 twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And again, in 
 Titus iii., 5: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, 
 but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, 
 and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Now there can be no question 
 but that in this latter verse the word is applied strictly to the outward 
 part in baptism, the inward part being added immediately afterwards, 
 “and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” It is, however, highly 
 probable that the word has the same signification in both places, and we 
 will enquire briefly what that appears to be. 
 
 Commentators are very much divided in their opinions as to whether 
 the phrase ‘‘ in the regeneration,” should be pointed off so as to be 
 taken with what precedes or what succeeds it. My own opinion 
 
 g 
 
] APPENDIX. 
 
 inclines to the former, and I would read, “ Ye, which have followed 
 me in the regeneration,” ¢.e., in the present new state of things—in 
 the gospel dispensation. ‘The word would then be nearly equivalent 
 with the term “ Christian,” in common use among ourselves, as 
 referring to the economy under which we live. Most persons who 
 read the words with those which precede them give them this inter- 
 pretation, which appears to me both natural and apposite. 
 
 And would not such appear to be the sense of the word in the 
 Epistle to Titus? There were baptisms of various characters and 
 significance. The Jews had long practised a baptism ; John had intro- 
 duced another, and Jesus Christ yet another. When, therefore, the 
 apostle is alluding to baptism, he may not unnaturally be supposed to 
 distinguish Christian baptism by the term “the washing of regenera- 
 tion,” affixing to it the ‘ inward part or thing signified,”—* the renewing 
 of the Holy Ghost.” In this view of the matter, the word under 
 consideration will have the same meaning in both cases where it is 
 used, and will distinguish the Christian dispensation from the Jewish, 
 which preceded it. 
 
 But whatever view be taken of the exact meaning of the word, 
 there can be no difference of opinion as to its application. It is used 
 by the apostle with undoubted reference to the application of the 
 outward sign in baptism; and in refusing to use the term ‘‘ baptismal 
 regeneration,” because the phrase, perhaps, is abused, I cannot but 
 think that the Evangelical portion of the Church place themselves in 
 a false position. There is no one point in which they put such 
 power into the hands of their Popish and other assailants to damage 
 them withal, as by this refusal. First of all they forsake the 
 phraseology of St. Paul, who applies the word regeneration to water 
 baptism ; secondly, they turn their back upon all the divines, ancient 
 and modern, who have written upon the subject, (with the exception 
 of some of the Puritan divines without, and still fewer within the 
 Church, during the last 150 years) ; and, lastly, they seem to me to be 
 compelled to repudiate the language used by their own Church. Hach 
 of these is a very serious evil; but in combination, they form a heavy 
 artillery, which is used with no sparing hand against the essential 
 truths which are prominently put forward by that school of theologians. 
 
 This evil appears to me to have arisen from a change which has but 
 recently taken place in the use of the word “regeneration.” This 
 was formerly used by all divines as little more than a synonyme for 
 baptism. Nati et renati meant, even in the mouths of such men as 
 Bishop Davenant, born and baptised. It is, moreover, evident that 
 
APPENDIX. hi 
 
 the holy and faithful men, who encountered the fearful responsibility of 
 reforming the English Church in the sixteenth century, used it in the 
 same sense. ‘Their existing writings, as well as our own public formu- 
 laries, shew this. Now, however, the word is used as a synonyme 
 with “conversion.” ‘This, in all probability, has arisen from con- 
 founding the ‘ born again” in the third of John with “ regeneration ;” 
 for, however close the verbal relationship may seem in the two cases, 
 I believe it is nothing more than in seeming. It is indeed a pity that 
 the particle ἄνωθεν in St. John should ever have been in that 
 passage rendered by the word “again.” Its primary signification of 
 ‘from above” would have suited better, and it is so rendered lower 
 down in the same chapter (v. 31), where ‘‘ again” could have no place. 
 The question of Nicodemus, ‘‘ How can a man be born when he is 
 old; can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be 
 born ἢ (v. 4,) does not at all set aside this remark, because as ὦ 
 birth was spoken of by our Lord, it was impossible but that it must be 
 a second one, even if Nicodemus had not entertained the gross idea of 
 the meaning uf Jesus which he did. 
 
 The term “baptismal regeneration,” as used by the Apostle Paul, 
 by the early Fathers, and by the Church of England and her divines, 
 means no more than brought into the outer Church by baptism, and 
 put into a salvable state. It does not express the absolute condition of 
 the individual as saved or lost, but his relative state. For as we are 
 brought into the world by nature “children of wrath,” damnable, but 
 not damned ; so we are hereby made “ children of grace,” salvable, but 
 not saved. When more than this is said, it assumes that the inward 
 part has accompanied the outward, of which we are no judges as to 
 the nature or extent. ‘*The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou 
 hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and 
 whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”—(John 
 iii., 8.) It is not for us to fix the time at which the “ Spirit is given 
 to every one to profit withal,” though we may conclude, from the ap- 
 pointment of baptism and its reference to the Spirit, that it is commonly 
 bestowed in the ordinance. Yet we know that it is sometimes given 
 before, as in the case of Cornelius: ‘“‘Can any man forbid water, 
 that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost 
 as well as we ?”—(Acts x., 47.) And not always in baptism ; for, after 
 Simon Magus had been baptized, Peter told him, “Thou hast neither 
 part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of 
 God.’’—(Acts viii., 21.) Who, then, will be bold to dogmatize, when it 
 is manifest, from the inspired records, what we might well have con- 
 
ΠῚ APPENDIX, 
 
 cluded, even without the knowledge of these cases, that God is not 
 tied to any ordinances, not even to those of his own appointing ? 
 
 It has long appeared to me, that the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 intimately connected with the doctrine of the sacraments, and that the 
 Three Persons and their offices are intended to be kept constantly 
 before man’s view by visible representations. That this was the case 
 in the old Testament dispensation, is, I think, manifest enough, and 
 any one who doubts it, or indeed who has not considered the subject, would 
 do well to consult a small unpretending volume of the London Tract 
 Society, entitled ‘The Philosophy of Salvation,” a reprint of the 
 work of an American (I believe a solicitor), which proves that the 
 Mosaic economy was one of pictorial representation. 
 
 But as there are only two sacraments, “‘ How,” it may be asked, 
 “can they represent the three divine persons of revelation?” The 
 answer is this: the Father, the Creator, needs no other sacrament than 
 his works. A man’s own existence, as well as that of every thing 
 around, proves, every moment of his conscious being, the existence of 
 an all-powerful, all-wise, creative agent. This is well put by the Apostle 
 Paul, when he says, ‘“‘ Because that which may be known of God is 
 manifest in them ; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the visible 
 things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being 
 understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and 
 Godhead.’”—(fiom. i., 19, 20.) What need, then, can there be any 
 further to represent creative agency, when every created thing is a 
 sacrament of it ? 
 
 Such, however, is not the case with the work of redemption or of 
 sanctification. There is nothing in nature to represent them, and the 
 economy of grace has supplied that wherein nature was lacking. ‘* Do 
 this in remembrance of me,” was the command to continue a sensible 
 embodiment of the great work of a Saviour. The institution of the 
 Lord’s Supper is intended for perpetuating, and calculated to per- 
 petuate, the recollection of the great sacrifice (which is as unknown to 
 physical nature, as it is above and beyond man’s innate ideas), as was 
 the celebration of the paschal feast, to prevent the deliverance in 
 Egypt from lapsing from the memory. There was no necessary con- 
 nection between bread and wine and the Lord’s body and blood, and it 
 was only the appointment which made them a sacrament. The answer 
 of the Church of England to the question, ‘‘ Why was the sacrament 
 of the Lord’s Supper ordained ?” is both scriptural, and in accordance 
 with the nature of things true: “For the continual remembrance of 
 the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we reecive thereby.” 
 
APPENDIX. hi 
 
 It was, I believe, the same feeling, that the administration of baptism 
 should be admonitory of the Spirit’s work, which made the Church of 
 England order that the rite should be administered in full congrega- 
 tions; a thing, alas! too frequently neglected. In the homily on 
 “Common Prayer and Sacraments,” it is said, “To administer a 
 sacrament is, by the outward word and element to preach to the receiver 
 the inward and visible grace of God; and also for that both these 
 exercises were first instituted, and are still continued, to the end that 
 the congregation of Christ might from time to time be put in remem- 
 brance of their unity in Christ.”—Hom. on Common Prayer. 
 
 And again in the rubric, before the baptismal service in the prayer- 
 book, it is very properly suggested that ‘‘ the people are to be admo- 
 nished, that it is most convenient that baptism should not be administered 
 but upon Sundays, and other holy-days, when the most number of 
 people come together; as well for that the congregation there present 
 may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized into the 
 number of Christ's Church ; as also because in the baptism of infants 
 every man present may be put in remembrance of his own profession 
 made to God in his baptism.” It is not very satisfactory to reflect, 
 how infrequent is the public administration of what is called ‘* public 
 baptism.” Nothing is more calculated, in my opinion, to favour the 
 idea of the opus operatum of formalists than this all but secret cele- 
 bration of one of the Church’s most solemn public rites. What follows 
 in the next article has a further reference to the same subject. 
 
liv APPENDIX. 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Tue Church of England is often blamed for putting into the mouths 
 of her younger members the assertion, “ in my baptism, wherein I 
 was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the 
 kingdom of heaven,” and I think most unreasonably blamed. It 
 appears to me that no one, how low soever his opinion of baptism may 
 be, ought to object to the use of such language, for which there is the 
 clearest Scriptural warrant, even when it cannot be used in its fullest 
 and best signification. There can be no doubt but that every one 
 baptized is entered into covenant, and constituted a member of Christ’s 
 visible Church ; and if no more than this could be predicated or hoped 
 of the baptized person, it is enough to justify the language of the 
 Church. But surely there are few who will presume to limit the 
 effect of this sacred rite to so meagre a measure, and dogmatically to 
 define the working of the Spirit in his own peculiar ordinance in 
 Christ’s Church! In adducing a few passages to prove that the Church 
 of England is justified in using the above quoted phraseology of all 
 her children, I will not go to the Old Testament, and shew that 
 the whole Jewish people are constantly called God’s people, even 
 when they are declared not to be his in a higher and better sense; for 
 instance, such passages as ‘‘The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass 
 his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not 
 consider,” (Jsu. 1., 3); for there would be no end of such quotations. 
 I will rather confine myself to apostolic examples, being convinced 
 that no one can read the Epistles carefully, and without prejudice, 
 but must see that the privileges of the Christian covenant are con- 
 stantly said to belong to all who are “ called to be saints,” whether 
 they come up to the character or not, z.e. to all the baptized, with 
 respect to some of whom the apostle declares that they walk “ un- 
 worthy of their heavenly calling.” 
 
APPENDIX. ly 
 
 I would, then, earnestly claim for the following passages a calm 
 and dispassionate consideration :—“ As the body is one, and hath many 
 members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one 
 body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
 one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or 
 free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body 
 is not one member, but many. Now ye are the body of Christ and 
 members in particular.” —(1 Cor. xii., 12, 18, 14, 27.) And this 
 language is used to the same Church to which, in a former part of the 
 same letter, the apostle had said, not when he was supposing a case, 
 but when he was reprobating a flagrant instance: “Know ye not 
 that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the 
 members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God 
 forbid.” —(I Cor. vi., 15.) 
 
 So, again, St. Paul says to the whole Church at Ephesus, “ We are 
 members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” (v. 30) ; not 
 that we can suppose that every individual member of that Church had 
 this vital connection with the living head, but this relationship, assumed 
 as real upon their profession of faith and baptism, is made the basis of 
 a lengthened exhortation to realize it in a holy life and conversation. 
 
 So is it also with the phrase “child of God.” It is used in a 
 stricter, or more lax sense, according to the immediate purpose of the 
 inspired writer. Thus we are told “the peacemakers shall be called 
 the children of God,” (Matt. v. 9,) which no doubt they are, quantum 
 hoe valeat. Inthe eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the 
 apostle twice uses the term “ children of God ” in the strictest sense ; 
 “the Spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of 
 God,” (v. 16); ‘the creature itself also shall be delivered from the 
 bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of 
 God,” (v.21); but in the following chapter it is twice used in its laxer sig- 
 nification of covenant relationship. In the first passage it distinguishes 
 the relationship of Isaac’s children to God from that of Ishmael’s. 
 « These which are the children of the flesh (i.e. Abraham’s flesh), these 
 are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are 
 counted for the seed,” (v. 8); and in the second it is used to distin- 
 guish the people of a Christian from those of a heathen land. “1 
 will call them my people, which were not my people ; and her beloved, 
 which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place 
 where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they 
 be called the children of the living God.”—(Rom. ix., 25, 26.) 
 
 So, again, the same phrase is used in the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 
lvi APPENDIX. 
 
 to express covenant relationship, or that is predicated of all the 
 Galatian Church, which was alone true of the sincere and pious. ‘* For 
 ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many 
 of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. And if 
 ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the 
 promise,” (Gal. iii., 26, 27, 29) ; in which latter verse the term 
 “heirs” is applied to the same relationship. 
 
 Surely it will not be asserted that what is here declared generally 
 of the body of believers, is or was certainly true of every individual 
 in that body ? In short, the apostle does not stop to enquire who are 
 really what they seem, which he could not have decided if he had, 
 but declares the privileges of the believers, ὅ.6. of the Church in 
 general, and leaves the question of individnal acceptance (where it 
 must always be left) between the soul and iis God. 
 
 The same is the case with the words “heir” and “ inheritance.” 
 They are sometimes used to express the closest union of character and 
 relationship between Christ and his people, and sometimes they are 
 used popularly with reference to the whole body of believers. When 
 Paul was parting with the sorrowing Church at Ephesus, he uses the 
 term inheritance in its highest significance. ‘‘ And now, brethren, I 
 commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, Which is able to 
 build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are 
 sanctified,” (Acts xx.,32); and so, again, in Acts xxvi., 18. But when 
 it is used, as it is several times in the first chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Ephesians, of the whole body of professing Christians, it cannot 
 mean that each individual who formed a unit in that holy company was 
 undoubtedly in possession of the full blessing ‘In whom we have 
 obtained an inheritance,” &c., ‘‘ which is the earnest of our inheritance 
 until the redemption of the purchased possession,” &c., appear to me 
 to be beyond all question general expressions of corporate privileges, 
 without reference to individual realization. So, again, in the midst of 
 a lengthened and affecting assurance to the Church at Colosse, of his 
 deep interest in their welfare, and of his earnest prayer for their 
 advancement in Christian graces, the apostle says, “ giving thanks 
 unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inhe- 
 ritance of the saints in light,” (i., 12,) taking for granted their corporate 
 privileges, while he expresses his anxiety and offers his prayers, for 
 their individual holiness and security. 
 
 Thus, again, in Ephesians iii., 6, we are told generally “ That the 
 Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of 
 his promise in Christ by the Gospel;” and in a general exhortation to 
 
 ’ 
 
APPENDIX. lwn 
 
 husbands and wives, Peter calls them “ heirs of life,” (1 Peter i., 7,) 
 where he certainly cannot refer to individual] attainment, as he is not 
 speaking of any particular person. ‘Taking, then, the low ground of 
 covenant relationship only, we find that the Church of England has 
 ample Scriptural authority to declare what she does with regard to all 
 baptized persons. But who will presume to say that the membership 
 of the visible Church is all that is bestowed upon the majority of those 
 who are admitted into it by baptism ? 
 
 It is not our province to judge, except when we have conduct to guide 
 our judgement; and when, in after life, we see many or even most of 
 those who are called Christians, in virtue of their admission into the 
 Church by baptism, living lives unworthy of their profession, we can 
 only say that they have lost such grace as was imparted, or that it is for 
 the present uninfluential for good. ‘The rest of their lives” is not 
 ‘‘ being spent according to the beginning,” and their nominal member- 
 ship in the Church, or in Christ the Church's head, will certainly avail 
 them nothing in the great day of account, but rather add to their 
 cuilt and aggravate their condemnation. It is not ours to judge, but 
 to believe and hope. ‘‘ Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat 
 of that bread, and drink of that cup,” (1 Cor. xi., 28,) is the apostolic 
 rule of preparation for the Lord’s Supper, and which is strictly adhered 
 to by our Church. Τί, then, in a matter where we might be supposed 
 somewhat capable of forming an opinion of individual fitness for com- 
 munion and Church membership, we are virtually excluded by St. Paul, 
 much more must we be excluded in a case where we can have nothing 
 upon which to base our judgment, wherein it is ours to obey the precept 
 “Go and disciple all nations, baptizing them,” and leave the result 
 with God. 
 
 h 
 
lviii APPENDIX. 
 
 APPENDIX Ce 
 
 How far the nature of a sacrament would allow the water to represent 
 an effect, is an important question in Christian ethics. It appears 
 to me extremely ridiculous to suppose that a concrete substance can 
 prefigure an abstract result. That substance should represent substance, 
 and effects effects, is consistent with reason and every-day experience ; 
 but the inversion of these is unnatural and absurd. ‘That the bread 
 and wine should represent the body and blood of Christ is reasonable ; 
 to be told that the benefit received in the Lord’s Supper is that we 
 obtain “ the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and 
 blood of Christ, as our bodies are (strengthened and refreshed) by the 
 bread and wine,” is natural; but to make the effects of the one repre- 
 sentative of the agent in the other, would be manifestly incongruous in 
 the nature of things. So, also, would it be in the other sacrament to 
 do what Mr. Wilberforce would have us do,—viz., to consider the 
 outward symbol, a type of the inward grace. 
 
 It is quite in keeping with our judgment to compare the effects of the 
 water on the body with the effects of the Spirit on the soul, as well as 
 to illustrate the one agent by the other; but to connect these pictorial 
 representations crosswise, and signify cause by effect, and effect by cause, 
 is to outrage reason and bid farewell to common sense. There is a 
 natural aptness and congruity in the symbols and the things they signify 
 according to the Protestant idea; the tractarian view, as propounded by 
 Archdeacon Wilberforce, carries us back into the dark ages of science 
 as well as of religion. 
 
 From a boy I have felt myself strong in the rejection of the other 
 five so-called sacraments of the Popish Church, because they could not 
 in any one case shew “the outward visible sign” and the “inward 
 part or thing signified.” The members of the Romish Church would 
 get half way in their proof of the seven sacraments if they could shew 
 these, but only half way; for they would still have to shew the “ insti- 
 tution by Christ,” without which they never could be binding, as sacra- 
 ments, upon the Christian Church. 
 
APPENDIX. lix 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 
 | Extract from” Augustine's Commentary on the 99th Psalm. | 
 
 “Ὁ Anp fall down before His footstool: for He is holy.’ What are 
 we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is 
 called a footstool, in Greek, ὑποπόδιον, in Latin, Scabellum, or Suppe- 
 daneum. But consider, brethren, what he commandeth us to fall down 
 before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, ‘The heaven 
 is My throne, and the earth is My footstool,’ (Isa. Ixvi. 1.) Doth he 
 then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that 
 it is God’s footstool ? How then shall we worship the earth, when 
 the Scripture saith openly, ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God ᾽ 
 (Deut. vi., 18.) Yet here it saith, ‘fall down before His footstool,’ 
 and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it saith, ‘The earth is My 
 footstool.’ Iam in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who 
 made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to 
 worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm biddeth me 
 ‘fall down before His footstool.’ I ask, what is His footstool ? and 
 the Scripture telleth me, ‘the earth is My footstool.’ In _ hesitation I 
 turn unto Christ, since Iam herein seeking Himself: and I discover 
 how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool 
 may be worshipped without impiety, For He took upon Him earth 
 from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from 
 the flesh of Mary. And because He walketh here in very flesh, 
 and gave that very flesh to us to eat for onr salvation ; and no one 
 eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped: we have found out 
 in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and 
 not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not 
 worshipping, But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when 
 He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, ‘ It is the Spirit 
 
lx APPENDIX. 
 
 that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.’ Therefore, when thou 
 bowest thyself down prostrate before the ‘earth,’ look not as if unto 
 earth, but unto that Holy One whose footstool it is that thou dost 
 worship ; for thou dost worship it on His account: wherefore he hath 
 added here also, ‘fall down before His footstool, for He is holy.” Who 
 is holy ? He in whose honour thou dost worship His footstool. And 
 when thou worshippest Him, see that thou do not in thy thought remain 
 in the flesh, and be not quickened by the Spirit; for, He saith, ‘it is 
 the Spirit that quickeneth : the flesh profiteth nothing,’ (John vi., 
 63.) But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own 
 flesh, and He had said, ‘ Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no 
 life in him,’ (John vi., 54.) Some disciples of His, about seventy, 
 were offended, and said, ‘This is an hard saying, who can hear it ὃ 
 And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto 
 them hard that He said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, 
 ye have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it 
 carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His 
 body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This isa hard saying.’ It 
 was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been 
 hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith 
 not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. 
 They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would 
 have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others 
 departed, learnt. or when twelve disciples had remained with Him, 
 on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if 
 in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His 
 words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto 
 them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing ; 
 the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are 
 life,’ (John vi., 54—64.) Understand spiritually what I have said ; 
 ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which 
 they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended 
 unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. 
 Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be 
 spiritually understood. ‘O magnify the Lord our God, and fall down 
 before His footstool, for He is holy.’”—Oaford Lib. of the Fathers. 
 
APPENDIX. xi 
 
 APPENDIX (&. 
 
 Tar the authority on which the idea of Melchisedec’s offering is 
 founded, and the judiciousness and sobriety with which the superstruc- 
 ture is raised, may be seen and appreciated, I have thought it good 
 here to reprint a portion of Cyprian’s letter to Ceecilius, wherein it is 
 elaborately worked out. The estimation in which this letter is held by 
 the party now given to ‘‘ unprotestantize”’ the Church of England, is thus 
 expressed by Dr. Pusey, the editor of Cyprian’s works, in the Oxford 
 “Library of the Fathers,’ in the preface to the second volume of 
 Cyprian, No. 17 of the series :—‘< Of the epistles which are preserved, 
 one, at least, which is chiefly taken up with the sacramental meanings 
 of Holy Scripture, indicates, as well as his ‘Testimonies,’ a full 
 possession of the system of Scriptural interpretation, which, whether 
 by intuition or by tradition, was the heritage of the ancient Church, as 
 he in his turn aided to fix that meaning. That epistle is like one 
 flash from a mind we love, disclosing to us as it were a new world 
 within it, enlarging and re-arranging all our previous thoughts of it, 
 and deepening our reverence towards it. Ofa kind, which will with 
 many command little sympathy now, it shews a reverential contempla- 
 tion and grasp of the hidden meaning of Holy Scripture in its 
 sacramental aspect, which we must the more admire in one, whose 
 duties, almost from the time of his conversion, were of intense and 
 absorbing activity.” It is to be hoped, for the safety and credit of the 
 Church, that the age when such a “grasp of the hidden meaning of 
 Holy Scripture” would be favourably received, is gone for ever. That 
 we should have it, even with interest, if the Oxford Romanists had 
 their way, will be seen by the portion of a note written by the same 
 hand, which follows immediately after the extract from Cyprian : 
 
 “ Although I am aware, dearest brother, that most of the bishops, 
 
Ix APPENDIX. 
 
 who by the Divine favour are set over the Churches of the Lord 
 throughout the world, adhere to the method of Evangelical truth and 
 the tradition of the Lord, and do not, by human and novel practices, 
 depart from what Christ our master both enjoined and did; yet since 
 some, either through ignorance or simplicity, in consecrating and 
 adininistrating to the people the cup of the Lord, do not the same as 
 Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the author and teacher of this sacrifice, 
 did and taught; I have thought it a holy and necessary duty to write 
 you this letter, that should any one be still held by this error, he 
 may, having clearly seen the light of truth, return to the root and 
 origin of the tradition of the Lord. Nor must you think, dearest 
 brother, that I am writing my own and human opinions, or that I 
 boldly take this on myself of my own mere will, for that I ever main- 
 tain my own mediocrity with humble and shame-faced moderation. 
 But when anything is enjoined by the inspiration and command of 
 God, a faithful servant must needs obey the Lord ; acquitted by all 
 of assuming anything arrogantly to himself, in that he is compelled 
 to fear offending the Lord, unless he do what he is bidden. But you 
 should know that I have been admonished, that in offering the cup the 
 tradition of the Lord be observed, nor aught else be done by us, than 
 what the Lord has first done for us: that the cup which is offered «in 
 remembrance’ of Him, should be offered mixed with wine. For 
 whereas Christ says, ‘I am the true vine,’ (John xv., 13) the blood of 
 Christ is not surely water, but wine. Nor can His blood whereby we 
 have been redeemed and quickened, appear to be in the cup, when the 
 cup is withont that wine, whereby the blood of Christ is set forth, as is 
 declared by the mystical meaning and testimony of all the scriptures. 
 
 “For we find in Genesis also, as to the hidden mystery in Noah, 
 that this same was promised, and that for them there was a figure of 
 the passion of the Lord, in that he drank wine, (Gen. xix., 21); that he 
 was drunken ; that he was uncovered within his tent; that he was lying 
 down with his thighs bared and open to view ; that such nakedness of the 
 father was noticed by his middle son, and told abroad ; but was covered 
 by two, the elder and the younger; and other circumstances which it is 
 not necessary to follow out, since it suffices to embrace this alone, that 
 Noah exhibiting a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but 
 wine, and so pourtrayed a figure of the passion of the Lord. 
 
 ‘“‘ Likewise in the priest Melchisedec we see the mystery of the 
 sacrifice of our Lord prefigured, as Holy Scripture testifies, saying, 
 ‘And Melchisedee king of Salem brought forth bread and_ wine,’ 
 (Gen. xiv., 18.) But he was ‘the priest of the most High God,’ and 
 
APPENDIX. 1Χ111 
 
 ‘blessed Abraham.’ But that Melchisedec bore a type of Christ, the 
 Holy Spirit declares in the Psalms, saying to the Son in the Person 
 of the Father, ‘Before the morning star I begat Thee; Thon art a 
 priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec,’ (Ps. cx., 3, 4.) Which 
 order assuredly is this, coming from that sacrifice and thence descending, 
 that Melchisedec was a priest of the most High God, that he offered 
 bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest 
 of the most High God, than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a 
 sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that same which Melchisedec 
 had offered, that is, bread and wine, namely, His own body and blood ? 
 And that blessing going before with respect to Abraham, belonged to 
 our people. For if ‘ Abraham believed in God, and it was counted to 
 him for righteousness,’ (Gen. xv., 6 ;) then whoever believes in God 
 and lives by faith, is found righteous, and is shewn long since. to have 
 been blessed and justified in faithful Abraham ; as the blessed apostle 
 Paul proves, saying, ‘ Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to 
 him for righteousness. Ye know then that they which are of faith, the 
 same are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that 
 God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before to 
 Abraham, that in him all nations should be blessed. So then they 
 which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham,’ (Gal. ii., 6—9.) 
 Whence in the Gospel we find, that ‘from stones are raised,’ that is, 
 from the Geatiles are gathered, ‘ children unto Abraham,’ (Matt, iii., 9.) 
 And when the Lord praised Zacchzeus, He answered and said, ‘ This 
 day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of 
 Abraham,’ (Luke xix., 9.) In Genesis therefore, that the blessing of 
 Abraham by Melchisedec the priest might be duly celebrated, the 
 figure of the sacrifice of Christ goes before, appointed namely in bread 
 and wine, which thing the Lord accomplishing and fulfilling, offered 
 bread and the cup mixed with wine, and He who is the fulness of 
 truth, fulfilled the truth of the prefigured image. 
 
 “ Moreover by Solomon, the Holy Spirit, shewing beforehand a type 
 of the sacrifice of the Lord, making mention of the victim slain, and of 
 the bread and wine, yea, also of the altar and of the apostles, saith, 
 ‘ Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars ; 
 she hath kilied her sacrifices; she hath mingled her wine in the cup ; 
 she hath also furnished her table. She hath sent forth her servants, 
 calling together, with voice uplifted, to her cup, saying, whoso is 
 simple, let him turn in to me. And to those that want understanding 
 she hath said, come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which 1 
 
 have mingled for you,’ (Prot: tz; 1.395) He sets forth the mingled 
 
lxiv APPENDIX. 
 
 wine, that is, he foretells by prophetic voice the cup of the Lord 
 mingled with water and wine; that in the Passion of the Lord that 
 may appear to be done which had been before predicted. In the 
 blessing of Judak also, this same is signified, where a figure of Christ 
 is expressed therein also, that He should be ‘praised’ by ‘ His 
 brethren,’ and that they should ‘bow down before’ Him, that He 
 should press on ‘ the neck of’ His ‘enemies’ yielding and fleeing, 
 with those ‘ hands’ with which He bore the cross and overcame death : 
 that He is “ the lion of the tribe of Judah,’ and should ‘ couch,’ sleeping 
 in His passion, and ‘rise up’ and be the ‘ hope’ of ‘the Gentiles.’ 
 (See Gen. xlix., 8, 9.) To which Holy Scripture adds and says, ‘ He 
 shall wash His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of 
 grapes,’ (Gen xlix., 11.) But when the blood of grapes is mentioned, 
 what else is shewn than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord ? 
 Moreover in Isaiah the Holy Spirit testifies this same of the Passion of 
 the Lord, saying, ‘ Wherefore art Thou red in Thine apparel, and Thy 
 garments like him that treadeth in a wine-vat?’ (Js. Ixiii., 2.) Can 
 water make apparel red ? or is it water in the wine-vat which is trodden 
 by the feet, or squeezed out by the press? Mention is therefore made 
 of wine, that the blood of the Lord may be understood ; and what was 
 afterwards manifested in the cup of the Lord, might be foreshewn in 
 the predictions of the prophets. The treading and pressure of the 
 wine-vat is also dwelt upon: because as men cannot come to the 
 drinking of wine unless the cluster be first trodden and pressed, so 
 neither could we drink the blood of Christ, unless Christ had been first 
 trodden on and pressed, and first drank of the cup, in which He should 
 give believers to drink. 
 
 “ But as often as water alone is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, 
 baptism is alluded to, as we see is intimated in Isaiah, ‘ Remember ye 
 not,’ he says, ‘the former things, neither consider the things of old. 
 Behold, I will do a new thing, which now shall spring forth, and ye 
 shall know it. I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in 
 a dry place; to give drink to My people, My chosen; My people 
 whom 1 have purchased, that they might shew forth My praise,’ 
 (15. xliii., 18 —21.) There God by the prophet foretold, that among 
 nations in places which had before been dry, rivers should afterwards 
 flow abundantly, and should water the chosen people of God, that is, 
 those made sons of God by the regeneration of baptism. Τὶ is also 
 again proclaimed and foretold, that the Jews, if they should be athirst, 
 and seek after Christ, should drink with us, that is, should attain the 
 grace of baptism. ‘If they shall be athirst,’ he says, ‘He will lead 
 
APPENDIX. Ixv 
 
 them through the deserts, water out of the rock will He bring forth for 
 them ; the rock shall be cleft, and the waters shall gush out, and My 
 people shall drink.’ (Zs. xlviii., 21.) This is fulfilled in the Gospel, 
 when Christ, who is ‘the rock,’ is cleft by a stroke of the spear in His 
 passion; who also, admonishing as to what had been before foretold by 
 the prophet, crieth out and says, ‘If any man thirst, let him come and 
 drink. He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture saith, out of his 
 belly shall flow rivers of living water.’ And that it might be more 
 manifest that the Lord there speaks not of the cup, but of baptism, the 
 Scripture added, ‘But this spake He of the spirit, which they that 
 believe on Him should receive.’ For by baptism the Holy Spirit is 
 received, and so they that are baptized, and have obtained the Holy 
 Spirit, come to drink of the cup of the Lord. Nor let that move any 
 one, that when Holy Scripture speaks of baptism, it says that we thirst 
 and drink, for that the Lord also in the Gospel says, ‘ Blessed are 
 they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness,’ (Matt. v., 6;) for 
 that which is received by hungry and thirsty longing, is more fully and 
 abundantly imbibed. As also in another place the Lord speaks to the 
 Samaritan woman, saying, ‘Whosoever drinketh of this water shall 
 thirst again ; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, 
 shall never thirst.’ In which too the baptism of saving water is signified, 
 which in truth is once received, nor ever again repeated. But the cup 
 of the Lord is both continually thirsted for and drunk in the Church. 
 “Nor have we need of many arguments, dearest brother, to prove 
 that by the name of water baptism is always signified, and that we 
 ought so to understand it; since the Lord, at His coming, manifested 
 the truth of baptism and of the cup, in that He commanded that the 
 unfailing water, the water of eternal life, be given to believers in 
 baptism; but by the example of His own authority, He taught that 
 the cup should be mingled by the union of wine and water. For 
 taking the cup on the eve of His passion, He blessed it, and gave it to 
 His disciples, saying, ‘ Drink ye all of this: for this is My blood of the 
 New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 1 
 say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until 
 that day when 1 drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,’ (Mat. 
 xxvi., 27—29.) Wherein we find that the cup which the Lord offered 
 was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. 
 Whence it is apparent that the blood of Christ is not offered, if there 
 is no wine in the cup; nor the sacrifice of the Lord celebrated by a 
 legitimate consecration, unless our oblation and sacrifice corresponds 
 with His passion. But how shall we drink new wine of the fruit of 
 the vine with Christ in the kingdom of the Father, if in the sacrifice of 
 ῖ 
 
lxvi APPENDIX. 
 
 God the Father and of Christ, we do not offer wine, nor mingle the cup 
 of the Lord according to the Lord’s institution ? 
 
 «The blessed Apostle Paul also, chosen and sent by the Lord, and 
 appointed a preacher of the truth of the Gospel, lays down the very 
 same in his Epistle, saying, ‘The Lord Jesus, the same night in which 
 He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He 
 brake it, and said, This is My body which is given for you; this do in 
 remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, 
 when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My 
 blood; this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me: for as 
 often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s 
 death till He come,’ (1 Cor. xi., 23—26.) If, then, it is both com- 
 manded by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and delivered by 
 His apostle, that as often as we drink, in remembrance of the Lord, 
 we do the same which the Lord also did, we discover that what was 
 commanded is not observed by us, unless we also do the very same that 
 the Lord did, and mingling the cup of the Lord in like manner, depart 
 not from the Divine authority. But that we must not at all depart 
 from the evangelical precepts, and that the disciples also ought to 
 observe and do the same which their Master taught and did, the blessed 
 apostle elsewhere more urgently and strongly teaches, saying, ‘ | wonder 
 that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into grace, unto 
 another Gospel, which is not another; but there be some that trouble 
 you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an 
 angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which 
 we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, 
 so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than 
 that ye have received, let him be accursed,’ (Gal. i., 6—9.) Since, 
 then, neither the apostle himself nor an angel from heaven can preach 
 or teach otherwise than Christ has once taught and His apostles 
 preached, I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some 
 places, contrary to evangelical and apostolic discipline, water is offered 
 in the cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the blood of Christ. 
 
 “The mystery whereof the Holy Spirit omitteth not in the Psalms 
 also, making mention of the cup of the Lord, and saying, ‘Thy inebri- 
 ating cup, how good is it :’** but the cup that inebriateth must surely 
 be mixed with wine. For water cannot inebriate any one. But the 
 cup of the Lord so inebriateth, as Noah, in Genesis, drinking wine, was 
 inebriated, (Gen. ix., 21.) But because the inebriation of the cup and 
 
 * Ps. 23, 5. see also S. Ambr. in Ps. 35. 5. 19. Ps, 1. 5. 33. and in Ps. 118. lit. 13. 
 s. 24. lit. 21.s.4. S. Hil. in Ps. 64. 5. 15. 5. Aug. in Ps. 35. s. 14. Ps. 103. Enarr. 
 3. s. 13. Theodoret in Ps. 22, 5, 
 
APPENDIX. Ixvil 
 
 blood of the Lord is not such as the imebriation of this world’s wine, 
 when the Holy Spirit said in the Psalm, ‘Thy inebriating cup,’ He 
 added, ‘how good is it;’ because in truth the cup of the Lord so 
 inebriates them that drink it as to make them sober, as to bring back 
 their minds to spiritual wisdom, so that each should recover from this 
 world’s savour to the perception of God: and as by that common wine 
 the mind is dissolved, and the soul relaxed, and all sadness laid aside, 
 so when the blood of the Lord and the saving cup hath been drunk, the 
 memory of the old man is laid aside, and there cometh a forgetfulness 
 of his ‘former conversation in the world,’ and the sad and mournful 
 breast, which before was oppressed with the choking sense of sins, is 
 set free by the joy of Divine forgiveness ; which then only can gladden 
 him who drinks it in the Church of the Lord, if what is drunken retains 
 the truth of the Lord. 
 
 ** But how perverse is it, and how wilful, when the Lord at the 
 matriage-feast made of water wine (John ii., 9), for us to make of 
 wine, water; when too that mystery ought to admonish and instruct us, 
 that in the sacrifices of the Lord we should rather offer wine! For 
 because among the Jews spiritual grace had failed, wine also failed: 
 ‘ For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts was the house of Israel,’ (Js. 
 v.,7;) but Christ, teaching and shewing that the Gentiles succeeded 
 them, and that we afterwards, by the merit of faith, should attain to 
 that place which the Jews had lost, made of water wine, that is, He 
 shewed that, the Jews failing, the people of the Gentiles should the 
 more flow in and meet together at the nuptials of Christ and His 
 Church. For that waters signify peoples, Holy Scripture declares in 
 the Revelations, saying, ‘The waters which thou sawest, on which the 
 whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.’ 
 (Rev. xvii., 15.) 
 
 “ This, too, we perceive, is contained in the mystery of the cup. 
 For because Christ loves us all, in that He bore our sins also, we see 
 that in the water the people are intended, but that in the wine is shewn 
 the blood of Christ. But when in the cup water is mingled with wine, 
 His people are united to Christ, and the multitude of believers are 
 united and conjoined with Him in whom they believe ; which union and 
 conjunction of water and wine is so mingled together in the cup of the 
 Lord, that that commixture cannot again be separated. Whence neither 
 can the Church, that is, the people settled in the Church, faithfully and 
 stedfastly persevering in what they have believed, be by aught separated 
 from Christ, that its indissoluble affection should not ever adhere and 
 abide with Him. Thus, then, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, 
 water alone cannot be offered, as neither can wine alone. For if any 
 
Ixvili APPENDIX. 
 
 should offer wine alone, this is as though the blood of Christ were 
 without us; but if there be water alone, the people begin to be without 
 Christ. But when both are mingled, and by an infused union each is 
 joined with the other, then the spiritual and heavenly sacrament is per- 
 fected. Thus, then, the cup of the Lord is not water alone, or wine 
 alone, unless both are mingled together, as also the body of the Lord 
 caunot be meat alone, or water alone, unless both be united and joined 
 together, and compacted into one cohering bread. In which mystery 
 also our people are shewn to be united, so that as many grains* col- 
 lected, and ground, and mingled together make one bread; so in 
 Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, 
 wherewith our whole number is conjoined and united.” 
 
 The note of Dr. Pusey, previously alluded to, is as follows :—‘* For- 
 metly the faithful used a somewhat larger loaf in the Eucharist, that 
 all who partook of it might be shewn to be ‘one bread,’ and to be made 
 partakers of the communion of the broken body of the Lord. Then it 
 became the practice to use wafers, but the mystical meaning js not lost ; 
 for they represent the pieces of silver, the price of the body of the Lord. 
 In this same epistle, St. Chrysostom relates that the Holy Eucharist 
 was at first celebrated by the Lord at night, nor was this without a 
 mystery (sec. 13); but he subjoins, “ but we in the morning celebrate 
 the Resurrection of the Lord ;’ whence also that will appear, that ‘ we 
 wish to walk in the light of Christ.’ Again, by the decree of Eugenius, 
 the Roman pontiff, it is ordained that water be mingled with the cup to 
 be consecrated, in ‘small quantity ;’ and so, by the superabundance of 
 the wine above the quality of the water, is signified the superabundance 
 of the merits of Christ our Lord and His dignity above the human 
 nature and the sins of the human race. Yet not less suitably by the 
 use of wine alone is it shewn that we are saved by the merits of Christ 
 alone, and by His blood. In like wav the Greeks pour warm water into 
 the consecrated cup, to signify (as Balsamon explains in Can. 82, Conc. 
 Trull.) ‘ that what flowed from the holy side of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 are life-giving.’ The Latins use cold water, in witness that Christ 
 really died, and that we are saved only by His death. In like manner, 
 in Baptism: formerly trine immersion was required, as significant of 
 the Trinity ; then single followed, that we might profess that we acknow- 
 ledge one God. [In the Spanish Church, see Bingham, 11. 11. 8.] 
 Immersion also seemed necessary, that we might seem to be buried 
 with Christ in baptism; now we are sprinkled with water, that we may 
 be seen to be cleansed by the sprinkling of His blood.” 
 
 * Eph. lxix., ad Magn. 5. 4. 
 
APPENDIX ]xix 
 
 POE Neer: 
 
 TE idea which Augustine had of the acceptable sacrifices under the 
 Gospel dispensation, and the connection which these had with those 
 under the law, is clearly seen by the following extracts of his “ De 
 Civitate Dei,” lib. x. c. 5, 6: 
 
 * But who is so fond to think that God needeth anything that is 
 offered in sacrifice ? The Scripture condemns them that think so, 
 diversely. One place of the Psalmist (to make short) for all: “1 said 
 unto the Lord, Thou art my God, because Thou needest none of my 
 goods,’ (Psal. xvi., 2.) Believe it, therefore, God had no need of man’s 
 cattle, nor any earthly good of his, no, not his justice; but all the 
 worship that he giveth God is for his own profit, not God’s. One 
 cannot say he doth the fountain good by drinking of it, or the light by 
 seeing by it. Nor had the patriarchs’ ancient sacrifices (which now 
 God’s people read of, but use not) any other intent but to signify what 
 should be done of us in our love to God, and charity to our neighbour 
 for the same end. So, then, an external offering is a visible sacrament 
 of an invisible sacrifice, that is, a holy sign. And thereupon the peni- 
 tent man in the prophet (or, rather, the penitent prophet), desiring 
 God to pardon his sins, ‘ Thou desirest no sacrifice though I would 
 give it,’ saith he, ‘but Thou delightest not in burnt-offerings: the 
 sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit; a broken and humbled heart, O 
 God, Thou wilt not despise,’ (Psal. li., 16, 17.) Behold, here he saith, 
 God will have sacrifices, and God will have no sacrifices. He will have 
 no slaughtered beast, but He will have a contrite heart. So in that 
 which He denied was implied that which He desired. The prophet, 
 then, saying He will not have such, why do fools think He will, as 
 delighting in them? If He would not have had such sacrifices as He 
 desired (whereof a contrite heart is one) to have been signified in those 
 
Ixx APPENDIX. 
 
 other (wherein they thought He delighted), He would not have given 
 any command concerning them in Leviticus. But there are set times 
 appointed for their changes, lest men should think He took pleasure in 
 them, or accepted them of us otherwise than as signs of the other. 
 Therefore, saith another psalm, ‘ If I be hungry I will not tell thee, 
 for all the world is mine, and all that therein is. Will I eat the flesh 
 of bulls, or drink the blood of goats ?’ (Psal. 1., 12, 18.) As who 
 ‘should say, if I would I would not beg them of thee, having them 
 in my power. But then addeth he their signification: ‘ Offer praise 
 to God, and pay thy vows to the Most High; and call upon me in the 
 day of trouble, and I will deliver thee) and thou shalt glorify me,’ 
 (Psal. 1., 14, 15.) And in another prophet: ‘Wherewith shall I come 
 before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come 
 before Him with burnt-offerings, and with calves of a year old? Will 
 the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousand rivers 
 of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, even the fruit 
 of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, Ὁ man, 
 what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee: surely to do justice, 
 and to love mercy, and to humble thyself to walk with thy God,’ (Mie. 
 vi., 6, 7, 8.) In these words are both the sacrifices plainly distinct ; 
 and it is shewn that God respecteth not the first that signify those He 
 respecteth, as the epistle, intituled to the Hebrews, saith : ‘To do good 
 and distribute forget not, for with such sacrifices God is pleased,’ (Heb. 
 xili., 16.) And, as it is elsewhere, ‘I will have mercy, and not sacri- 
 fice.’ This sheweth that the external sacrifice is but a type of the 
 better, and that which men call a sacrifice is the sign of the true one. 
 And mercy is a true sacrifice ; whereupon it is said, as before, ‘ With 
 such sacrifices God is pleased.’ Wherefore all the precepts concerning 
 sacrifices in the tabernacle and the temple have all reference to the love 
 of God and our neighbour ; for in these two, as is said, is contained all 
 the law and the prophets. 
 
 “Every work, therefore, tending to effect our beatitude by a holy 
 conjunction with God, is a true sacrifice. Compassion shewn upon a 
 man, and not for God’s sake, is no sacrifice. For a sacrifice (though 
 offered by a man) is a divine thing, and so the ancient Latinists term 
 it; whereupon a man, consecrated wholly to God’s name, to live to 
 Him and die to the world, is a sacrifice; for this is mercy shewn upon 
 himself; and so it is written, ‘ Pity thine own soul, and please God,’ 
 (Eccl. xxx., 23.) And when we chastise our body by abstinence, if we 
 do it as we should, not making our members instruments of iniquity, 
 but of God’s justice, it is a sacrifice, whereunto the apostle exhorts us, 
 
APPENDIX. lxxi 
 
 saying, ‘I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, 
 that you give up your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable 
 unto God, which is your reasonable serving of God,’ (fom. xii, 1.) 
 If, therefore, the body, being but servant and instrument unto the soul, 
 being rightly used in God’s service, be a sacrifice, how much more is 
 the soul one when it relieth upon God, and, being inflamed with His 
 love, loseth all form of temporal concupiscence, and is framed according 
 to His most excellent figure, pleasing Him by participating of His beauty ? 
 This the apostle adjoins in these words: ‘ And fashion not yourselves 
 like this world, but be ye changed in newness of heart, that ye may 
 prove what is the good will of God, and what is good, acceptable, and 
 perfect,’ (Rom. xii., 3.) Wherefore, seeing the works of mercy being 
 referred unto God, be they done to ourselves or our neighbours, are 
 true sacrifices, and that their end is nothing but to free us from misery 
 and make us happy by that God, and none other, of whom it is said, 
 ‘It is good for me to adhere unto the Lord,’ (Psai, 1xxiii., 23 5) truly 
 it followeth, that all the whole and holy society of the redeemed and 
 sanctified city be offered unto God, by that Great Priest who gave 
 up His life for us, to make us members of so great a head in so mean 
 a form. This form He offered, and herein was He offered ; in this He, 
 our Priest, our Mediator, and Sacrifice, all in this. Now, therefore, 
 the apostle, having exhorted us to give up our bodies a living sacrifice, 
 pure and acceptable to God,—namely, our reasonable serving of God,— 
 and not to fashion ourselves like this world, but be changed in newness 
 of heart, that we might prove what is the will of God, and what is good, 
 acceptable, and perfect, all which sacrifice we are: ‘For I say,’ quoth 
 he, ‘through the grace that is given to me, to every one among you, 
 that no man presume to undersiand more than is meet to understand ; 
 but that he understand according to sobriety, as God hath dealt to every 
 man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, 
 and all members have not one office; so we, being many, are one 
 body in Christ, and every one one another's members, having divers gifts 
 according to the grace that is given us, &c.’ This is the Christian's 
 sacrifice. We are one body with Christ, as the Church celebrateth in 
 the sacrament of the altar, so well known to the faithful, wherein is 
 shewed that in that oblation the Church is offered.” 
 
ΙΧΧῚ APPENDIX. 
 
 AvPaP Eh NeDa KoiGe 
 
 ST. JUSTIN MARTYR'S ACCOUNT 
 
 OF THE MANNER OF CELEBRATING THR EUCHARIST IN HIS DAYS, THAT 
 Is, ABOUT FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF ST. JOHN 
 THE APOSTLE, BEGINNING AT THE EIGHTY-FIFTH 
 CHAPTER OF HIS FIRST APOLOGY. 
 
 ArreR the believer is baptized, and so incorporated or made one with 
 us, we lead him to the congregation of the brethren, as we call them, 
 and then with great fervency pour out our souls in common prayers, 
 both for ourselves, for the person baptized, and for all others all the 
 world over; that, having embraced the truth, our conversation might 
 be as becometh the Gospel, and that we may be found doers of the 
 word, and so at length be saved with an everlasting salvation. Prayers 
 being over, we salute each other with a kiss: after this, bread and a 
 cup of wine and water are brought to the president or bishop, which he 
 takes, and offers up praise and glory to the Father of all things, through 
 the name of His Son and the Holy Spirit; and this thanksgiving to 
 God, for vouchsafing us worthy of these His creatures, is a prayer of 
 more than ordinary length. When the bishop has finished the prayers 
 and the thanksgiving service, all the people present conclude with an 
 audible voice, saying, Amen. Now Amen, in the Hebrew tongue, is, 
 so be it. The Eucharistical office, being thus performed by the bishop, 
 and concluded with the acclamation of all the people, those we call 
 deacons distribute to every one present to partake of this Eucharistic 
 bread, and wine, and water, and then they carry it to the absent. 
 
 The food we call the Eucharist, of which none are allowed to be 
 partakers, but such only as are true believers, and have been baptized 
 
APPENDIX. Ixxul 
 
 in the laver of regeneration for the remission of sins, and live according 
 to Christ’s precepts ; for we do not take this as common bread and 
 common wine. But as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the 
 Logos of God, and had real flesh and blood for our salvation, so are we 
 taught that this food, which the very same Logos blessed by prayer and 
 thanksgiving, is turned into the nourishment and substance of our flesh 
 and blood, and is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus. For the 
 apostles, in their commentaries called the Gospels, have left this com- 
 mand upon record, ‘ That Jesus took bread, and when he had given 
 thanks, he said, Do this in commemoration of me, for this is my body : 
 and in like manner he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he 
 said, this is my blood,’* and delivered it to them only. And this very 
 solemnity, too, the evil spirits have introduced into the ‘ Mysteries of 
 Mithra ;’ for you do or may know, that when any one is initiated into 
 this religion, bread and a cup of water, with a certain form of words are 
 made use of in the sacrifice. After this sacrament is over, we remind 
 each other of the obligations to his duty, and the rich relieve the poor, 
 and upon such charitable accounts we visit some or other every day. 
 
 And in every Eucharistical sacrifice we bless the Maker of all things, 
 through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit: and upon 
 the day called Sunday, all that live either in city or country meet 
 together at the same place, where the writings of the apostles and 
 prophets are read, as much as time will give leave; when the reader 
 has done, the bishop makes a sermon to the people, and animates them 
 to the practice of such lovely precepts. At the conclusion of this dis- 
 course, we all rise up together and pray; and, prayers being over, as 
 I now said, there is bread, and wine, and water offered, and the bishop 
 as before, sends up prayers and thanksgivings, with all the fervency he 
 is able, and the people conclude all with the joyful acclamation of Amen. 
 Then the consecrated elements are distributed to, and partaken of by 
 all that are present, and sent to the absent by the hands of the deacons.” 
 From Mr. Reeves’ Translation of Justin, London, 1709. 
 
 * Matt. xxvi., 26; Mark xiv., 22; Luke xxii., 19, etc. 
 
 k 
 
lxxiv APPENDIX. 
 
 (APPENDIX G. continued.) 
 
 THE 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITURGY, 
 
 AS IT STANDS IN THE BOOK CALLED THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, 
 BOOK VIII., CHAPTER 12. 
 
 The Deacon shall say, 
 
 Let none of the Catechumens, none of the hearers, none of the unbe- 
 levers, none of the heterodox stay. You who have prayed the former 
 prayer, depart. Mothers, take up your children, Let no one have 
 ought against any man. Let us stand upright, to present unto the 
 Lord our offerings with fear and trembling. 
 
 ‘I When this is done, let the deacons bring the gifts to the bishop at the altar ; 
 and let the priests stand on his right hand, and on his left, as disciples by 
 their Master. But let two of the deacons, on each side of the altar, hold a 
 San made up of thin membranes, or peacock’s feathers, or fine cloth ; and 
 let them silently drive away flies and gnats, that they may not fall into the 
 cups. Then the bishop, after having prayed secretly (and likewise the 
 priests), and having put on his splendid vestment, and standing at the 
 altar, and signing himself with the sign of the cross upon his forehead, 
 let him say, 
 
 The grace of Almighty God, and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 
 and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. 
 And let all with one voice say, 
 And with thy Spirit. 
 
 Bishop. Lift up your mind. 
 
 People. We lift it up unto the Lord. 
 
 Bishop. Let us give thanks to the Lord. 
 
 People. It is meet and right so to do. 
 
 Bishop. It is indeed meet and right to sing praises to thee, the 
 true God, from everlasting, of whom the whole family in heaven and 
 earth is named; who alone art unbegotten, without beginning, the 
 supreme Lord, Almighty King, and self-sufficient; the author and 
 giver of all good things, without cause, without generation, self-existing ; 
 the same vesterday, to day, and for ever. At Thy word, as from a 
 
APPENDIX. Ixxv 
 
 necessary original, all things started into bemg. For ‘I'hou art ever- 
 lasting knowledge, sight before all objects, hearing before all sounds, 
 wisdom without instruction ; the first in nature, the fountain of being, 
 the eternal one, exceeding all number, incomprehensible. Thou crea- 
 tedst all things out of nothing by Thine only begotten Son, begotten 
 before all ages by no other means than Thy will, Thy power, and Thy 
 goodness ; God the word, the living wisdom, the first-born of every 
 creature, the angel of Thy great counsel, Thy High Priest, but the Lord 
 and King of all sensible and intellectual creatures, who was before all 
 things, and by whom all things were made. Thou, O eternal God, 
 didst make all things by Him, and by Him tvo dispensest Thy provi- 
 dence over them ; for by the same that Thou broughtest all things into 
 being, by Him thou continuest all things in well-being. The God and 
 Father of Thine only begotten Son; who by Him didst make first the 
 cherubim and seraphim, the ages, and all the heavenly hosts, the prin- 
 cipalities and powers, thrones and dominions, angels and archangels, and 
 after these didst by Him create this visible world, and all things which 
 are therein. For it is Thou who hast fixed the heaven like an arch, 
 and stretched it out like the covering of a tent; who hast laid the foun- 
 dation of the earth, which resteth upon nothing but Thy will; who 
 hast established the firmament, and prepared the night and the day, 
 bringing light out of Thy treasures, and darkness to overshadow it, 
 that under its covert the living creatures of this world might take their 
 repose. Thou hast appointed the sun to rule the day, and the moon to 
 govern the night ; and moreover, hast imprinted in the heavens a choir 
 of stars for the honour of Thy glorious Majesty. Thou hast made 
 water for drink, and for cleansing, the vital air for respiration, and con- 
 veyance of sounds by the tongue’s striking of it, and the hearing which 
 co-operates with it, so as to perceive the voice when it is received by it, 
 and falls upon it. Thou madest fire for our consolation in darkness, 
 and for the relief of our necessities, that we might be both warmed and 
 enlightened by it. Thou didst divide the sea from the land, making 
 the one navigable, and the other a basis for our feet in walking ; the 
 former Thou hast replenished with small and great beasts, the latter, too, 
 both with tame and wild; and hast, moreover, furnished it with various 
 plants, crowned it with herbs, beautified it with flowers, and enriched it 
 with seeds. Thou hast collected together the great deep, and cast a 
 mound about it; seas of salt waters stand as an heap bounded on every 
 side with barriers of sand; sometimes Thou dost swell it by the wind, 
 so as to equal the high mountains, and sometimes smooth it into a 
 plain; now making it rage with a tempest, then stilling it with a calm, 
 
Ixxvl APPENDIX. 
 
 for the ease of mariners in their voyages. The earth, which was made 
 by Thee through Christ, Thou hast encompassed with rivers, watered 
 with currents, and moistened with springs which never fail; Thou hast 
 girt it about with mountains, that it may not be moved at any time; 
 Thou hast replenished and adorned it with fragrant and medicinal herbs, 
 with many and various kinds of living creatures, strong and weak, for 
 food and for labour, tame and wild; with the dull] harsh noises of those 
 creatures which move upon the earth, and the soft sprightly notes of 
 the gaudy many-coloured birds which wing the air; with the revolution 
 of years, the number of months and days, the regular succession of the 
 seasons ; with the courses of the clouds big with rain, for the production 
 of fruits, the support of living creatures; where also the winds take 
 their stand, which blow at Thy command, and for the refreshment of 
 trees and plants. And Thou hast not only created the world, but man 
 likewise the citizen of it; manifesting in him the beauty and excel- 
 lency of that beautiful and excellent creation. For Thou saidst to 
 Thine own wisdom, Let us make man in Our own image, and after Our 
 likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over 
 the fowl of the air. Wherefore Thou madest him of an immortal soul, 
 and mortal body; the soul out of nothing, the body out of the four 
 elements ; this endued with five senses, and a power of motion ; that 
 with reason, and a faculty of distinguishing between religion and 
 irreligion, just and unjust. Thou, O Almighty God, didst also by Thy 
 Christ, plant a garden eastward in Eden, adorned with every plant that 
 was fit for food; into this Thou didst put him, a rich and magnificent 
 habitation; having given him a law in his nature, and such powers 
 that without the assistance of other means, even in himself he might 
 have the principles of Divine knowledge. And when Thou didst put 
 him into this paradise of pleasure, Thou gavest him the privilege of 
 enjoying all its delights, with this only exception, that he should not, 
 out of vain curiosity, in hopes of bettering his condition, taste of one tree, 
 and immortality was to be the reward of his obedience to this command ; 
 but when he had broken through it, and eaten of the forbidden fruit, 
 overreached by the subtilty of the serpent, and the counsel of the 
 woman, Thou didst justly drive him out of paradise ; but in Thy good- 
 ness didst not despise him, nor suffer him utterly to perish; for he was 
 the work of Thine own hands: but Thou gavest him dominion over all 
 things, and by his labour, and the sweat of his face, to procure his food, 
 Thy providence co-operating with him, so as to make the fruits of the 
 earth to spring up, increase, and ripen. And, having subjected him for 
 a while to a temporary death, Thou didst bind thyself by an oath to 
 
APPENDIX. Ixxvii 
 
 restore him to life again; loosing the bands of that death, by the 
 promise of a resurrection to the life which is eternal. Nor was this all; 
 but Thou didst likewise multiply his posterity without number, glori- 
 fying as many of them as were obedient unto Thee, and punishing those 
 who rebelled against Thee. Thou didst accept the sacrifice of Abel 
 upon account of his righteousness, and reject the offering of Cain, who 
 slew his brother, because of his unworthiness. And besides these, Thou 
 didst receive Seth and Enos, and translate Enoch. For Thou art 
 the creator of men, the author of life, the supplier of our wants, the 
 giver of laws, the rewarder of those who keep them, and the avenger 
 of those who transgress them. Who didst bring a flood upon the world 
 because of the multitude of the ungodly, but didst deliver righteous 
 Noah from it with eight souls in the ark, the last of the foregoing, and 
 the first of the succeeding generations. Who didst kindle a dreadful 
 fire in the five cities of Sodom, and turn a fruitful land into a salt lake 
 for the wickedness of them that dwelt therein ; but didst snatch holy 
 Lot out of the conflagration. Thou art He, who didst preserve Abraham 
 from the idolatry of his forefathers, and appoint him the heir of the 
 world, manifesting unto him Thy Christ. Who didst ordain Mel- 
 chisedec an high priest for Thy worship. Who didst approve Thy 
 servant Job by his patience and long-suffering, the conquerer of that 
 serpent, who is the author and promoter of all wickedness. Who 
 madest Isaac the son of the promise, and Jacob the father of twelve 
 sons, whom Thou didst multiply exceedingly, bringing him into Egypt 
 with seventy-five souls. Thou, O Lord, didst not overlook Joseph, but 
 gavest him as the reward of his chastity for Thy sake, the government 
 over the Egyptians. Neither didst Thou, O Lord, overlook the 
 Hebrews when in bondage under the Egyptians, but according to Thy 
 promises made to their fathers, Thou didst deliver them, and punish 
 the Egyptians. And when men had corrupted the law of nature, and 
 esteemed the creation, sometimes the effect of chance, and sometimes 
 to be worthy of honour equal to Thine, who art the God of all, Thou 
 didst not suffer them to wander in error; but didst raise up Thy holy 
 servant Moses, and by him give a written law to strengthen the law of 
 nature, and shew the creation to be Thy work, and that there were no 
 other Gods besides Thee. Thou didst adorn Aaron and his posterity 
 with the honour of the priesthood. Thou didst punish the Hebrews 
 when they sinned, and receive them again when they returned to Thee. 
 This didst torment the Hgyptians with ten plagues, and divide the sea 
 for the Israelites to pass through, overwhelming the Egyptians in their 
 pursuit after them with the waves thereof. Thou didst sweeten the 
 
]xxvill APPENDIX. 
 
 bitter water with wood, and bring water out of the rock of stone. Thou 
 didst rain manna from heaven, and quails out of the air for food. Thou 
 madest a pillar of fire to give them light in the night, and a pillar of a 
 cloud to shadow them from the heat in the day. Thou didst raise up 
 Joshua to be general of their armies, and by him destroy seven nations 
 of the Canaanites. Thou didst divide Jordan, and dry up the rivers of 
 Etham. Thou didst overthrow walls without battering rams, or any 
 assistance of human force. For all these things, glory be to Thee, Ὁ 
 Lord Almighty; Thee the innumerable hosts of angels, archangels, 
 thrones, dominions, principalities, authorities, powers, Thine everlasting 
 armies adore. The cherubim and seraphim with six wings, with twain 
 they cover their feet, with twain their heads, and with twain they fly, 
 and say, together with thousand thousands of archangels, and ten 
 thousand times ten thousand of angels, crying incessantly with unin- 
 terrupted shouts of praise; and let all the people say with them, 
 
 Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Sabaoth, heaven and earth are full 
 of His glory. Blessed be He for evermore. Amen. 
 
 After this, let the Bishop say, 
 
 Thou art indeed holy, and most holy; the highest, and most highly 
 exalted for ever. Holy is also Thine only begotten Son Jesus Christ, 
 our Lord and God. Who always ministering to Thee, his God and 
 Father, not only in the various works of the creation. but in the provi- 
 dential care of it, did not overlook lost mankind. But after the law of 
 nature, the admonitions of the positive law, the prophetical reproofs, 
 and the superintendency of angels, when men had perverted both the 
 positive and natural law, and had forgotten the flood, the burning of 
 Sodom, the plagues of the Egyptians, the slaughter of the Philistines, 
 and were now ready to perish universally ; He, who was man’s creator, 
 was pleased with Thy consent to become man; the priest to be himself 
 the sacrifice; the shepherd a sheep, to appease Thee, his God and 
 Father, to reconcile thee to the world, and deliver all men from the 
 impending wrath. He was incarnate of a virgin, God the word, the 
 beloved Son, the first-born of every creature ; and, as He Himself had 
 foretold by the mouth of the prophets, of the seed of David, and of 
 Abraham, and of the tribe of Juda. He, who forms all that are born 
 in the world, was Himself formed in the womb of a virgin, became 
 flesh ; and He who was begotten from eternity, was born in time. He 
 was holy in His conversation, and taught according to the law; He 
 cured diseases, and wrought signs and wonders amongst the people ; 
 
APPENDIX. xxix 
 
 He, who is the feeder of the hungry, and fills every living creature with 
 His goodness, became partaker of His own gifts, and eat, and drank, 
 and slept amongst us; He manifested thy name to them that knew it 
 not; He dispelled the cloud of ignorance, restored piety, fulfilled Thy 
 will, and finished Thy work which Thou gavest Him to do. And when 
 He had regulated all these things, He was seized by the hands of a dis- 
 obedient people, and wicked men abusing the office of priests and high- 
 priests, being betrayed to them by one who excelled in wickedness ; and 
 when He had suffered many things from them, and been treated with 
 all manner of indignity, He was by Thy permission delivered to Pilate 
 the governor; the Judge of all the world was judged, and the Saviour 
 of mankind condemned ; although impassible, He was nailed to the 
 cross ; and although immortal, died. The giver of life was laid in the 
 grave, that He might deliver those from the pains of death, for whose 
 sake He came; and that He might break the bands of the devil, and 
 rescue mankind from his deceit. He arose from the dead the third 
 day ; and after continuing forty days with His disciples, He was taken 
 up into heaven, and is set down on the right hand of Thee, His God 
 and Father. 
 
 Calling, therefore, to remembrance, those things which He endured 
 for our sakes, we give thanks unto Thee, O God Almighty, not as we 
 ought, but as we are able, to fulfil His institution. For in the same 
 night that He was betrayed, taking bread into His holy and immaculate 
 hands, and looking up to Thee, His God and Father, and breaking it, 
 he gave it to His disciples, saying, This is the mystery of the New 
 Testament; take of it—eat; this is My body, which is broken for 
 many for the remission of sins. Likewise also having mingled the cup 
 with wine and water, and blessed it, He gave it to them, saying, This 
 is My blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins; do this 
 ἸῺ remembrance of Me; for as often as ye eat of this bread, and drink 
 of this cup, ye do shew forth My death till I come. 
 
 Wherefore, having in remembrance His passion, death, and resur- 
 rection from the dead, His return into heaven, and His future second 
 appearance, when He shall come with glory and power to judge the 
 quick and the dead, and to render to every man according to his 
 works; we offer to Thee, our King and our God, according to this 
 institution, this bread and this cup; giving thanks to Thee through 
 Him, that Thou hast thought us worthy to stand before Thee, and to 
 sacrifice unto Thee. And we beseech Thee, that Thou wilt look 
 graciously on these gifts now lying before Thee, O thou self-sufficient 
 God; and accept them to the honour of thy Christ. And send down 
 
Ixxx APPENDIX. 
 
 Thy Holy Spirit, the witness of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, on 
 this sacrifice, that He may make this bread the body of thy Christ, and 
 this cup the blood of thy Christ. That all who shall partake of it, 
 may be confirmed in godliness, may receive remission of their sins, may 
 be delivered from the devil and his wiles, may be filled with the Holy 
 Ghost, may be made worthy of Thy Christ, and may obtain everlasting 
 life; Thou, O Lord Almighty, being reconciled to them. 
 
 We farther pray unto Thee, O Lord, for Thy holy Church, spread 
 from one end of the world unto the other, which Thou hast purchased 
 by the precious blood of Thy Christ, that Thou wilt keep it stedfast and 
 immoveable unto the end of the world ; and for every episcopate rightly 
 dividing the word of truth. Farther we call upon Thee for my unworthi- 
 ness, who am now offering ; and for the whole presbytery ; for the deacons, 
 and all the clergy ; that Thou wouldst endue them with wisdom,and fill 
 them with the Holy Ghost. Farther, we call upon Thee, O Lord, for the 
 king and all that are in authority, for the success of the army, that they 
 may be kindly disposed towards us ; that leading our whole life in peace 
 and quietness, we may glorify Thee through Jesus Christ our hope. 
 Farther, we offer to Thee for all the saints, who have pleased Thee from 
 the beginning of the world; the patriarchs, prophets, righteous men, 
 apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, 
 readers, singers, virgins, widows, laymen, and all whose names Thou 
 knowest. We farther offer to Thee for this people ; that for the glory 
 of Thy Christ Thou wilt render them a royal priesthood, an holy 
 nation ; for the virgins, and all that live chastely ; for the widows of 
 the Church; for those that live in honourable marriage, and child 
 bearing ; for the young ones among Thy people; that Thou wilt not 
 permit any of us to become cast-aways. Farther, we pray unto Thee 
 for this city, and the inhabitants thereof; for the sick; for those that 
 are in slavery; for those that are in banishment; for those that are in 
 prison ; for these that travel by land or by water; that Thou wilt be to 
 all of them an helper, strengthener, and supporter. 
 
 We farther beseech Thee also for those who hate us, and persecute 
 us for Thy name’s sake ; for those that are without, and wander in 
 error; that Thou wouldst convert them to that which is good, and 
 appease their wrath against us. Farther, we pray unto Thee for the 
 catechumens of the Church ; for those who are under possession, and 
 for those our brethren who are in the state of penance: that Thou wilt 
 perfect the first in Thy faith, deliver the second from the power of the 
 wicked one, accept the repentance of the last, and grant unto them and 
 to us the remission of our sins. Farther, we offer unto Thee for season- 
 
 Ss Oe σα ιν 
 
APPENDIX. Ixxxi 
 
 able weather, and that we may have plenty of the fruits of the earth ; 
 that receiving the abundance of Thy good things, we may incessantly 
 praise Thee who givest food to all flesh. Farther, we pray unto Thee 
 for all those who are absent upon a just cause; that Thou wilt preserve 
 all of us in godliness, and gather us together in the kingdom of Thy 
 Christ our King, the God of every sensible and intelligent being. And 
 that Thou wilt keep us stedfast, unblamable, and unreprovable. For to 
 Thee is due all glory, adoration, and thanksgiving, honour and worship 
 to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost, both now and ever, and world 
 without end. 
 
 {| And let all the people say, Amen. 
 
 {| And let the Bishop say, The peace of God be with you all. 
 
 {| And let all the people say, And with Thy Spirit. 
 
 “Ἵ And let the Deacon again proclaim, 
 
 Let us farther pray to God through His Christ, in behalf of the gift 
 that is offered to the Lord God; that the good God will receive it 
 through the mediation of His Christ at His heavenly altar for a sweet- 
 smelling savour. Let us pray for this Church and people. Let us 
 pray for every episcopate, for the whole presbytery, for all the deacons 
 and ministers in Christ, for the whole congregation ; that the Lord will 
 preserve and keep them all. Let us pray for kings and all that are in 
 authority, that they may be peaceable towards us; so that enjoying a 
 quiet and peaceable life, we may spend our days in all godliness and 
 honesty. Let us commemorate the holy martyrs, that we may be 
 deemed worthy to be partakers of their trial. Let us pray for all those 
 who have died in the faith. Let us pray for the good condition of the 
 air, and the ripening of the fruits. Let us pray for those that are 
 newly baptized, that they may be confirmed in the faith, that all may 
 be mutually comforted by one another. Raise us up, O God, by Thy 
 grace; and being raised up, let us devote ourselves to God through 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Ἵ And let the Bishop say, 
 
 O God, who art great, great in name and counsel, powerful in Thy 
 works, the God and Father of Thy holy Son Jesus Christ our Saviour, 
 look upon us and upon this Thy flock, which Thou hast chosen through 
 Him to the glory of Thy name; sanctify us in body and soul; and 
 grant that we, being purified from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, may 
 
 l 
 
Ixxxii APPENDIX. 
 
 partake of the mystic blessings now lying before Thee, and judge none 
 of us unworthy of them, but be Thou our supporter, our helper, and 
 defender, through Thy Christ, with whom glory, honour, laud, praise, 
 and thanksgiving be to Thee and the Holy Ghost for ever. Amen. 
 
 Ἵ And after all have said, Amen, let the Deacon say, 
 
 Let us attend ; 
 "| And the Bishop shall speak aloud to the people in this manner : 
 Holy things are for holy persons. 
 
 And let the people answer: There is one Holy, one Lord, one Jesus 
 Christ to the glory of God the Father, blessed for evermore. Amen. 
 Glory be to Ged in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards 
 men. Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed be he that cometh in 
 the name of the Lord; He is our God and Lord, and hath appeared to 
 us. Hosanna in the highest. 
 
 Ἵ After this, let the bishop receive, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub- 
 deacons, and readers, and singers, and asceticks, and of the women the 
 deaconesses, virgins, and widows. Afterwards the children, and then all 
 the people in order, with fear and reverence, without tumult or noise. And 
 the bishop shall give the oblation, saying, 
 
 The body of Christ. 
 
 { And let him that receives say, Amen. 
 
 *| And the Deacon shall hold the cup, and when he gives it, let him say, 
 The blood of Christ, the cup of life. 
 
 ©" And let him that drinks say, Amen. 
 
APPENDIX Ixxxili 
 
 APPENDIX H. 
 
 THE great importance of Augustine’s opinions in by-gone days (and 
 the really sound and evangelical manner in which he generally expounded 
 Scripture entitled him to great consideration), will apologise for giving 
 so long an extract from his ‘Commentary on the Sixth Chapter of St. 
 John’s Gospel.’ It will be found, wholly and unmistakably, at variance 
 with the ideas for which it has been so often quoted in support: 
 
 ““<T am,’ saith He, ‘ the bread of life.’ And what were they proud 
 οἵ * Your fathers,’ He saith, ‘ate manna in the wilderness, and 
 died.’ What is it ye are proud of ? ‘They ate manna and died,’ 
 Why ate and died? Because what they saw, they believed; what 
 they saw not, they did not understand, “ Your fathers,’ in this, 
 that ye are like them. For, my brethren, so far as it regards this visible 
 and corporal death, do not we die who eat the bread that cometh down 
 from heaven? They died just as we must die, in regard, as I said, of 
 the visible and carnal death of this body. But, as it regards that death 
 from which the Lord deterreth us, the death by which their fathers 
 died, Moses too ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, 
 many ate there, who pleased the Lord, and died not. Why ἢ Because 
 that visible food they spiritually understood, spiritually hungered after, 
 spiritually tasted, that they might spiritually be filled. For we too at 
 this day do receive visible food ; but the sacrament is one, the virtue of 
 the sacrament another. How many receive from the altar and die; 
 yea, by receiving, die! Whence the apostle saith, ‘ Hateth and drinketh 
 judgment to himself.’ It was not that the sop of the Lord was poison 
 to Judas. And yet he received, and when he received, the enemy 
 entered into him: not that he received an evil thing, but that he, being 
 evil, did in evil wise receive what was good. Look to it, then, brethren ; 
 eat ye spiritually the heavenly bread; bring innocence to the altar. 
 Your sins, though they be daily, at least let them not be deadly. 
 Before ye approach the altar, mark well what ye say; ‘ Forgive us our 
 debts, as we also forgive our debtors.’ Thou forgivest, thou shalt be 
 
Ixxxiv APPENDIX. 
 
 forgiven : approach without fear: it is bread, not poison. But look to 
 it whether thou forgive; for if thou forgive not, thou liest, and liest to 
 Him whom thou canst not deceive. Thou canst lie to God; but 
 deceive God, thou canst not. He knoweth what He doeth. Within 
 He seeth thee, within He doth examine thee, within He inspecteth, 
 within judgeth, within either condemneth or crowneth. But the fathers 
 of these men: that means, evil fathers of evil sons, unbelieving fathers 
 of unbelieving, murmuring fathers of murmurers. For by nothing is 
 that people said to have more offended the Lord, than by murmuring 
 against God. Accordingly the Lord, as He would shew that they were 
 sons of such as themselves, began with this in speaking to them: ‘ Why 
 murmur ye among yourselves,’ ye murmurers, sons of murmurers ? 
 ‘Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and died:’ not that the 
 manna was evil, but that they in evil wise did eat it. 
 
 “«'This is the bread which cometh down from heaven.’ This bread 
 the manna signified ; this bread the altar of God doth signify. Those 
 were sacraments: in signs they are diverse, in the thing signified they 
 are alike. Hear the apostle: ‘ For I would not have you ignorant, 
 brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed 
 through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in 
 the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat.’ Meaning, of course, 
 that as ‘ spiritual’ it was the same; for as corporal it was another, 
 because they ate manna, we something else; the spiritual meat, how- 
 ever, that which we eat. But it is, ‘ our fathers,’ not their fathers: 
 they to whom we are like, not to whom they were like. And he adds: 
 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink.’ They, one thing; we, 
 another ; but other only in the visible object, which, however, should 
 signify this same thing in its spiritual virtue. For how was it ‘ the 
 same drink ? They drank,’ saith he, ‘ of the spiritual rock that fol- 
 lowed them, and that rock was Christ.’ Thence the bread, thence the 
 drink. The rock, Christ in a sign: the true Christ, in the word and 
 im the flesh. And how drank they? The rock was smitten with a 
 rod, twice: the double smiting signifies the two beams of the cross. 
 ‘ This,’ then, ‘ is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that whoso 
 eateth thereof may not die.’ But this, in regard of the virtue of the 
 sacrament, not in regard of the visible sacrament: he that eateth 
 inwardly, not outwardly: he that eateth in the heart, not he that 
 presseth with his teeth. 
 
 “ «JT am the living bread, who am come down from heaven.’ There- 
 fore ‘ living,’ because ‘I came down from heaven.’ From heaven 
 came also the manna: yea, but the manna was a shadow, this is the 
 verity. ‘If any shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the 
 
APPENDIX. ]Ixxxv 
 
 bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ When 
 should flesh receive this, that he called bread flesh? That is called 
 flesh, which flesh receiveth not; yea, for this cause all the more the 
 flesh receiveth it not, because it is called flesh. For at this they had 
 horror; this they said was too much for them; this they thought 
 impossible to be. ‘ Is my flesh,’ saith He, ‘ for the life of the world.’ 
 The faithful know the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be the 
 body of Christ. Let them become the body of Christ, if they wish to 
 live by the spirit of Christ. By the spirit of Christ liveth not any, but 
 the body of Christ. Understand, my brethren, what I would say. 
 Thou art man: both spirit thou hast, and body thou hast. By ‘spirit ’ 
 I mean what is called the soul, in which it consisteth that thou art 
 man: for thou consistest of soul and body. Thou hast, then, a spirit 
 invisible, a body visible. Tell me, whether liveth by other? Doth 
 thy soul live of thy body, or thy body live of thy spirit? Every man 
 that liveth maketh answer; and he who cannot make this answer, I 
 know not whether he liveth: and what answereth every man that 
 liveth? ‘ My body, of course, lives by my spirit.’ Then wouldst thou 
 also live by the spirit of Christ? Be thou in the body of Christ. 
 For, doth my body live by thy spirit? Mine liveth by my spirit, and 
 thine by thine. The body of Christ cannot live but by the spirit of 
 Christ. Thence it is that the Apostle Paul, expounding to us this 
 bread, saith, ‘ One bread, one body are we, being many.’ O sacrament 
 of piety! O sign of unity! O bond of charity! Whoso would live, 
 hath where to live, hath whereof to live. Let him come, let him 
 believe: let him be incorporated, that he may be quickened. Let him 
 not shrink from the whole into which the members are compacted 
 together; let him not be a rotten member, to deserve to be cut off; 
 not be a distorted member, to be ashamed of: let him be a beautiful, 
 let him be a well-fitting, let him be a sound member; let him cleave 
 to the body, let him live to God by God; let him now labour on earth, 
 that thereafter he may reign in heaven. 
 
 “* The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, How can 
 this man give us His flesh to eat?’ They strove, of course, among 
 themselves, because the bread of concord they understood not, nor 
 wished to take: for they that eat such bread, strive not among them- 
 selves, since ‘we, being many, are one bread, one body.’ And by this, 
 ‘ the Lord maketh men of one sort to dwell in an house.’ 
 
 “That, however, which, striving among themselves, they ask, 
 namely, how the Lord can give men His flesh to eat, they do not 
 straightway hear: but they are still told, ‘ Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, 
 
Ixxxvi APPENDIX. 
 
 ye will not have life in you.’ How indeed it may be eaten, and what is 
 the way of feeding upon this bread, ye know not: nevertheless, 
 ‘ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye 
 will not have life in you.’ These words He spake, not, of course, to 
 dead corpses, but to living men. Whence, lest, understanding this 
 present life, they should also strive concerning this matter, He pro- 
 ceeded to say, ‘ He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath 
 eternal life.’ This, therefore, hath that man not, who eateth not this 
 bread, nor drinketh this blood: for temporal life without Him men 
 may have, but eternal they can in no wise have. Who, then, eateth 
 not His flesh, nor drinketh His blood, hath not life in him: and who 
 eateth His flesh, and drinketh His blood, hath life. It answereth, 
 however, to both, that He said ‘ eternal.’ Not so is it in this meat, 
 which we take for sustenance of this temporal life. For if one take it 
 not, he will not live: yet if one take it, he will not therefore live. For 
 it may be, that, of old age, or some disease, or some casualty, very 
 many who do take it shall die. But in this true meat and drink, that 
 is, the body and blood of Christ, it is not so. For, both he that taketh 
 it not hath not life, and he that taketh it hath life, and that, of course, 
 eternal. By this meat and drink, then, He would have to be under- 
 stood the fellowship of His body and members, which is the holy 
 Church, in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified, 
 and believing ones. Of which, the first hath already taken place—that 
 is, predestination ; the second and third hath taken place, and is taking 
 place, and shall take place—that is, calling and justification: but the 
 fourth is now in hope, while in the reality it is future—that is, glorify- 
 ing. The sacrament of this thing—that is, of the unity of the body 
 and blood of Christ, in some places every day, in some places at cer- 
 tain intervals of days, is on the Lord’s table prepared, and from the 
 Lord’s table is taken; by some, to life, by some, to destruction: but 
 the reality of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for none 
 to destruction, whoever shall be partaker thereof. 
 
 “Βαϊ lest they should think that in this meat and drink eternal life 
 is in such soft promised, that whoso should take it should now no more 
 die even in the body, this imagination He deigned to obviate. For 
 when He had said, ‘ Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
 hath eternal life,’ straightway He subjoined, ‘ And I will raise Him up 
 at the last day.’ That he may have in the meanwhile, according to 
 the spirit, eternal life in the rest which awaiteth the spirits of the saints: 
 but, as regards the body, neither for it shall he be defrauded of eternal 
 life, howbeit it shall be in the resurrection of the dead at the last day. 
 
 “4 For my flesh,’ saith He, ‘is meat indeed, and my blood is drink 
 
APPENDIX. Ixxxvil 
 
 indeed.’ Seeing that in meat and drink men aim at this, that they 
 hunger not nor thirst, this thing verily and indeed doth nought afford, 
 save only this meat and drink which maketh them by whom it is 
 taken to be immortal and incorruptible: to wit, the very fellowship of 
 saints, where shall be peace and unity, full and perfect. For to this 
 end (as also men of God who were before us have understood this 
 matter) did our Lord Jesus Christ betoken unto us His body and blood 
 in things which are, out of many units, reduced to some one whole. 
 For out of many grains is several made into one, and several doth out 
 of many berries flow into one. 
 
 «In fine, He now expoundeth how that is effected which He saith, 
 and what it is to eat His body and drink His blood. ‘ He that eateth 
 my fiesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me aud Lin him.’ This, 
 then, it is, to eat that meat and drink that drink: to dwell in Christ 
 and to have Christ dwelling in him. And, therefore, who dwelleth not 
 in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not, without doubt doth neither 
 [spiritually] eat His flesh nor drink His blood [albeit carnally and 
 visibly he press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of 
 Christ]: but rather doth unto judgment to himself eat and drink the 
 sacrament of so great a thing [hbecause, being unclean, he hath pre- 
 sumed to come unto Christ’s sacraments, which no man taketh worthily 
 save he that is clean; of whom it is said, ‘ Blessed are the clean in 
 heart, for they shall see God.’] 
 
 “ What is it, then, that he goeth on to say, ‘It is the spirit that 
 qnickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing?’ Let us say to Him (for He 
 suffereth us, not gainsaying, but wishing to know): “0 Lord, good 
 Master, how is it that the flesh profiteth nothing, when Thou hast said, 
 Except a man shall eat my flesh aud drink my blood, he shall not have 
 life in him? Doth life profit nothing? And for what are we what we 
 are, but that we may have life eternal, which Thou by Thy flesh dost 
 promise ? Then what is, The flesh profiteth nothing ?’ Profiteth no- 
 thing: yea, but as they understood it : for they understood the flesh, 
 so as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, 
 not so as it is quickened by the spirit.. Therefore, the flesh profiteth 
 nothing, is said in ike manner as it is said knowledge puffeth up. 
 Ought we, then, straightway to hate knowledge ? God forbid! And 
 what is, Knowledge puffeth up? Of itself, without charity. Add, 
 then, to knowledge charity, and knowledge shall be profitable, not 
 through itself but through charity. So, likewise, now, ‘ The flesh pro- 
 fiteth nothing :’ yea, but the fiesh by itself: let the spirit be added to 
 the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profiteth very much. 
 For if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, 
 
Ixxxvlil APPENDIX. 
 
 that it might dwell in us. If, by means of the flesh, Christ hath much 
 profited us, how profiteth the flesh nothing? But the flesh was the means 
 whereby the spirit acted for our salvation. The flesh was a vessel : 
 mark what it had, not what it was. ‘The apostles were sent: did their 
 flesh nothing profit us? If the flesh of the apostles profited us, can it 
 be that the flesh of the Lord profited nothing ? For whence came to 
 us the sound of the Word, but by the voice of the flesh ? Whence the 
 pen of the writer, whence the writing? ‘These all are works of the 
 flesh, but by the spirit actuating, as one may say, His organ. ‘It is 
 the spirit,’ then, ‘that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing;’ so as 
 those Jews understood the flesh, not so give I my flesh to be eaten. 
 
 * Accordingly, ‘ The words,’ saith He, ‘ which I have spoken to 
 you are spirit and life.’ For we have said, that what the Lord hath 
 given us to understand in the eating of His flesh and drinking of His 
 blood, is, that we should dwell in Him and He in us. Now, we dwell 
 in Him when we are His members, and He dwelleth in us when we 
 are his temple. But, that we should be His members, unity doth knit 
 and compact us together. That unity may knit us in one, what save 
 love effecteth? And the love of God, whence is it? Ask the apostle: 
 ‘ The love of God,’ saith he, ‘ is shed abroad in our hearts, by the holy 
 spirit which is given us. Therefore it is the spirit that quickeneth τ᾿ 
 for the spirit maketh living members. Nor doth the spirit make to be 
 living members any save those which the spirit itself doth find in the 
 body which it quickeneth. For the spirit which is in thee, O man, 
 whereby it consisteth that thou art man, doth it make alive a member 
 which it shall find separated from thy flesh? By thy spirit I mean 
 thy soul; thy soul quickeneth not, save the members which are in thy 
 flesh ; if thou take away one, now is it no more quickened of thy soul, 
 because it is not coupled to the unity of thy body. These things are 
 said, that we may love unity, and fear separation. For there is nothing 
 that a Christian ought so to dread as to be separated from the body of 
 Christ. Since, if he be separated from the body of Christ, he is not a 
 member of Him; if not a member of Him, he is not quickened by His 
 spirit: for ‘ whoso,’ saith the apostle, ‘ hath not the spirit of Christ, 
 the same is none of His. The spirit,’ then, ‘ it is that quickeneth : the 
 fiesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken unto you, 
 they are spirit and life.’ What meaneth this, ‘ are spirit and life ?’ 
 Are spiritually to be understood. Hast thou spiritually understood ? 
 ‘ They are spirit and life.’ Hast thou carnally understood ? Even so 
 those ‘ are spirit and life, but not to thee. 
 
APPENDIX. Ixxxix 
 
 A PIP EEN ADD X inde 
 
 DR. CLAGGETT’S PARAPHRASE ON ST. JOHN VI. 
 
 Tue following paraphrase of the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, 
 appears to me so important and valuable, that 1 have given it entire. 
 It enters into the spirit of the conversation, seizes on the salient points, 
 and, by uniting all the parts, throws a flood of light over the whole. 
 But I will not detain the reader from the Paraphrase itself : 
 
 THE ARGUMENT, 
 
 This chapter begins with a narrative of the miraculous feeding of five 
 thousand in the wilderness, and consisteth wholly of those passages that 
 happened upon this occasion. The people were so overjoyed with the 
 miracle, that they resolved to make Jesus a king; which he avoided, 
 and secretly went to Capernaum. But they, not so satisfied, followed 
 him thither the next day; when he took another course to prevent their 
 design; and that by reproving their worldly-mindedness, and by calling 
 them off from the cares and pleasures of this life, to mind heavenly 
 things and everlasting life: which so turned their stomachs against 
 him, that they fell to cavil at his sayings, and to disparage his miracles, 
 by setting up the manna wherewith Moses had fed their fathers, against 
 his feeding them the day before. Whereupon he inculcated two things 
 upon them with great earnestness: the one was this, that they might 
 gain eternal life by him and his doctrines; which he therefore called 
 the “ bread of life,” and the ““ bread that came down from heaven ;” 
 and therefore that it was a vain thing in them to challenge him with 
 Moses’ giving their fathers that bread from heaven, which served only 
 to sustain a mortal life. The other was this, that they had sufficient 
 evidence of his coming from God; but that they believed not, because 
 
 72 
 
ΧΟ APPENDIX. 
 of their worldly prejudices against him. Whereupon he tells them, 
 that God had committed no other persons to his effectual care, to con- 
 vince and save them, but such only who were disposed to receive the 
 truth by an honest mind; and that himself was not bound to conquer 
 the obstinacy of unteachable men. Notwithstanding all which, they 
 proceeded to cavil at his sayings; and because, in allusion to the loaves 
 he had multiplied, and to that manna which they boasted of, he had 
 called himself the bread of life; and in pursuance of such figurative 
 speeches, he did also express believing in him, and trusting in his 
 death, &c., by eating his flesh and drinking his blood: they exclaimed 
 against him, as if he had, in the literal sense, offered his flesh to be 
 eaten; some of his own disciples also understanding him in that manner. 
 To whom, indeed, he explained himself; but for all that, upon his free 
 reproof of their insincerity, they left him. And then he proved the 
 constancy of his twelve apostles, permitting them also to go, if they 
 were not willing to stay ; shewing withal, that he understood who were 
 sincere, and who were not. 
 
 THE CHAPTER. THE PARAPHRASE. 
 
 Ver. 1. After these 
 things Jesus went over 
 the sea of Galilee, 
 which is the sea of 
 Tiberias. 
 
 1. I shall not mention those miracles which 
 Jesus wrought between the passover last men- 
 tioned (c. v., ver. 1), and that which was now 
 at hand (v. 4 of this ch.), saving that only of 
 the loaves; which, though it be reported by all 
 the other evangelists, yet they have omitted 
 that discourse upon it which he had with the 
 Jews. The occasion of it was this: he went in 
 a boat with his disciples over that part of the 
 lake of Genezareth in Galilee, which washeth 
 the city Tiberias. 
 
 2. Anda great mul- 
 titude followed him, 
 because they saw his 
 miracles which he did 
 on them that were 
 diseased. 
 
 3, And Jesus went 
 up into a mountain, 
 and there he sat with 
 his disciples. 
 
 2. And a great multitude followed him on 
 foot (Matt. xiv., 13) through Tiberias, some 
 of them being diseased persons, whom he 
 cured in the desert where they overtook him 
 (Luke ix., 10). 
 
 6. And he took his disciples with him to a 
 mountain in that desert, to instruct them. 
 
4. And the pass- 
 over, a feast of the 
 Jews, was nigh. 
 
 5. When Jesus then 
 lift up his eyes, and 
 saw a great company 
 come unto him, he 
 saith unto Philip, 
 Whence shall we buy 
 bread that these may 
 eat ? 
 
 6. (And this he 
 said to prove him: for 
 he himself knew what 
 he would do.) 
 
 7. Philip answered 
 him, ‘Two hundred 
 pennyworth of bread 
 is not sufficient for 
 them, that every one 
 of them may take a 
 little. 
 
 8. One of his dis- 
 ciples, Andrew, Simon 
 Peter’s brother, saith 
 unto him, 
 
 9. There is a lad 
 here, which hath five 
 barley loaves, and two 
 small fishes ; but what 
 are they among 80 
 many ? 
 
 10. And Jesus said, 
 Make the men sit 
 down. Now there was 
 much grass in the 
 place. So the men 
 sat down in number 
 about five thousand. 
 
 11. And Jesus took 
 the loaves, and when 
 
 APPENDIX. ΧΟΙ 
 
 4. But the people now hastening from all 
 parts towards Jerusalem, because of the ap- 
 proaching passover. 
 
 §. The company that came to Jesus in this 
 desert place, was greatly increased; which he 
 observing, was desired by his apostles to speak 
 to them to depart; and to provide for them- 
 selves: whereupon he said to Philip, Dost 
 thou think it possible to procure meat for this 
 multitude in the wilderness ? 
 
 6. (Which he said, not that he was at a loss 
 what to do, but to prove the faith of the man, 
 who was none of the forwardest to believe.) 
 (c. xiv., ver. 9.) 
 
 7. Philip, not expecting a miracle, answered, 
 All the stock we have will not buy bread 
 enough for every one of these so much as to 
 taste a little of. 
 
 8, 9. But Andrew presently interposed, 
 saying, That they have five loaves and two 
 small fishes; by which he seemed to expect 
 that his Master would do some extraordinary 
 thing, but what he knew not, the provision 
 being so very little. 
 
 10. Then Jesus commanded the twelve to 
 dispose the men in order upon the grass, of 
 which there was great plenty at that time of 
 the year (see ver. 4), and so they did (not dis- 
 trusting the event), and found tle men to be 
 about five thousand. 
 
 11. And when Jesus had blessed the little 
 food that was there, by thanking the great 
 
ΧΟΙ 
 
 he had given thanks, 
 he distributed to the 
 disciples, and the dis- 
 ciples to them that 
 were set down; and 
 likewise of the fishes 
 as much 85 they 
 would. 
 
 12. When _ they 
 were filled, he said 
 unto his disciples, 
 Gather up the frag- 
 ments that remain, 
 that nothing be lost. 
 
 13. Therefore they 
 gathered them  to- 
 gether, and filled 
 twelve baskets with 
 the fragments of the 
 five barley loaves, 
 which remained over 
 and above unto them 
 that had eaten. 
 
 14. Then _ those 
 men, when they had 
 seen the miracle which 
 Jesus did, said, This 
 is of a truth that Pro- 
 phet which was to 
 come into the world. 
 
 15. When Jesus 
 therefore perceived 
 that they would come 
 and take him by force 
 to make him a king, 
 he departed again into 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Creator and Preserver of all things ; he with 
 his own hands delivered so many portions of 
 it to the twelve, and commanded them to 
 divide themselves to administer to the multi- 
 tude: and the bread and the fish were 50 
 marvellously increased as it went through their 
 hands, that every one of that great company 
 had as much as he desired to eat. 
 
 12, 13. And when they acknowledged that 
 they had eaten enough, he bade the twelve 
 gather up the fragments, &c. And every one 
 of them filled his basket with what was left ; 
 so that there were twelve baskets full of broken 
 food, which was an evidence of the unquestion- 
 ableness of the miracle, and that no juggle had 
 been put upon the people’s stomachs, since 
 there remained so much to be seen after they 
 had all eaten. 
 
 14, And this miracle was so plain, every 
 one of them having his belly filled with it, 
 that they called to mind (ver. 31), how Moses 
 gave their fathers manna in the wilderness, 
 and foretold that God would raise up a Prophet 
 like unto him out of their brethren ; and now 
 they concluded that this was that Prophet, and 
 the person that was to deliver them from the 
 Romans, as Moses delivered their forefathers 
 from the Egyptians, &c., since he, as well as 
 Moses, could, in the greatest extremity, supply 
 them with what provisions they should need. 
 
 15. And of this they talked so vehemently, 
 that at last they resolved to make him their 
 king, whether he would or not; which Jesus 
 perceiving, he first sent away his own disci- 
 ples, almost forcing them into the boat that 
 brought them thither, and promised to be with 
 
a mountain himself 
 
 alone. 
 
 16. And when even 
 was now come, his 
 disciples went down 
 unto the sea, 
 
 17. And _ entered 
 into a ship, and went 
 over the sea, towards 
 Capernaum: and it 
 was now dark, and 
 Jesus was not come 
 to them. 
 
 18. And the sea 
 arose, by reason of a 
 ereat wind that blew. 
 
 19. So when they 
 had rowed about five 
 and twenty or thirty 
 furlongs, they 5866 
 Jesus walking on the 
 sea, and drawing 
 nigh unto the ship; 
 and they were afraid. 
 
 20. But he saith 
 unto them, It is I; 
 be not afraid. 
 
 21. Then they wil- 
 lingly received him 
 into the ship; and 
 immediately the ship 
 was at the land whither 
 they went. 
 
 22. The day [0]- 
 
 APPENDIX. ΧΟΙῚ 
 them before they came to the other side (ver. 
 17. Mark vi. Matt. xiv). And being thus rid 
 of his disciples, who were pleased with the 
 resolution of the people, and ready enough to 
 join with them in it, he more easily satisfied 
 and dispersed the multitude; and so without 
 
 any followers he returned to the mountain to 
 
 pray by himself. 
 16. Now it was just about the evening, when 
 the disciples came down to the shore, 
 
 17, And entered into the boat to go over 
 towards Capernaum; but it grew very dark 
 before Jesus came to them. 
 
 18. And the sea also was tempestuous with 
 a contrary wind (Mark vi., 48). 
 
 19. Insomuch that their sails being a hind- 
 rance to them, they laboured hard with their 
 oars; and yet by the fourth watch of the 
 night, they had not gained above twenty-five 
 or thirty furlongs; when they saw Jesus walk- 
 ing upon the sea, as if he were passing by the 
 ship; and not yet knowing him, they took 
 him for an apparition, and were afraid (Matt. 
 xiv., 26). 
 
 20, 21. But when they knew him, they 
 received him gladly, believing that all things 
 would go well now he was with them, and 
 so it proved: for though they had made so 
 little progress before, yet now the ship came 
 presently to the place whither it was bound. 
 
 22. Now, the people whom Jesus had fed in 
 
XC1V 
 
 lowing, when the peo- 
 ple which stood on 
 the other side of the 
 sea, saw that there 
 was no other boat 
 there, save that one 
 whereinto his  disci- 
 ples were entered, and 
 that Jesus went not 
 with his disciples into 
 the boat, but that his 
 disciples were gone 
 away alone: 
 
 28. (Howbeit there 
 came other boats from 
 Tiberias, nigh unto 
 the place where they 
 did eat bread, after 
 that the Lord had 
 given thanks :) 
 
 24. When the peo- 
 ple therefore saw that 
 Jesus was not there, 
 neither his disciples, 
 they also took ship- 
 ping, and came to 
 Capernaum, seeking 
 for Jesus. 
 
 25, And when they 
 had found him on the 
 other side of the sea, 
 they said unto him, 
 Rabbi, when camest 
 thou hither ? 
 
 26. Jesus answered 
 them and said, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, 
 Ye seek me not be- 
 cause ye saw the mi- 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the desert, were not so perfectly dispersed, 
 but that many of them kept together till the 
 day following, and came to the shore where 
 the disciples took ship the evening before ; and 
 although they knew there was no other boat 
 there, when the disciples went to sea, but 
 that into which they entered, and that Jesus 
 did not go with them ; 
 
 23. (Though there came other boats from 
 Tiberias afterwards, which these men found 
 that morning, near the place where the miracle 
 was wrought :) 
 
 24. Yet knowing that the disciples were gone, 
 and not being able to find Jesus on that side, 
 they believed he was gone after them, though 
 they knew not how (ver. 25). And so they 
 resolved to follow the disciples in those boats 
 that were newly come from Tiberias, hoping to 
 find Jesus himself with them at Capernaum or 
 Bethsaida. 
 
 25. And when they found him, they desired 
 to know by what miracle he got thither so soon, 
 for they knew he went not over with his dis- 
 ciples, and no other boat was on the other side 
 to transport him, but those in which they came; 
 and the way by land, over the bridge of Tibe- 
 rias, was too far about to get thither in so short 
 a time. 
 
 26. But Jesus, without satisfying their curi- 
 osity in this matter, turned the discourse to 
 things of greater moment, and answered them 
 in this manner: I certainly know that ye do not 
 follow me for the true end of those miracles 
 
racles, but because ye 
 did eat of the loaves, 
 and were filled. 
 
 27. Labour not for 
 the meat which per- 
 isheth, but for that 
 meat which endureth 
 to everlasting life ; 
 which the Son of 
 Man shall give unto 
 you; for him hath 
 God the Father sealed. 
 
 28. Then said they 
 unto him, What shall 
 we do, that we might 
 work the works of 
 
 God ? 
 
 89. Jesus answered 
 and said unto them, 
 This is the work of 
 God, that ye believe 
 on him whom he hath 
 sent. 
 
 30. They said there- 
 fore unto him, What 
 sign shewest thou, 
 then, that we may 
 see, and believe thee ? 
 what dost thou work ? 
 
 APPENDIX. XCV 
 which I work; that is, that ye might believe 
 in me, and obtain everlasting life; but merely 
 for that present benefit which you hope to 
 receive by them, as you did yesterday, when 
 you did eat, &e. 
 
 27. But I had a farther end in feeding your 
 bodies, which now I require you to mind; and 
 that is, to persuade you not to take so much 
 pains for the prolonging of a life which will 
 shortly end ; as for that virtue and knowledge 
 which are the food of souls, and the means of 
 living happily for ever, when this life shall be 
 no more. You should follow the Son of Man 
 for such things as these, the Father having 
 shewed him to be the person who should con- 
 vey these blessings to the souls of men, and 
 that by those wonderful works which He hath 
 sent him to do for the relief of their bodies. 
 
 28. These men were so suddenly disgusted 
 with this spiritual doctrine, that they replied in 
 this manner: We who have the law of Moses, 
 do already know what works God requires ; 
 and canst thou tell us what will be more pleas- 
 ing to him than*our keeping of the law ? 
 
 29, Jesus answered, God hath sent his Son 
 into the world to reveal a better doctrine, and 
 to prescribe a better life, than Moses did; 
 and that work pleasing to God, and necessary 
 to your salvation, which you must do, is, in 
 short, this: to believe in him whom God hath 
 sent, and to take his word for your security, in 
 doing all that he requires. 
 
 30. But they were so strangely prejudiced 
 against Jesus, upon his calling them off from 
 the cares of this world to a heavenly life and a 
 better hope, that the late miracle for which 
 they had so extolled him (ver. 14), was now in 
 their opinion, nothing at all. And so they 
 replied to him, as if they had said: If thou 
 pretendest to a higher doctrine than Moses 
 taught, why dost not thou show us equal, if not 
 
XCVl APPENDIX. 
 
 greater signs and wonders than he wrought, 
 that we may see them, and believe thee for 
 their sake ? What dost thou perform answer- 
 able to such a mighty faith as thou requirest of 
 us ἢ 
 
 Norrs.—Ver. 30. This sudden turn of theirs was so strange, that Grotius does 
 not allow those that said this to be the same persons that were fed in the wilderness 
 the day before. But I can see no reason for his opinion; for the evangelist plainly 
 seems to continue the relation, as of the same persons ; and it is no unusual thing for 
 men either to keep or alter their persuasions, as tley are led by their prejudices and 
 interests. And our Saviour told those that had been fed in the wilderness, that they 
 followed him for worldly advantages, and not for instruction in spiritual and heavenly 
 matters (ver. 26). So that, finding themselves disappointed, it was not unlikely that 
 they would fall in their opinion of him. To which we may add, that one main design 
 of his following discourse was to shew that external evidence was not sufficient to 
 create faith, without the inward preparation of a sincere and honest mind; which was 
 very pertinent to the case of those men who were made confident that Jesus was that 
 prophet, by the late miracle, till they found that his doctrine was contrary to their 
 worldly affections. For which reasons, I have chosen to continue the discourse in the 
 paraphrase as the text seems to direct; 1.6., between Jesus and the same persons that 
 spake to him (ver. 25), rather than to substitute other speakers, for which there is 
 neither authority of the text, nor any need upon the account of avoiding inconvenience. 
 
 31. Our fathers did 
 eat manna in the de- 
 sert ; as it is written, 
 He gave them bread 
 from heaven to eat. 
 
 31. It is true, that in our need thou gavest 
 us bread to eat, making five loaves to serve 
 above five thousand of us. But what was this 
 to Moses’ feeding our fathers in the desert, who 
 were vastly many more, and this for forty years, 
 with manna also, which was not earthly food, 
 such as we eat yesterday, but bread from hea- 
 ven, as we are taught in Psalm lxxviii., 25. 
 
 32. ThenJesus said 32. Now, the reply that Jesus made to this, 
 
 unto them, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, 
 Moses gave you not 
 that bread from hea- 
 ven; but my Father 
 giveth you the true 
 bread from heaven. 
 
 supposed that these men wanted not evidence 
 of his coming from God; and that they ought 
 not to compare the manna which their fathers 
 eat with the bread that he had given them the 
 day before, but rather with that inestimable 
 blessing which God had now bestowed upon 
 them, in giving his Son for the life of the 
 world. And in this he pursued his constant 
 design, of taking off their affections from 
 worldly, and directing them to heavenly things. 
 For he answered them to this effect: Whereas 
 
APPENDIX. Xevul 
 
 you magnify Moses for giving your fathers 
 bread from heaven, I tell you, it came not 
 from that heaven which is the place of immor- 
 tality, but only from that region of the air, 
 which, thongh it be also called heaven, shall at 
 last perish with the earth. But now God 
 offereth unto you that which, in the most ex- 
 cellent sense, is heavenly bread, and which 
 indeed comes from the place where his majesty 
 dwelleth. 
 
 33. For the bread 33. Whereas also you extol Moses for pre- 
 of God is he which serving the lives of your fathers in the wilder- 
 cometh down from ness so long as he did; you may consider it 
 heaven, and giveth was but a short life at longest, which that 
 life unto the world. bread served to sustain. But he whom God 
 
 hath now sent from heaven, is indeed, and 
 desires therefore to be called the true bread, 
 because he can preserve you to eternal life. 
 And lastly, the bread which Moses gave your 
 fathers, did indeed serve a great many; yet 
 they were but a very few in comparison ; for 
 that which I speak of, is sufficient to give eter- 
 nal life to the whole world. 
 
 34. Then said they 94, They replied hereupon: We desire no 
 unto him, Lord, ever- other bread than this which thou so highly 
 more give us this magnifiest: give us but such bread always as 
 bread this, and, without all question, we shall believe 
 
 thee. 
 
 Ver. 34. They are still the same persons that speak, for there is yet no reason to 
 suppose the contrary. And by this saying, it seems they understood Jesus as if he 
 had spoken to them of bread from heaven, in the literal and gross sense, and by giving 
 that to them, from day to day, had promised to make them live for ever; so that from 
 his last words, they seemed to conceive some better hope of him again, and that he 
 would go on to fill their bellies every day. Therefore they spake to him now with 
 more respect. So hard it was even for Jesus to bring them to any understanding, or 
 sense of things that concerned their minds, though he would lead them thereunto 
 by allusion to things grateful to their senses. And this indeed was the general temper 
 of the Jews in our Saviour’s days, who were also in this respect rather worse than 
 their forefathers. It was just such another answer that the Samaritan woman made to 
 a like speech of our Lord, as you may see, ch. iv., 13, 14, 15. 
 
 35. And Jesus said 35. Jesus answered: If you understand me 
 
 n 
 
XCVvill 
 
 unto them, I am the 
 bread of life: he that 
 cometh to me _ shall 
 never hunger ; and he 
 that believeth on me, 
 shall never thirst. 
 
 36. But 1 said unto 
 you, That ye also have 
 seen me, and believe 
 not. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 aright, you have your wish. I do not now 
 discourse of those signs which you desire to 
 see before you believe (for you have already 
 had signs in abundance), but of the far greater 
 benefits which you will gain by believing in 
 me, than your fathers had from Moses. I tell 
 you, therefore, that I am the bread of ever- 
 lasting life; and he that believeth in me, and 
 submitteth to my doctrine, hath the bread and 
 water of life, and shall hunger and thirst no 
 more; for he shall need no other means of 
 obtaining everlasting life, than to become my 
 disciple. 
 
 36. Do not think that I take that for granted 
 which I ought to prove; for you have already 
 seen enough to convince you that I speak the 
 truth. But as I told you before (ver. 26), 
 signs and miracles will not work true faith in 
 you so long as you follow me for temporal 
 benefits, and have not learned to prefer spiritual 
 good things, and everlasting life, above meat 
 and drink, and all the enjoyments of this world 
 whatsoever. 
 
 Ver, 36. These persons, of whom our Lord said that they believed not, were those 
 
 very men, who, the day before, having seen the miracle which he did, said, ““ This is 
 of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world.” Whereby it should seem 
 that then they believed, but that their minds were now changed, though upon no other 
 reason than that they now perceived his great design was, to feed their minds with 
 good doctrine, and not to pamper their bodies. Which is a plain instance how great 
 a hindrance worldly-mindedness is to true faith, since, in this case, the same evidence 
 which convinced these men, while they took our Saviour to be a benefactor to their 
 bodies, had lost all its force with them when they once perceived that His great 
 business was, to save their souls. Some also of our Lord’s disciples were of this dis- 
 position ; and it had the same effect upon them, as you may see, ver. 64. 
 
 37. <All that the 
 Father giveth me 
 shall come to me; 
 and him that cometh 
 to me I will in no 
 wise cast out. 
 
 37. So that the reason why you believe me 
 not, is because you are not prepared by a good 
 and honest heart to receive the truth. And 
 now I tell you, that the Father, who would 
 have all to be saved, does not expect that I 
 should give a good account of any other per- 
 sons, but such as are of a towardly and teach- 
 
APPENDIX. ΧΟΙΧ 
 
 able disposition. ‘These he hath committed to 
 my especial care; and they will learn of me, 
 and not one of them shall want means requi- 
 site for his conviction and instruction. But 
 though I came to save the world (ver. 51), 1 
 am not bound to bring those to faith and sal- 
 vation, that obstinately set themselves against 
 all that evidence which is sufficient for honest 
 minds. 
 
 Ver. 37. It seems very reasonable to interpret these phrases of the Father’s giving 
 some to Christ, and drawing them, by what our Lord said (ver. 26), that these men 
 followed him, because they did eat of the loaves; i.e., not from a sincere desire of 
 learning the truth, and attaining eternal life, but for worldly ends: for on the other 
 side, the lusts of these men were the cause of their unbelief; on the other side, our 
 Saviour says, that all who are given and drawn by the Father, would believe and 
 become his disciples, and none else: therefore the Father gives those only to Christ 
 who are prepared by an honest heart, and willingness to learn. The phrase is an 
 allusion to what is often seen amongst us, i.e., to a man’s committing the care of 
 educating a hopeful and promising child, to a wise and skilful master, with the expecta- 
 tion of having a good account of him at last. Not but that these expressions also 
 imply the preparations of the heart to be from the Lord—neither does this hinder, but 
 that our Lord must be understood to have done what was fit to prepare those whom he 
 found so adverse as these men were. (See notes on ver. 45.) But the meaning is, 
 that if men obstinately persisted in their sensual and worldly prejudices against the 
 truth, God had provided no remedy for such men. And therefore, as St. Chrysostom 
 shews, we must not argue in this manner,—viz., if “every one whom the Father 
 draweth, or giveth, cometh to Christ, and none else ; then those whom the Father giveth 
 not, are discharged of all fault, and cannot justly be accused. For, says he, these are 
 vain words and mere pretences; since the free choice of our own wills must go to the 
 effecting of this matter: for to be taught, and to believe, depends much upon our own 
 choosing.” 
 
 38. For I came 
 down from heaven, 
 not to do mine own 
 will, but the will of 
 
 38. For in this matter, as well as in all 
 others, I do what is as much the Father's will 
 as myown. AndI came from heaven to do it, 
 and cannot depart from it. Observe, therefore, 
 
 him that sent me. 
 
 39. And this is the 
 Father’s will which 
 hath sent me, that of 
 all which he _ hath 
 given me, I should 
 lose nothing, but 
 should raise it up 
 again at the last day. 
 
 what I say. 
 
 39. It was his pleasure to commit to my 
 care all persons of honest and well-disposed 
 minds, that not one of them should be lost, but 
 that I should do all things which would bring 
 them to faith and repentance, and should take 
 care of their salvation from the first to the last, 
 even till I shall raise them from the dead at 
 the last day. 
 
C APPENDIX 
 
 Ver. 39. Although the wicked shall be raised up at the last day, by the power of 
 Jesus, as well as the just, yet when the resurrection is simply mentioned, it is com- 
 monly understood of the resurrection to eternal life, 7.e., the resurrection of the just. 
 And by speaking of this resurrection at the last day, our Lord did now put them out of 
 doubt, that he meant not to pamper their bodies, and to take care for their pleasures in 
 this life; but that he spake to them of a better life after this, and the means of attain- 
 ing it. 
 
 40. And this is the 40. For it was his decree also, that every one 
 will of him that sent who, seeing the works that I do (ver. 36), and 
 me, that every one attentively considering the evidence, whereby 
 which seeth the Son, it appears that I came from God, does there- 
 and believeth on him, upon believe and follow my doctrine, that he, 
 may have everlasting I say, should have everlasting life, and that I 
 life; and I will raise should for that end raise him up at the last day. 
 him up at the last Now,asmy Father doth not expect that I should 
 day. save any but those that believe and obey the 
 
 Gospel, so neither doth he expect that I should 
 bring any to faith, but those that are of teach- 
 able dispositions. But if men obstinately set 
 themselves to oppose all means of conviction 
 and reformation, it was no part of the trust 
 committed to me by the Father, to reclaim 
 them, notwithstanding their incorrigibleness. 
 
 Ver. 40. To see Jesus, signifies the same that it does ver. 36, i.e., seeing his 
 miracles and all other testimones of a divine authority that were discernible in him: 
 only θεωρῶν seems to note an attentive consideration of them, which is proper to 
 ingenuous and honest men, and will certainly produce faith Whereas ἑωράκατε 
 (ver. 90}, may signify that careless and superficial sight of his works, proper to those 
 men in whom prejudice so prevailed, that they saw, and yet believed not. Now that 
 our Saviour does here, and elsewhere, repeat his doctrine concerning that inward work 
 of God,—viz., an honest and godly disposition, is an argument that he laid great stress 
 upon it; and that indeed this was the main thing they were to take pains with them- 
 selves about. For the outward evidence was given them whether they would or not; 
 but the inward preparation, without which the outward evidence would do them no 
 good at all, must in some part be their own work as well as God’s: which was plain, 
 from Christ's speaking to them so much about it as he did. For if it was not their 
 own fault that they were not inwardly prepared; and if it was impossible for them to 
 do anything considerable towards it, bis reproof had seemed something unreasonable 
 and unjust; and if they had so understood it, they had not been waiting to tell 
 him so. ἢ 
 
 41. The Jews then 41. But the people were by no means pleased 
 murmured at him, be- with what Jesus said; for they expected he 
 cause he said, I am would give them bread from heaven, as Moses 
 
the bread which came 
 down from heaven. 
 
 42. And they said, 
 Is not this Jesus, the 
 son of Joseph, whose 
 father and mother we 
 know? howisit, then, 
 that he saith, I came 
 down from heaven ? 
 
 43. Jesus therefore 
 answered and _ said 
 unto them, Murmur 
 not among yourselves. 
 
 44, No man can 
 come to me, except 
 the Father which hath 
 sent me draw him: 
 and I will raise him 
 up at the last day. 
 
 APPENDIX. ΟἹ 
 
 had done for their fathers (ver. 34); but now 
 they plainly perceived, that by the bread of 
 life coming down from heaven, which he spake 
 of, he meant himself and his doctrine (ver. 25), 
 and that, instead of feeding their bodies, he 
 promised them everlasting life; which they 
 were not greatly concerned about. And upon 
 this disappointment, they again set themselves 
 to disparage him all they could. 
 
 42. And said one to another, Why doves 
 this man, whom we know to be the son of 
 Joseph and Mary, pretend such high things 
 of himself? How could he come from heaven, 
 who was born into this world as other men are, 
 and in as mean circumstances as the most? 
 
 43. To these cavils Jesus answered, Do not 
 lose time, by raising difficulties about my per- 
 son and doctrine: there is another work that 
 lies upon your hands, which is at present more 
 seasonable and necessary for you, than to strain 
 for objections against what I say; and that is, 
 to mend your tempers; to shake off your 
 worldly spirits; to make eternal life your end; 
 and sincerely to desire the knowledge of that 
 way which leads to it. 
 
 44. For if you are not thus qualified, all my 
 sayings and works will never convince you of 
 the truth: for the Father did not send me into 
 the world with any other charge, than that I 
 should do what is abundantly sufficient to save 
 men of plain honesty and sincere intention ; 
 which dispositions, therefore, you should en- 
 deavour after; and if, by the grace of God, you 
 obtain them, then you will readily understand 
 and embrace the truth. But till then, you do 
 but entangle yourselves to no purpose: and, 
 tlrerefore, I advise you to leave off objecting 
 and disputing, till you have learnt plain duties, 
 and to become honest men. And 1 tell you 
 again, I will take care that no such persons 
 
cll APPENDIX. 
 
 shall want abundant means of conviction and 
 salvation, but they shall be my peculiar charge, 
 from the time that they are so disposed, till I 
 shall raise them up at the last day. 
 
 Ver. 44. St. Chrysostom observes, that upon this saying the Manichees confidently 
 affirmed, that nothing was in our own power; for, said they, “ If a man comes to him 
 what needs he to be drawn? But, says he, this does not take away all power over our 
 own actions, but rather shews that we stand in need of God’s help, and that not every 
 negligent person, but he that takes great pains with himself, will come to Christ.” 
 
 The true sense of this verse is more largely expressed in the paraphrase, and in notes 
 upon ver. 37. 
 
 45, It is written in 45. And these admonitions I give you, are 
 the prophets, Andthey warranted by the prophets, who have foretold, 
 shall be all taught of that when the kingdom of Christ shall begin 
 God. Every man, to be established upon the earth, men shall not 
 therefore, that hath want any reasonable means of conviction for 
 heard, and_ hath the saving of their souls, because God will then 
 learned of the Father, vouchsafe to appear more remarkably to in- 
 cometh unto me, struct men than ever he did since the world 
 
 began: and therefore, if any man remains in 
 unbelief, or refuses to obey, it cannot be for 
 want of means to make him wise unto salva- 
 tion, but for want of an humble and an honest 
 mind, and a sincere intention ; without which, 
 God's speaking to men by his own Son, will 
 have no success upon them, but leave them as 
 bad as they were before. But because God is 
 a Master, in whom nothing can be wanting to 
 instruct, every one that desireth to know the 
 truth, and to be saved, will submit to the doc- 
 trine of his Son, and become his disciple. 
 
 Ver. 45. The 54th chapter of Isaiah containeth a description of God’s gracious 
 care and providence over his Church; one instance whereof (ver. 13), is this—‘ And 
 all thy children shall be taught of God.” Which must needs imply these two things : 
 1. That God would reveal that truth which the Church should profess; and this was 
 eminently done by the Son of God himself coming down from heaven to make it 
 known, and by the Holy Ghost inspiring the apostles afterwards. 2. That God would 
 abundantly satisfy men by divine testimonies, that he had sent his Son into the world 
 for that purpose. For these reasons, all that believe in Christ are taught of God. 
 Now, the force of our Saviour’s argument, from this prediction, lies in this: if God 
 hath promised to reveal to men the knowledge of saving truth, and to convince them 
 that he doth reveal it; then no man to whom this revelation is made shall want suffi- 
 cient means of instruction and conviction; and, consequently, every man that is not 
 
APPENDIX. clu 
 
 under the power of worldly lusts and interests, will be effectually wrought upon by 
 them. And this freedom from such prejudices, our Lord here calls hearing and learn- 
 ing of the Father, which is the same with being given or drawn to Christ (the phrase 
 used before); and this intimates that it is something we do towards the preparing 
 ourselves; and that we may also hinder it; for hearing and learning are voluntary 
 actions. A man may stop his ears against instruction, and alienate his mind from what 
 is suggested to him; therefore, something men may do to attain that honest heart which 
 the divine inspiration worketh; they may also quench this work of the Holy Spirit. 
 The meaning of the whole is, as if our Lord had said; You must have God for your 
 Master, before you can be the disciples of the Son; you must be prepared by those 
 qualities, which there is no need of a new revelation to teach you, before you are fit to 
 receive that doctrine which the Son brings. And now it is plain, that these very 
 speeches and reasonings of our Saviour, tended to prepare them for conviction and 
 faith; for by shewing them the great need of a teachable spirit in hearing and learn- 
 ing of God ; and what blessings the want of this disposition would bereave them of, 
 and by repeating and inculcating upon them, that great concernment of the resurrection 
 at the last day; he did what was most proper in itself to dispose them to a better 
 mind, to weaken their prejudices, and to make them attend to those testimonies of his 
 coming from God, which they had already seen, instead of desiring more signs, which 
 in the temper they were in at present, would have done them no good if they had 
 been granted. 
 
 46. Not that any 40. The meaning of which Scripture is not, 
 man hath seen the that any man shall be immediately taught by 
 Father, save he which the Father: for the will of the Father is not thus 
 is of God, he hath to be manifested to any of you, it being the 
 seen the Father. privilege of the only-begotten Son, intimately 
 
 to know his mind, without the mediation of 
 any other person (Matt. 11., 27). 
 
 47. Verily, verily, 47. Take notice, therefore, of what I say, 
 I say unto you, He The will of my Father, which by me he makes 
 that believeth on me known to you, is this, that he who receiveth 
 hath everlasting life. | my doctrine, firmly believing it, and submitting 
 
 his heart and soul to it, shall as surely obtain 
 everlasting life, as if he were possessed of it 
 already. 
 
 Ver. 47. This saying of our Saviour explains all that he says about the necessity 
 of eating, &c., shewing clearly, that he meant the believing of his doctrine, and being 
 conformed to it in heart and life. For if he that believeth shall obtain everlasting 
 life, then he eateth Christ, according to his meaning in this chapter, that believeth 
 in him, 
 
 48. T am that bread 48. And therefore, as I told you before, 
 of life. you are to look upon me as the true bread of 
 life, whereof I have been speaking to you; for 
 
ClV 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 T came down from heaven to guide you to 
 everlasting life. 
 
 Ver. 48. Here our Lord calleth himself bread again, thereby implying what he 
 
 afterwards expressed, that he is to be eaten. 
 sense to eat Christ, as that is wherein he is bread. 
 
 Now, most certainly we are in such a 
 But no man will say, that Jesus 
 
 was, or can be properly bread ; therefore it is not eating him literally and properly that 
 can be here meant, but only believing on him, which is by the same figure called 
 eating, whereby he called himself bread. 
 
 49. Your fathers 
 did eat manna in the 
 wilderness, and are 
 dead. 
 
 50. This is the 
 bread which cometh 
 down from heaven, 
 
 that a man may eat 
 thereof, and not die. 
 
 49. Which should make you concerned to 
 attend my instructions, instead of desiring such 
 bread as Moses gave your fathers in the wil- 
 derness, which served only to sustain a short 
 life in this world, for they are long since dead 
 that eat it. 
 
 50. But I bring you food from heaven, 
 which whosoever eateth, it shall preserve him 
 to everlasting life: for I bring you a doctrine, 
 the belief and obedience whereof will avail to 
 your salvation; and I who bring it, am come 
 with the highest authority to require your 
 faith, and with divine testimonies of my au- 
 thority to justify your faith; so that nothing 
 is wanting to secure your salvation, but for- 
 wardness on your own parts to eat this heavenly 
 food that I invite you to feast upon, now that 
 it is brought down to you from heaven, and is 
 as near you as that bread wherewith I fed you 
 yesterday in the wilderness. Nothing is want- 
 ing, I say, but that you would think who it is 
 that God hath sent to you, and of how great 
 concern to your souls that message is which 
 I bring you from heaven, and how abundantly 
 God hath testified that I come from him to 
 give you everlasting life; and that considering 
 these things, you would act like reasonable 
 men, believe what I say, and receive my doc- 
 trine into your very hearts and souls, and give 
 thanks to God for his unspeakable gift. 
 
 Ver. 50. This is the first place where our Saviour, in pursuance of that figure of 
 calling himself bread, expresseth believing in him (ver. 35, 47), by eating him. In 
 the 35th verse, where he also calls himself the bread of life, he did not pursue the 
 
APPENDIX. ΟΥ̓ 
 figure throughout, by saying, he that eateth me, but he that cometh to me, i.e., who is 
 my disciple, shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me (not he that drinketh 
 me), shall never thirst; which makes it very plain, that by eating here, we are to 
 understand believing ; not a corporeal, but a spiritual action. And because it does 
 not yet appear that he limits the object of believing; we are, therefore, to under- 
 stand him as speaking of the necessity of receiving his whole doctrine, and submit- 
 ting to it in heart and life; which whosoever does shall not die, but live eternally. 
 
 51. 1 am the living 
 bread, which came 
 down from heaven. If 
 any man eat of this 
 bread, he shall live 
 for ever; and the 
 bread that I will give 
 is my flesh, which I 
 will give for the life 
 
 51. And when I tell you, that I am the 
 living bread which came down from heaven, 
 and which he that eateth of shall live fur ever; 
 as you are to understand this with respect to 
 all that doctrine which I deliver, so especially 
 with respect to that part of it, that I am come 
 into the world to lay down my life for the sal- 
 vation of mankind. And as J came for this 
 end, so I will give my body to the death, for 
 
 of the world. the life of the world; which is an infinitely 
 
 greater benefit than either your fathers received 
 from Moses, when he gave them manna to eat, 
 or than you received from me yesterday, when 
 you were filled with that provision which I made 
 for your bodies. 
 
 Ver. 51. Without doing great violence to our Saviour’s words in this place, they 
 cannot be so understood, as if he promised to turn bread into his flesh, for the life of the 
 world ; as they must suppose, who would ground the Roman doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation upon this place. For if some such change were here to be understood, it must 
 be quite contrary,—viz., a change of his flesh into bread; inasmuch as he calls him- 
 self the living bread, and says, that ‘the bread which he would give was his flesh, 
 that he would give for the life of the world.” If, therefore, it be insisted upon, that 
 the words are to be properly understood, and that therefore a change must be supposed 
 of one substance into another, it must not be of bread into the substance of Christ's 
 flesh, but of Christ’s flesh into the substance of bread ; which interpretation, I think, 
 nobody has ever yet been so unreasonable as to contend for. What account, therefore, 
 is to be given of these words, but this—that our Saviour having hitherto pursued a 
 figurative way of speaking, upon the occasion so often mentioned, went on in the same 
 way of expression, to lay before them that principal doctrine of the gospel, that Christ 
 was to die for the salvation of mankind; which is the plain sense of giving his flesh 
 to be bread for us; for he gave his flesh for the life of the world, when he gave him- 
 self to the death for us all; and his flesh, so given, is bread to us, because his death 
 is the means of our living for ever. 
 
 And whereas Christ mentioned the giving of his flesh for the life of the world as a 
 future thing; and likewise the giving of his flesh to be bread; it does not follow that, 
 because the former was to be performed upon the cross only, therefore the latter was 
 to be performed only in the Eucharist. This, I say, does not follow, unless, it could 
 
 oO 
 
evi APPENDIX. 
 
 be proved that he promised, in those words, to give us his natural flesh to be 
 eaten properly in the Eucharist ; which I have shewn is impossible to be proved 
 from hence. Still, therefore, we are to understand, not a corporeal, but a spiritual 
 eating : and whereas our Saviour said, ‘‘The bread which I will give is my flesh, 
 which I will give for the life of the world ;” the meaning is this—that his flesh 
 shall be given for the life of the world once for all; but the spiritual food, or 
 nourishment, which his flesh, so given, should afford, would be given evermore, 
 not only in the Eucharist, but in the whole ministration of the Gospel ; which 
 holds forth the death of Christ to be believed, and offers the blessed fruits and 
 advantages thereof to all that are disposed to partake of them. 
 
 It is also objected against this interpretation, that if the doctrine of o our Lord's 
 passion, and the believing of it, be here meant, no reason can be given why our 
 Saviour snould speax in the future tense —“ The bread which I will give is my 
 flesh ;” since the spiritual food was no less given before the incarnation and passion 
 of Christ, than afterward; for the patriarchs lived and were nourished by faith. 
 And, therefore, if spiritual eating be only intended, Christ seemed to promise a 
 new thing, which yet he had given of old: so that his promise is to be understood 
 of giving his natural flesh to be eaten, which was never done before the Eucha- 
 rist. This is the objection ; and a very strange one it must needs be to him that 
 shall consider, 1. That our Saviour speaketh in the future tense to the woman of 
 Samaria, where yet the expression is acknowledged to be figurative, and the 
 meaning of it to be believing: ‘‘ Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall 
 give him, shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give him (δώσω) shall be 
 in him a well,’ &c. Now, mould not this be rare arguing: Our Lord says, “1 
 will give water ;” therefore he promised something that he had never given before ; 
 therefore spiritual drinking, or believing, is not meant, because the patriarchs 
 believed of old, therefore the promise is to be taken literally and properly? And 
 yet this is that very argument to prove the literal sense in this verse. But then, 
 2. Our Lord speaks of the necessity of present eating his flesh, and drinking his 
 blood, in the 58rd and 54th verses. And therefore the argument from the future 
 tense, to prove that he spake properly of the Eucharist, is insufficient. 3. Sup- 
 posing that all had been future, and that something was promised, more than had 
 been formally given ; yet it follows not that Christ spake properly of the Eucharist, 
 much less of giving his flesh properly to be eaten there. For although the Fathers 
 believed of old, yet the doctrine of the passion was never clearly understood by 
 the faithful before our Saviour’s time ; no, nor as yet by his own disciples. Our 
 Saviour did now and then mention it, and here he gave them some intimations of 
 it, which they understood not then so well as they did afterwards. (See note on 
 ver. 58). Himself said to them—*‘ Many prophets and righteous men have 
 desired to see those things that ye have seen, and have not seen them; and to 
 hear those things that ye hear, and have not heard them’”’ (Matt. xiii., 17). And 
 yet his disciples hitherto had attained to a very imperfect knowledge of Chris- 
 tianity, to what they had afterwards. Although, therefore, the good men of old 
 were justified by faith, and saw the promises afar off, and had some general inti- 
 mations of the Gospel, yet whether the particular objects of our faith were not a 
 new thing worthy of Christ’s promise, I leave indifferent men to judge. = 
 
 Lastly, it has been said, that the natural flesh of Christ was to be given or 
 offered upon the cross substantially or properly for the hfe of the world, and 
 therefore the same flesh was to be given with the same propriety, to be bread for 
 us, and to be eaten by us—viz., in the Eucharist. To which I answer, 1. as 
 
APPENDIX. evil 
 before, That this arguing will conclude more than they desire who urge it. For 
 if the former clause is to be understood in the same strictness and propriety of 
 words with the latter clause, then the flesh of Christ was to become bread pro- 
 perly. For he said, “ The bread which I will give is my flesh.” But, 2. It is 
 much more reasonable to understand the giving of his flesh to be bread, according 
 to the meaning of this kind of expressions throughout the whole discourse ; and 
 our adversaries do acknowledge that those passages, “" I am the bread of life ;” 
 “ He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever ”—that is, all of this kind, from 
 verse 32 to this very clause in verse 51, are to be understood of spiritual eating— 
 i.e., of believing. Since, therefore, our Saviour gave no manner of intimation 
 that he changed his style, there is more reason to interpret those words, of 
 giving his flesh to be bread, and of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a 
 sense agreeable to that wherein eating him is to be understood all along before, 
 than to understand them properly—that is to say, of bodily eating ; although it 
 is the flesh of Christ which is given to be eaten, that flesh which was substantially 
 and properly given for the life of the world. 
 
 52. The Jews there- 
 fore strove among 
 themselves, saying, 
 
 52. Upon this the Jews disputed against 
 him afresh, the greater part of them taking his 
 last words in a gross sense, as if he had pro- 
 
 How can this man 
 give us his flesh to 
 eat? 
 
 53. Then Jesus 
 said unto them, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, 
 Except ye eat the 
 flesh of the Son of 
 Man, and drink his 
 blood, ye have no life 
 in you. 
 
 mised to give them his flesh to eat with their 
 teeth, and to swallow it down their throats, as 
 their forefathers had eaten manna, and as they 
 had eaten in the wilderness the day before. 
 And upon this advantage which they thought 
 they had against him, they exclaimed as if he 
 had spoken absurdly and inhumanly, and 
 taught his disciples to devour man’s flesh. 
 
 53. But notwithstanding this perverse con- 
 struction of his words, Jesus did not think fit 
 to deliver his meaning in such proper expres- 
 sions as might avoid all the cavils of these 
 unreasonable men; but, deferring for a while 
 a further explication of himself, he vehemently 
 repeated his doctrine, under such expressions 
 and figurative speeches, as they had hitherto 
 given him just occasion to use ; only to signify 
 that he was to die a violent and bloody death 
 for the salvation of mankind: to that expres- 
 sion of eating his flesh, he added another, of 
 drinking his blood; affirming, that except they 
 did this, they must not expect eternal life. 
 As if he had said, ‘‘ Except ye believe the 
 merit of that sacrifice which I shall offer for 
 
evil APPENDIX. 
 
 the sins of the world, and own me for your 
 Saviour in dying, a painful aud ignominious 
 death for your sakes, and learn charity, and 
 patience, and humility, and resignation to the 
 will of God, by my sufferings, ye have not 
 spiritual, nor shall have eternal life.” 
 
 Ver. 53. If it be asked, why our Saviour still persisted in a figurative and allusive 
 way of expression, although he saw their gross, and perhaps wilful mistake of his former 
 words (ver. 52.), it may be answered, That he knew good reason for it, though the 
 reason be not left upon record. However, a probable conjecture ought to suffice in 
 such a case as this, where the objection is, that no account can be given ὍΘ 
 answer, therefore, that our Lord did not think fit to foretel the ignominious death he 
 was to suffer upon the cross, so publicly as he foretold his resurrection. Sometimes 
 he told his disciples that he was to suffer, and be kiiled (Matt. xvi., 21); but to others 
 he intimated it obscurely, with intention that they might afterwards remember what he 
 said, rather than that they should understand it presently. But neither to the multi- 
 tude, nor to his disciples, did he clearly signify the reason and ends of his passion ; 
 this seeming to be one of those things that they could not bear now, but which the 
 comforter should reveal to them afterward. It may tberefore be said, that our Lord 
 did not deliver the doctrine concerning the death he was to suffer, and the blessed 
 fruits thereof to all believers, in such like plain words and expressions, as I have 
 endeavoured to use in the paraphrase, because he used to conceal the former from the 
 people, and reserve the clear manifestation of the latter, till after his resurrection and 
 ascension, when these sayings would be brought to remembrance, and better under- 
 stood than they were at first. But one may ask, why did he not at least tell these 
 men, that these were still but expressions of spiritual things, by way of allusion to 
 things sensible ? To which J auswer, that he did thus explain himself to his dis- 
 ciples presently after, and that upon occasion of this gross mistake (see ver. 62, 63), 
 and nothing appears to the contrary, but that this explication was made in the syna- 
 gogue, in the hearing of all. But whether it was so or not, it is sufficient for us that 
 he explained himself as he did to the disciples. 
 
 In the mean time, Cardinal Cajetan’s argument, that this place cannot be under- 
 stood of the Eucharist, because then it would infer a necessity of the people’s receiving 
 the cup, is an argument ad homines, plain and strong. Neither is it to be avoided, 
 by pretending that Christ does not speak of the species of either bread or wine, but of 
 the things contained under them; and, therefore, that because whole Christ is con- 
 tained under one kind, the condition of eternal life is fulfilled, by receiving him under 
 either kind: for they that receive him under the species of a wafer, or a morsel of 
 bread only, which is to be eaten, cannot with any modesty be said to drink his blood ; 
 which is yet made as necessary as eating his flesh. We grant, that eating and drink- 
 ing being taken as figurative expressions, do signify the same thing,—viz., believing; 
 and we say, that believing, when it is expressed by eating his fiesh and drinking his 
 blood, refers to that particular object of faith, the death of Christ, signified by the 
 separate mention of his body and blood. But eating and drinking being taken 
 properly, do not signify the same thing. If, therefore, our Saviour is to be understood 
 properly, of receiving him in the Eucharist, by eating his flesh and drinking his blood: 
 the words are plain, beyond all dispute, that he is to be received by drinking his blood 
 there, as well as by eating his flesh; which, since the Church of Rome denies to the 
 
APPENDIX. ΟΙΧ 
 laity, the Cardinal had good reason not to understand these words of the Eucharist, 
 being concerned, as he was, to make the best of all those usages which he found in 
 his Church. And yet I doubt this great man had not quite delivered that Church from 
 all the reproof this very text has for their half-communion. For, although these 
 words are not to be understood properly of the Eucharist; yet, I think, what Grotius 
 says, cannot be reasonably denied,—viz., that here is a tacit allusion to the Eucharist. 
 And if that be true, the text even thus taken, will condemn their withholding the cup 
 from the laity. For the allusion must consist in this, that, as according to the institu- 
 tion of the Eucharist, the holy bread, and cup, were separately taken to shew forth 
 the violent death of Christ; so in these words of eating his flesh, and drinking his 
 blood, the believing of his meritorious death, and following the example of his patience, 
 &e., is expressed by the separate mention of his flesh and blood, and therefore of 
 eating the one, and drinking the other. Which allusion is so apt, that I should not 
 wonder if it inclines those that inquire no further, to believe that our Saviour here 
 speaks of the Eucharist. But since the separate taking of the holy bread and the 
 holy cup in the Eucharist on the one side, and the separate mention of his flesh and 
 blood on the other, is that in which the allusion consists, it is utterly destroyed by the 
 pretended concomitance,—i.e., by giving the body and blood, not as separated, but as 
 united ; or by giving the body and blood to be eaten; not the flesh to be eaten, and 
 the blood to be drunk. In short, as our Saviour did sacramentally represent his death , 
 by taking the holy bread, and the holy cup separately, and giving them separately ; so 
 he did in words, alluding to that sacrament, represent the same death,—i.e., by the 
 distinct mention of his flesh and his blood; and he represented also the necessity of 
 faith in his death, under the distinct expressions of eating his flesh, and drinking his 
 blood. And therefore, they who in the Eucharist pretend to give both kinds in one, 
 destroy the reason why these words allude to the Eucharist. Butif they say, that our 
 Saviour here speaks properly of the Eucharist, nothing can be more evident, than that 
 they openly condemn themselves, in denying that to the people, which, as they say, he 
 required in proper and express terms, and that is, the drinking of his blood. 
 
 And in truth, they destroy the significancy of the sacrament, which is no otherwise 
 a representation of our Lord’s death, than as it represents the separation of his flesh 
 and blood. And then I desire them to tell me, how they can be said to commemorate 
 the death of Christ, by receiving a sacrament that shews forth the separation of his 
 body and blood, who do not receive them separated, but united? St. Paul, concluding 
 the end of the sacrament, from the institution of it, said, “As often as ye eat this 
 bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” The reason 
 whereof is exceeding plain,—viz., because the separation of the blood from the body, 
 is shewn by the distinct taking of the bread and the cup, to eat the one and drink the 
 other. But this reason is so confounded by the half-communion, and the doctrine of 
 concomitance, that the institution is not only contradicted, but, I fear, the sacrament is 
 denied to them that receive one kind only ; and that they have not so much as a half- 
 communion, inasmuch as they do not receive a sacrament that shews the death of Christ: 
 
 54. Whoso eateth 54, * But he that is so far from rejecting 
 my flesh, and drinketh me, and being offended at me, because of that 
 my blood, hath eter- painful death which 1 am to suffer, that he 
 nal life; and I will doth, on the other hand, receive all that divine 
 raise him up at the instruction which it does afford, and turns it 
 last day. into spiritual nourishment, by learning the high 
 
Cx APPENDIX. 
 
 displeasure of God against sin; and his infinite 
 love to mankind ; and the vanity of this world, 
 and the worth of his own soul, and the neces- 
 sity of repentance, and of a godly life; my 
 death shall be to him a means of that eternal 
 life, to which I shall raise him at the last day ; 
 and this as certainly as if he were now in actual 
 possession of it.” 
 
 Ver. 54, Because our Lord continues in his speech to make a separate mnen- 
 tion of his flesh and blood, it follows that he still speaks of his death, and the 
 particular doctrine concerning his death, which would be entertained with the 
 greatest difficulty—viz., that he was a sacrifice for the sins of the world; and 
 therefore a Saviour, because crucified, &c. The lively belief whereof is that which 
 our Lord means by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood; and not eating and 
 drinking the sacrament of his body and blood; which a man may do to his con- 
 demnation. And, therefore, although St. Austin sometimes understood these 
 words of the Eucharist, yet he did not so understand them, as if every one who 
 partakes of the Eucharist does also eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ ; 
 for he manifestly denied that the wicked were partakers of the very body of Christ, 
 though they partook of the sacrament of his body: and yet it is impossible but 
 they must do the one as well as the other, if it be true that the proper substance 
 of the body of Christ is in the sacrament, as the Church of Rome pretends. And 
 by consequence, if this corporeal eating be intended, it seems clearly to follow, 
 that no man who partakes of the Eucharist can be damned ; wuhich is certainly 
 very false ; and therefore corporeal eating cannot be meant here, but only spiritual 
 eating. And so St. Austin understood it, although he applied these words some- 
 times to the Eucharist, inasmuch as he denied that the wicked do eat the flesh 
 and drink the blood of Christ, although with their mouths they take the sacra- 
 ment of his body and blood. But because this spiritual eating, which is necessary 
 to salvation, is by no means confined to the participation of the Kucharist ; and 
 because many do not partake spiritually in the body and blood of Christ, that yet 
 do partake of the sacrament, I cannot understand why our Saviour should speak 
 here directly and properly of the Eucharist ; and therefore I adhere to the sense 
 of those Fathers who interpret this place, and those that follow, of spiritual actions 
 only. 
 
 55. For my flesh is 55. “ So that the doctrine concerning my 
 meat indeed, and my _ sufferings and death, which will give the greatest 
 blood is drink indeed. offence to unbelievers, is the most excellent 
 
 meat and drink, because it is the food of souls, 
 when it is received with a firm and efficacious 
 faith ; and will secure also the resurrection of 
 the body to everlasting life.” 
 
 Ver. 55, He continues to distinguish the flesh from the blood, and therefore 
 still speaks of his passion, giving some kind of pre-eminence to faith in his death, 
 above the belief of other particular doctrines, though that would be admitted with 
 greatest difficulty. 
 
APPENDIX. ΟΧῚ 
 
 56. He that eateth 56. “ And therefore he that believeth my 
 my flesh, and drinketh death to be a sacrifice for the sins of the world, 
 my blood, dwelleth in and does thereby learn that duty which it 
 me, and 1 in him. teacheth, and receive that comfort which it 
 
 affordeth, he will love me, and devote himself 
 entirely to my service, because I have thus 
 humbled myself; though that be the reason for 
 which such as you will be violently prejudiced 
 against me- And on the other side, he shall 
 be peculiarly beloved and cared for by me: for 
 though, in love to mankind, I am to be made 
 an offering for sin, yet it is a particular care I 
 shall express towards those who have a true 
 sense of my sufferings in their behalf, who 
 make a right use of them, and return that 
 thankfulness and obedience which their faith 
 requires.” (1 Tim. iv., 10). 
 
 Ver. 56. His pursuance of the same expression still shews that he speaks of the 
 same thing—viz., believing his death to be a sacrifice, &c. And here he intimates 
 that his sufferings, which would be a stumbling-block to unbelievers, would be an 
 effectual engagement to all good men to love him; and that their fervent love, 
 and humble gratitude, would be rewarded with his especial love. For as God’s 
 dwelling in men signifies his gracious presenve amongst them, and his delight in 
 doing them good, so their dwelling in him signifies their love to him, and constant 
 attendance upon the doing of his will, and the delight they have in knowing them- 
 selves to be always in his presence. 
 
 57. As the living 57. «And one remarkable expression (and 
 Father hath sent me, that of weight enough to make you consider 
 and I live by the Fa- what I say) of my peculiar love to every such 
 ther, sohe that eateth believer, is what I have told you already, and I 
 me, even he shall live do earnestly repeat it again: as sure as the 
 by me. Father who sent me will raise me from the 
 
 dead, so surely will I raise up every one to 
 everlasting life that believeth my doctrine, and 
 liveth by his faith.” 
 
 Ver. 57- Were our Lord seems to leave the special consideration of his suffer- 
 ings and death, and to speak now of his whole doctrine, as he had done before ; 
 for as by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, we are to understand believing 
 the merit and instruction of his death, &c.,so, by eating him, we are taught before 
 (ver. 35, 47, 50) to understand believing him in general—that is, believing all his 
 doctrine. 
 
exil 
 
 58. This is that 
 bread which came 
 down from heaven; 
 
 not as your fathers 
 did eat manna, and 
 are dead. He that 
 eateth of this bread 
 shall live for ever. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 58. “ Mark, therefore, what I said to you 
 (ver. 33, 35) at first, that I am that true bread 
 from heaven, wherewith the manna that your 
 fathers eat, and the bread which you eat yes- 
 terday, are not to be compared; for they were 
 good for nothing but to preserve a mortal life 
 for a short time; whereas he that feedeth upon 
 the word and doctrine which God hath sent you 
 from heaven, shall be raised from the dead, to 
 ascend thither, and to live there for ever.” 
 
 Ver, 58. Here he concludes all, with returning to the same thing, and using 
 
 the very expressions that he began withal (ver. 32, 35, 50), than which we need 
 not a clearer proof that he all along spake in the same style, and in those expres- 
 sions of eating and drinking, perpetually alluded to the manna and the loaves in 
 
 the wilderness ; which gave occasion to all this discourse. 
 
 59. These things 
 said he in the syna- 
 gogue, as he taught 
 in Capernaum. 
 
 60. Many there- 
 fore of his disciples, 
 when they had heard 
 this, said, This is an 
 hard saying ; who can 
 hear it ? 
 
 59. These things he said publicly in the syna- 
 gogue at Capernaum, where the people, whom 
 he had fed in the wilderness, found him (ver. 
 24, 25), and gave him the occasion of dis- 
 coursing in this manner, by following him for 
 the loaves (ver. 26), and (when they found 
 themselves disappointed) by setting the manna 
 which Moses gave their fathers against the 
 feeding so many thousands the day before 
 (ver. 31). And the great end of his discourse 
 upon this occasion, was, to draw their minds 
 from worldly to heavenly things, and to make 
 them more desirous of the spiritual and hea- 
 venly benefits of his miracles, than of the 
 bodily relief which they had found by them. 
 
 60. But because he expressed his mind in 
 this figurative way, and was by many under- 
 stood, as if he had commended to them the 
 eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, 
 in the literal sense; therefore many, even of 
 those that had for some time followed him, 
 talked amongst themselves, as if these sayings 
 of their Master must needs be offensive to the 
 ears of all persons that had a sense of humanity ; 
 and as for themselves, that they knew not what 
 to make of them. 
 
61. When Jesus 
 knew in himself that 
 his disciples — mur- 
 mured at it, he said 
 unto them, Doth this 
 offend you ? 
 
 62. What and if 
 ye shall see the Son 
 of man ascend up 
 where he was before ? 
 
 63. It is the spirit 
 that quickeneth ; the 
 flesh profiteth no- 
 thing: the words that 
 1 speak unto you, 
 they are spirit, and 
 they are life. 
 
 APPENDIX. ΟΧΠῚ 
 
 61. Neither did they desire him to explain 
 himself further; but he, by his divine spirit, 
 knowing what they muttered amongst them- 
 selves, applied himself to them in particular, 
 and upbraided them in this manner for taking 
 so unreasonable an offence against him. 
 
 62. «« 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 1 
 do not mean that gross feeding upon my flesh, 
 and drinking my blood, in which you under- 
 stand 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. 
 
 63. “No; whenI speak to you of the con- 
 ditions of obtaining everlasting 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, which do 
 indeed tend to the bettering of the inward 
 man. For they are such things only that feed 
 the soul, and can preserve it to eternal life : 
 but to this purpose the flesh profiteth nothing ; 
 no, not my own flesh, if you should eat it as 
 grossly as you understand my sayings: for 
 even this would be but bodily nourishment, but 
 would have no influence upon the mind. But 
 if you would know what those things are that 
 better the soul (and it is my business to call 
 you off from that solicitous care you take of 
 your mortal bodies, to mind your souls, and to 
 provide for a blessed resurrection): if, I say, 
 you would know what things are proper for the 
 improvement of the mind, they are 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; that faith 
 which I require you to have in my death, and 
 that example of doctrine, charity, and humility, 
 
 p 
 
CXIV APPENDIX. 
 
 which I require you to follow. These are the 
 spiritual means of renewing your minds, and 
 
 therefore means also of fitting you for eternal 
 life.” 
 
 Ver. 61, 62, 63. Our Lord perceiving how grossly the Jews and some of his own 
 disciples understood those expressions, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, did, 
 upon this occasion, explain his own meaning as fully as he did to Nicodemus in the 
 point of regeneration. For Nicodemus having said, ‘‘ How can a man be born when 
 he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus 
 answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water, and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is 
 flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Which was as much as to say, 
 “The flesh profiteth nothing (as here, ver. 63). And if you were, by a strange 
 miracle, to be born again the natural way, by this fleshly birth you would come again 
 but into a mortal life ; but that fleshly birth would not avail you for everlasting life.” 
 In the very same manner our Saviour repeated, in this chapter, those sayings which 
 the Jews, and some of his own disciples, were offended at; and in the same manner he 
 explained them afterwards, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth 
 nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Which, 
 being compared with the answer to Nicodemus, now mentioned and explained ; by 
 the light that answer affords, can yield no other meaning, than that which I have 
 expressed in the paraphrase. 
 
 As for the 62nd verse, it might be intended as an answer to that particular excep- 
 tion against him, mentioned verse 42, that he was the son of Joseph, and could not 
 therefore reasonably pretend to come down from heaven: to which, if our Lord 
 referred, his words are a proper answer,—yviz., that when they should see him ascend into 
 heaven, they would no longer doubt of the truth of his coming from thence. But I 
 rather think those words refer to that great offence which some of his own disciples 
 took against him, that he should speak of their eating of his flesh, and drinking of 
 his blood; for they were his disciples only that saw him ascend. And when they 
 should know that he was in heayen, they could not, without great stupidity, think that 
 he would give them his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink, in that gross sense 
 wherein they understood him. However, I have put both these interpretations into the 
 paraphrase. 
 
 64. But there are 64, “ But no wonder that you wrest my 
 some of you that be- sayings to so absurd a sense as you do; for 
 lieve not. For Jesus there are some amongst you that dislike my 
 knew from the begin- doctrine, and are grown weary of following me, 
 ning who they were and wait for an opportunity to leave me.” Tor 
 that believed not, and as soon as any man professed himself his dis- 
 who should betray ciple, Jesus knew how he stood affected towards 
 him. him. And he did not only know who of the 
 
 multitude that followed him would revolt, but 
 likewise which of his apostles would betray 
 him, (See ver, 36.) 
 
65. And he = said, 
 Therefore said I unto 
 you, that no man can 
 come unto me, except 
 it were given unto 
 him of my Father. 
 
 66. From that time 
 many of his disciples 
 went back, and walked 
 no more with him. 
 
 67. Then said 
 Jesus unto the twelve, 
 Will ye also’ go 
 away ? 
 
 68. Then Simon 
 Peter answered him, 
 Lord, to whom shall 
 we go? thou hast the 
 words of eternal life. 
 
 Ver. 68. “ Thou hast the words of eternal life.” 
 firms the interpretation I have given of verse 63. 
 
 APPENDIX. cXV 
 
 65. And Jesus added, ‘“ Because 1 knew 
 that there were some such amongst you, there- 
 fore I thought fit to tell you before (ver. 37; 
 39, 44), that my doctrine would never be 
 heartily entertained by any bnt those whom 
 God had prepared for it, by enduing them 
 with a mind willing to learn, and with a pre- 
 vailing desire of obtaining God’s favour, and 
 eternal life.” 
 
 66. Upon this close application of his doc- 
 trine to the consciences of those insincere 
 disciples of his; they finding themselves dis- 
 covered, and that it was to no purpose to 
 dissemble, resolved to pretend themselves his 
 disciples no longer, and went off from him 
 without more ado. 
 
 67. Jesus seeing them turn their backs upon 
 him, took this occasion, both to shew that some 
 of his disciples were sincere, and that he cared 
 not to be followed by any but those that were 
 willing ; and therefore he said to the twelve, 
 You see I do not compel men to follow me, 
 but that I let them depart if they will go. 
 Now, what say you? Will ye still continue 
 my disciples, or follow the example of these 
 men, and go away ? 
 
 68. Whereupon Peter (who was still the 
 most forward speaker in his Master’s cause), 
 answered for himself and the rest: Lord, our 
 greatest concern is to attain eternal life; and 
 there is none other but thyself who can guide 
 us to it. And we understand, that those very 
 sayings of thine, with which these men were so 
 unreasonably offended, do shew us the necessity 
 of believing thy words and doctrine (as thou 
 didst now tell them) (ver. 63), that we may live 
 for ever. 
 
 This saying of St. Peter con- 
 For here he seems plainly to repeat 
 
 our Lord’s sense almost in the same words; “ the words that I speak unto you, they 
 are life ; or, the words of eternal life; as if St. Peter had said, We do not understand 
 thee in that gross and absurd sense to which these men have perverted thy sayings ; 
 
CXV1 APPENDIX. 
 
 for we perceive that thou speakest of those doctrines and revelations by which we 
 are to be guided to eternal life. But if St. Peter had understood our Saviour in that 
 sense wherein the unbelieving Jews and his revolted disciples understood him, St. 
 Peter’s answer would surely have been to this purpose. Whatever appearance there 
 is of inhumanity and contradiction, in giving thy flesh to be eaten, and thy blood to be 
 drunk, for the life of the world; yet we believe that we shall eat thy natural flesh, and 
 drink, &c., because thou hast said it; for though this hard saying staggered those men 
 that are gone off, yet it does not stagger us at all. This had been a confession of 
 faith suitable to the occasion, and to the spirit of St. Peter, if he had understood our 
 Saviour as the Jews did. Atleast he would have used those very expressions which 
 our Saviour used when the Jews took offence,—i.e, he would have said, To whom 
 should we go but to thee, who wilt give us thy flesh to eat, and thy blood to drink, 
 that we may have eternal life? But when he rather chose to confess his faith in the 
 explanatory words (ver. 63), “ Thou hast the words of eternal life,” I think a reason- 
 able man must acknowledge, that St. Peter did not understand our Saviour’s expres- 
 sions as the perverse Jews understood them. 
 
 69. And we believe 69. And we have already arrived to this 
 and are sure that thou faith, by seeing thy mighty works, and hear- 
 art that Christ, the ing thy divine doctrines ; for by these testi- 
 Son of the living God. monies we are convinced, beyond all doubt, 
 
 that thou art the promised Messias; and 
 whereas these men called thee the Son of 
 Joseph, we assuredly believe that thou art the 
 Son of that God who giveth life to all, and 
 wilt give eternal life to all that believe in thee. 
 And to this answer of Peter’s all the rest 
 assented. 
 
 Ver. 69. And St. Peter having thus shewed plainly enough what he understood by 
 the flesh and blood of Jesus,—viz., his doctrine, or words of eternal life ; he shews as 
 plainly in this verse what he and the rest understand by eating,—viz., believing, as 
 Jesus himself had explained it before (ver. 47). Therefore, says he, “ And we believe 
 and are sure,” &c. So that by what St. Peter said upon this occasion, it appears suffi- 
 ciently, that if Jesus had meant the literal and gross sense, the Jews and the disciples 
 that forsook him understood him aright; but Peter, and the rest of the apostles and 
 disciples that staid, mistook him; which is certain they did not, because our Saviour 
 approved what St. Peter said in the name of all the rest. And in the interpretation of 
 
 our Saviour’s words, it is, I believe, more safe to follow St. Peter, with the approbation 
 of our Saviour, than to follow any of his successors without it. 
 
 70. Jesus answered 70. But this being spoken in the name of 
 them, Have not 1 all, Jesus, to shew that he as well understood 
 chosen you twelve, the hearts of his twelve apostles, as he did of 
 and one of you is ἃ the multitude of his disciples (ver. 64), an- 
 devil ? swered them to this purpose: What one of you 
 
 hath said in behalf of all, is true of all but one. 
 I have indeed chosen you twelve before all my 
 
APPENDIX. CXvll 
 
 other disciples, to be my chief companions and 
 ministers ; but there is one of you who already 
 hates me, and is treacherously bent to do me 
 mischief. 
 
 71. He spake of 71. Though he did not mention Judas the 
 Judas Iscariot, the traitor, yet he meant him, and not any other 
 son of Simon: for he of the apostles. 
 it was that should 
 betray him, being one 
 of the twelve. 
 
 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 And now I heartily beseech all into whose hands these papers may 
 chance to come, not to think that this chapter is to be done withal, 
 when they are once satisfied what our Lord’s meaning was in those 
 expressions of ‘eating him,” and the like; but that they would please 
 to attend to the reason and end of these and such kind of sayings ; 
 which will convince them, I doubt not, that this excellent chapter is fit 
 to be thought of, and laid to heart every day they live. 
 
 Great pity it is, that this portion of God’s word also should come to 
 be a bone of contention; which was designed to beget and improve, in 
 the disciples of Jesus, a spirit of true wisdom and piety, and to estab- 
 lish them in a holy life. 
 
 That which our Lord principally aimed at, in all this discourse, was 
 to make his hearers concerned in good earnest for their eternal state, 
 which wil] at first sight appear to any man that mindeth how often 
 those sayings return, of “everlasting life,” and “living for ever,” and 
 being “raised up at the last day.” Now this, indeed, seemed to be 
 his great design in almost all his sermons and applications to the 
 Parle: from whence we may gather this profitable instruction, that 
 men were more or less prepared to receive the truth as it is in Jesus, 
 according as they were more or less affected with the end of his coming 
 into the world, which was to bring them to everlasting life. 
 
 But in this chapter, and in some others, there is a peculiar instruc- 
 tion tending to this purpose, which we ought all of us very frequently 
 to consider, not slighting it, because it is very plain, but making much 
 of it, both because it is very useful, and strongly suggested by our Lord 
 himself. And it is, in short, this: that the care we are at, and the 
 pains we take for the welfare of this short life, should awaken in us a 
 greater care and concern for our everlasting welfare; and that we, who 
 are so thoughtful and diligent in pursuing our temporal interests, 
 
eXvill APPENDIX. 
 
 should be ashamed, and count ourselves reproved by our worldly cares, 
 if we are not much more careful to work out our salvation. This was 
 the method our Lord took to bring those people to wisdom ; and, there- 
 fore, he represented to them the means and conditions of everlasting 
 life, under the names of those things which their hearts had hitherto 
 been most set upon,—i.e., bread, and eating, and drinking. For these 
 were the men that had been fed by him the day before; and now they 
 followed him for the loaves, that is, in hope to reap such bodily advan- 
 tages as these from him every day. But to bring them to some sense 
 of better things, and to lead them towards a due esteem of that end for 
 which he came into the world, he proceeds in his admonitions, by call- 
 ing the spiritual benefits which he had in store for them—bread and 
 food; and their receiving those benefits; eating and drinking; ever and 
 anon letting them know, that if they eat and drank of that food which 
 he came to give them, they should live for ever. And what was the 
 instruction of this way of discoursing to them, but that, if the bodily 
 food, for which they were so solicitous, were a valuable enjoyment, 
 which yet would serve but for the prolonging of a mortal life, how ought 
 they to hunger and thirst for the meat which would preserve them for 
 ever? And, therefore, when he came, in the same way of speaking, to 
 intimate to them those benefits of his passion, which they would better 
 understand afterwards than they could at present, he told them, ‘‘ My 
 flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed ;” as if he had 
 told them, in plainer words than he thought fit to use at that time: 
 “Tt is infinitely more profitable to enjoy the fruits of my sufferings 
 and death, by being reconciled to God, by forbearing to provoke his 
 justice, and by following my example, than if I should take the same 
 care of you as long as I live, which I did yesterday, when I fed your 
 bodies by a miracle.” 
 
 And this, indeed, seemed to be our Saviour’s great design in preach- 
 ing the necessity of faith and repentance, and a godly life to the people, 
 under so many figurative expressions as we find he used,—viz , to lead 
 them by temporal things to the care of things eternal, and to raise their 
 minds from earth to heaven by a most familiar and convincing way of 
 arguing with them, from earthly things themselves. Therefore, if he 
 found them valuing themselves upon their liberty, or careful for life, 
 or labouring for wealth, or solicitous for food: he called himself some- 
 times, and sometimes his doctrine, and their receiving of it, liberty, 
 life, and treasure, and meat, and drink, as occasion required; and this 
 to let them understand, that there was a more real good to be found 
 in faith and piety, than in these or any other kind of worldly advan- 
 tages; and that, whatever reason they had to be concerned for these 
 
APPENDIX. CXIX 
 
 transitory enjoyments, they had much more to be careful in receiving as 
 they ought those spiritual good things which he came to confer upon them. 
 
 If, therefore, we will suffer ourselves to be instructed by such pas- 
 sages as these are, most of us, I fear, may learn, from our concern 
 about the things of this world, to be ashamed of our remissness in 
 providing for a better ; and all of us should learn to reflect very often 
 upon matters of greater concernment, when we are engaged even in the 
 honest designs of this life, and pursuing the lawful business thereof ; 
 and so we should in some measure preach to ourselves, as Christ once 
 did to his hearers when he was upon earth. 
 
 And we should not think that the Jews only had need of this kind 
 of instruction, who, I confess, had been educated under a law, that 
 promised little else besides temporal advantages to those that observed 
 it; but that we ourselves, who know the great blessings promised in 
 the Gospel to be spiritual and eternal, stand in need also of such 
 admonitions as these are: for the cares of this world, and the love of 
 its riches, and pleasures, and honours, are as apt to take hold of us 
 as they were of the Jews, if we do not take pains to affect ourselves 
 deeply with that truth concerning another life, which our Lord Jesus 
 hath revealed, and to the belief of which we have been educated in his 
 Church. And if we have less prejudice against these doctrines than 
 the Jews had, and yet are swallowed up with this world as much as 
 they were, we are but the more inexcusable. So that, undoubtedly, the 
 advantage we have over them should make us the more concerned to 
 lay those things to heart; because we are so much the more to blame, 
 if, knowing these things almost from our infancy, we do not practice 
 accordingly. 
 
 Nay, when the profession of the true faith does bring in worldly 
 advantages, there seems to be as much (if not more) reason to reflect in 
 this manner upon ourselves, as when nothing was to be gotten by it in 
 this world but the loss of all things. We are, then, doubtless, to 
 remember, that the “kingdom of Christ is not of this world,” and that 
 the good things of this life are not the rewards which he hath promised ; 
 but that, by setting our hearts inordinately upon that worldly ease and 
 profit which we enjoy by the profession of true Christianity, we are in 
 the way of losing that fruit thereof which will last for ever, and the hope 
 of which was all that our Lord used to invite men to become his disciples. 
 
 Lf we follow Christ for the loaves, we shall forsake him when we 
 find ourselves disappointed, as the Jews at Capernaum did, and take 
 occasions and pretences so to do as easily as they and some of his own 
 disciples found them. For we are not to think that that saying, 
 «Except ye eat the flesh,” &c., was the true cause of their going off 
 
CXX APPENDIX. 
 
 from him, but only such a plausible occasion as they had a good while 
 waited for. The reason of their offence, at the bottom, was, that they 
 had long since perceived our Saviour was not likely to satisfy their 
 worldly expectations, and they did not believe it worth their while to 
 follow him for a reward in another life; which prejudice against him 
 had destroyed all their faith, as he told them himself, “There are 
 some among you that believe not” (ver. 64). They were those that 
 said (ver. 60), “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” For it is 
 not said that all, but only, “ Many of his disciples, when they had 
 heard this, said, This is an hard,” &c.,—viz., those very men of whom he 
 said, ‘‘ But there are some among you that believe not” (ver. 64), ἐ.6., 
 who had followed him for worldly advantages, as the Jews did from the 
 wilderness to Capernaum: of whom our Lord said the same thing,— 
 viz., that “they believed not” (ver. 36). For though, but the day 
 before, they had acknowledged him to be the prophet that was to come 
 into the world; yet, finding that he was likely to disappoint their 
 worldly hopes, they presently changed their opinion of him. So that 
 a sincere aim at everlasting life is very necessary, even towards a con- 
 stant belief and profession of the faith. 
 
 And much more to a practice answerable to it; which will, as I said ~ 
 before, be advanced not a little, if we will use ourselves to consider 
 what care we are at for these mortal bodies and this worldly life; and 
 what reason there is to be incomparably more concerned for a blessed 
 resurrection to eternal life, which, I make not the least doubt, is the 
 great instruction we are to learn from these figurative discources of our 
 blessed Saviour. And if we constantly have it in our eye, it will not 
 only render the meaning of this chapter very plain, but the reading of 
 it, if we should read it every day we live, very useful to us. 
 
 And, indeed, those parts of God’s word, which are purposely designed 
 to work in us a deep concern for everlasting life, ought to be very 
 present to our minds, and to dwell richly in us, that we may be always 
 well provided to resist the temptations of the world. For which reason 
 we should often think of those lessons of our Saviour: “ Lay not up 
 for yourselves treasure upon earth, where moth and rust do corrupt, 
 and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves 
 treasure in heaven, where neither moth,” &c. And, “ Be not afraid of 
 them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 
 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear him, which after he 
 hath killed hath power to cast into hell: yea, 1 say unto you, fear him.” 
 And that in this chapter, ‘‘ Labour not for the meat which perisheth, 
 but for that which endureth to everlasting life, which the Son of man 
 shall give unto you.” 
 
ti 
 
 APPENDIX. ΟΧΧῚ 
 
 Which rules seeming at first sight to discharge us of all care for our 
 life and welfare in this world, St. Chrysostom thought it needful to 
 observe upon the last of them, that our Lord did not intend to counte- 
 nance laziness, who himself said, “Τὸ is more blessed to give than to 
 receive :” and that St. Paul admonishes a man to “work with his 
 hands the thing that is good, that he may have to give to him that 
 needeth.” But since these exhortations run, as if we were to be 
 absolutely unconcerned about this life, no question but that care of 
 eternal life is prescribed, in comparison to which our cares for this 
 world should seem nothing at all. Therefore, when we desire our 
 appointed food, we should think how much more it is our interest to 
 “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” and that “ meat which endureth 
 to everlasting life.” And when we most of all feel the hopes and fears 
 of things that go on farther than this world, we cannot entertain a 
 better thought than this, that if we are so much concerned for this life, 
 how careful ought we to be not to miss of eternal salvation ? 
 
 Which kind of reflections are the more necessary for us, the more 
 deeply we are engaged in this world. For we do not only ‘labour for 
 the meat that perisheth,” that is, for just enough to serve the neces- 
 
 sities of life ; but we would be at ease beside, and live in reasonable 
 
 plenty, and enjoy what is convenient for the pleasure, as well as the 
 sustenance of life ; and they are very few that know when to make an 
 end of muitiplying riches, when once they are got into the way of 
 increase. But we are thus concerned for an end of infinitely greater 
 moment? Or rather, do not these very worldly cares reprove our 
 negligence about better and greater things, while perhaps we do no 
 more towards our salvation than to avoid the grossest sins of all, but 
 take little thought how to “ grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ?” 
 
 The whole strain of our Saviour’s discourse in this chapter naturally 
 leads to such considerations as these; and if we mind them in good 
 earnest, they will, by the grace of God, moderate our affections and 
 cares about this world in the first place, and then leave all that con- 
 cern for the present and transitory good things, which we cannot be 
 without, as a perpetual admonition, to be much more thoughtful for 
 our everlasting salvation, and to make it the greatest business of our 
 lives, by prayers and good works, to lay up for ourselves treasure in 
 heaven, and to lay the stress of our comfort whilst we are here, in 
 the joyful hope of being raised up at the last day to live for ever 
 Amen. 
 
CXXll APPENDIX. 
 
 APPENDIX K. 
 
 Birkbeck, in his “ Protestant Evidence,” gives, at the end of his 
 authorities of the fifth century, an answer to the six points of Bellar- 
 mine’s “ Synopsis Patrum,” for the real presence, in the Popish sense. 
 I think it will be valuable to the reader, as a general reply to the 
 authorities alleged from the early writers of those ages, and therefore 
 I print it here entire : 
 
 § 5.—Bellarmine’s Synopsis Patrum for the Real Presence discussed 
 and answered. 
 
 1. Bellarmine, having made a long and tedious dispute de Eucha- 
 ristia,* producing divers testimonies of Fathers successively from age 
 to age, for proof of the real presence, at length reduceth them all into 
 one full body, consisting of six classes or ranks. And here he makes 
 his sedem belli, resolving to fight it out upon these grounds, with his 
 troops of ancient Fathers, and old-trained soldiers, some whereof served 
 under the Church in the first six centuries. Now, if he be not able to 
 charge us through in these prime ages, wherein his life-guard, and, 
 indeed, the main battle consists, the rest of his train-band cannot hurt 
 us ; yea, we hope to make wash-work of that other shattered company 
 he leads on in the succeeding ages. 
 
 2. It is true, indeed, he makesa great show of Fathers and schoolmen, 
 and other new-raised men; but they are but borrowed soldiers, with 
 Romish colours put upon them, such as do but serve to fill up his 
 muster-book. 
 
 3. He voucheth some vehemently suspected, even by their own 
 Rabbis, not to be the men whose names they bear, and therefore 
 
 * Lib. ii. de Euchar., 6. 39. 
 
APPENDIX. CXXill 
 
 incompetent. Such are Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechisms, 
 Ambrose de Sacramentis, et de Mysteriis initiandis, Eusebius Emis- 
 senus, Cyprian de Cana Domini, the Nicene Canon, with others. 
 
 4. Again, some he allegeth, who by reason of their non-age, deserve 
 not to be reckoned in the number of the Fathers, and so are too young 
 to bear witness herein. Such are Damascen, Theophylact, Euthymius, 
 Nicephorus, and Rupertus, who, besides his minority, was also in this 
 point erroneous. And now to the survey. 
 
 § 1.—The first_Objeetion, ab Appellationibus Eucharistiz, answered. 
 
 Objection. 
 
 Bellarmine’s first proof is taken, ad modo loquendi, from the manner 
 of the Fathers’ language: they call the Eucharist not a symbol of 
 Christ’s budy, but corpus Domini, the body of the Lord. 
 
 Solution. 
 
 1. They call it so, and so it is; and yet there be of the Fathers, 
 both Greek and Latin, that style it as we do. ‘Tertullian saith, “ He 
 distributed His body, id est, figura corporis met,—that is, a figure of 
 His body.”* Saint Augustine saith, “ Christ doubted not to say, 
 ‘ This is my body, when He gave a sign of His body.”+ Theodoret 
 calls it a symbol ;{ and Origen, “a symbolical body.”’§ Theodoret, in 
 the place alleged, calls it - σύμβολον καὶ τυπὸν σιύματος, καὶ datos; 
 a symbol and type.” And Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of his sister, 
 saith: “Τῇ she had laid up any part of the antitypes (or symbols) of 
 the precious blood of Christ. ”| 
 
 2. Some of them, as, namely, Theophylact and Euthymius, say: 
 “It is not only a figuration of Christ’s body.”41 We grant it; but they 
 say not, that whatsoever is sanctified, and more than figureth, is there- 
 fore transubstantiated. 
 
 3. In a word, they affirm that Christ’s true body isin the sacrament, 
 and we affirm the same also; for with them, secundwm veritatem, or in 
 veritate, is as much as to say, in virtute ; not properly and essentially, 
 but virtually, effectually, and sacramentally. And this is that which 
 Remigius and Alcuinus say, ‘‘ Hst in veritate corpus Christi: it is in 
 
 * Advers. Marcion, lib. iv., c. 40. + Contra Adimant., cap. 12. 
 
 t Dialog. 1 8. 7H δὲ συμβόλω, τὸ τοῦ σώματος ὄνομα τεθεκεν 
 { Dialog. 1. 6. 8. τῷ μ Wy , μ : 
 § Origen in Matt., cap. 15. 
 || Ee ποῦ τὶ τῶν ἀντιτύπων. in fun. Gorgon. 4 Cent. 11. 
 
CXXIV APPENDIX. 
 
 truth Christ’s body ;”* and Hesychius and others, ‘‘ Est corpus Christi 
 secundum veritatem: it is Christ’s body according to truth and verity.” 
 A truth, not of propriety—to wit, not in propriety of speech, and 
 according to the letter, but a truth of efficacy and operation, as is shewn 
 already in the first century, and the fifth article of this Evidence. 
 
 4, 'The Fathers, as they say it is verum corpus, so likewise they term 
 it idem corpus, the self same body. Primasius saith, ‘‘ It is the same 
 body which he took of the Virgin’s womb, the same that was crucified.”+ 
 “ Idem substantialiter,” saith Anselm. Truly so, say we: it is idem 
 objective, not idem subjective. 
 
 5. In a word, they say, corpus Domini, that Christ’s true body is in 
 the sacrament; and so say we. But they speak not of any such real 
 presence, as the Romanists imagine, who hold a corporal manner of 
 presence (excepting only relation to place). 
 
 § 2.—The second Objection drawn, a comparatione, answered. 
 
 Objection. 
 The Fathers compare the sacraments of the old law with ours, calling 
 them the type and shadow, ours the truth and the body.§ 
 
 Solution. 
 
 They do so, not as if theirs had been naked signs without the truth ; 
 theirs significantia only, and ours the res significata (for both theirs 
 and ours relate to the same Christ); but because theirs were more 
 types obscurely shadowed forth, and ours antitypes,|| corresponding 
 thereunto, and set forth to the life. 
 
 Objection. 
 
 Hither you must grant a real presence, or it would follow that the 
 sacraments of the old law equalize or exceed yours; for their passover, 
 their shew-bread, and manna, excelled your sacramental elements of 
 bread and wine in the Supper. Now, it is absurd to say the figure is 
 better than the thing prefigured. 
 
 Solution. 
 
 1. There be other ways wherein ours excel theirs, and yet no such 
 real presence ; verily, not in the worth or value of the outward elements 
 
 * Remig. Cent. 6. Hesych. 7. Cent. Alcuin. 8. Cent. 
 + Primas. Cent. 6. Anselm. 11. 1 Hierom. in cap. 1. ad Titum. 
 @ 1 Pet, iii, 20, 21. 
 
APPENDIX. CXXV 
 
 (for their manna might be better than our communion bread), nor yet 
 in the thing signified, for that is one and the same in both, even Jesus 
 Christ; but in this, that the signs of the old were prophetical, pro- 
 mising Christ ; ours historical, pointing at Christ already come in the 
 flesh ; so as we, with St. Paul, may say more effectually, “ Christ, who 
 died for me, and gave Himself for me,”* than any Israelite under the 
 law can say, “ Christ, the Messiah, that shall die and give Himself for 
 me.” 
 
 2. Ours exceed theirs gradu claritatis, in the measure of manifesta- 
 tion, being, as Augustine saith, nwmero paucissima, less burthensome 
 for number; intellectu augustissima, significatione prestantissima, more 
 excellent for signification, more lively for representation.t To them 
 of old it was, Hoc facite in met prafigurationem, “ Do this in prefigura- 
 tion of me:” to us it is, “Do this in commemoration of me.” To 
 them, prenuntiare; to us, annuntiare; they foreshewed His death ; 
 we shew forth His death to the end of the world (1 Cor. xi.) Ours 
 are of longer continuance than theirs.t Ours are clear, theirs were 
 obscure: as Nazianzen$ spake elegantly of the passover, that it was 
 τυποῦ τυπὸς duvépotepos, a more obscure type of a type: and so were 
 theirs of old. 
 
 §3.—The Third Objection drawn, ἃ mutatione, answered, 
 Objection. 
 
 Ballarmine’s third proof is drawn a mutatione panis, from the change 
 or conversion of bread; the Fathers speak of a real change. 
 
 Solution. 
 
 1. The Fathers use the terms of conversion and mutation ; what 
 then? ergo, transubstantiation? It followeth not. For this is to 
 argue from the general to the special: as if you should say, it isa 
 colour, therefore it is black, there being colours besides black. Change 
 is a general word, and there are divers kinds thereof, besides the change 
 of substance. The Fathers, therefore, speaking of a change in the 
 sacrament, may as well mean a change of alteration in the use, con- 
 dition, and virtue of the elements, as of substance, by way of transub- 
 stantiation. 
 
 2. We deny not a change, an alteration, or transmutation, or trans- 
 
 * Gal. ii., 20. + De Doctrina Christian. 1. 3. c. 9. et Epist. 118. ad Januar. 
 t See Cent. 1. Artic. 5. ὃ Orat, in Pascha. 
 
CXXV1 APPENDIX. 
 
 elementation, as Damascen and Theophylact speak :* but a change of 
 the elements ; that is, their transmutation and trans-elementation doth 
 not conclude transubstantiation. For in the other two the matter 
 remaineth; but in this the matter is destroyed, the quantity and 
 accidents only remain. ‘There is a conversion sacramental, that is, of 
 signification, use, and operation ; as in the water in baptism, where the 
 change is without any transubstantiation. 
 
 3. In conversions that are substantial, whether by divine or course 
 ordinary, there is evermore tertiwn quid, novum, noviter productum, 
 out of that which is converted: but in transubstantiation, the body of 
 Christ is not produced anew, nor receiveth any substantial change. 
 
 4. It is not then Cyril’s μεταβολὴ, nor Nyssen’s μετασχηματισμὸς, NOY 
 Chrysostom’s, and his abbreviator’s Theophylact, their μεταστοιχεέίωσις, 
 or trans-elementation: nor Damascen’s μεταποίησις, that reacheth home 
 to their Romish μετουσίωσις, and transubsantiation. It is not Cyprian’s 
 pans natura mutatus, nor Ambrose’s in aliud commutantur, or any 
 other of the Latin Fathers transit, transfertur, or transmutantur, that 
 can conclude their transubstantiation. 
 
 Objection. 
 Cyprian saith, panis natura mutatus, bread changed in nature.+ 
 
 Ambrose saith, Benedictione natura ipsa mutatur; doth not change in 
 nature, infer a change in substance ?} 
 
 Solution. 
 
 It is inconsequent to argue, they are changed in their nature, ergo, 
 their natural substance is destroyed. For nature implieth qualities 
 and properties, as well as substance; and it is taken theologice as well 
 physice ; for St. Peter, speaking of regenerate persons, saith, that they 
 are made partakers Θείας φύσεως, of the divine nature, and yet their 
 former substance uot abolished ;§ the nature of glorious bodies 15 
 changed, and they are made spiritual,|| and yet they retain the same 
 substance, but partake the qualities of a glorified body: man’s nature 
 was changed after his fall, yet the substance of his nature remained.‘ 
 
 § 4.—The Fourth Ohjection drawn a mysterii altitudine, answered. 
 
 Objection. 
 The fourth is taken from the height of the mystery which the 
 * Dam. Cent. 8. Theo. Cent. 11. + De Cena Domini, Cent. 3. 
 1 De myster. initiand. c. 9. Cent. 4. § 2 Peteri., 4. || 1 Cor. xv., 44. 
 
 4 Ephes. ii., 3. 
 
APPENDIX. CXXVli 
 
 ancients* acknowledged to be so great in the Eucharist, that they con- 
 cealed it from catechumens, and unbaptized Christians: which had 
 been needless, had they thought (as Protestants do) Christ present in 
 the sacrament only in signo, and not really as we do. 
 
 Solution. 
 
 1. This caution and concealment of theirs shews this much; that it 
 was held unlawful in those ages to treat or dispute of the Holy Eucha- 
 rist intempestive, that is, before heathens (infidelity is a mocker) which 
 were not at all instructed in the first principles of religion, or to treat 
 of this doctrine in profane places or auditories: but what is this to the 
 real presence by transubstantiation ? For it was held unlawful in the 
 primitive Church, in manner aforesaid, that is, in an undue time, order 
 and place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of baptism,} or of other 
 profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith; and yet this without 
 any conceit of transubstantiation. The Fathers said of the mysteries 
 of the Kucharist,{ norunt fidelis, the faithful know what we say. And 
 they said as much for the mysteries of baptism,$ ἅπερ ἴσασιν οἱ πιστοὶ, 
 the faithful know this, and yet no corporal presence in baptism. 
 
 2. Now for Christ’s presence only in signo; they misreport our 
 tenet: for we hold a presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament no 
 less true than they themselves, and not a bare and naked sign without 
 fruit and effect. 
 
 3. Yea, but the Fathers, Cyril and Eusebius Emissenus by name, 
 forbid us to doubt of Christ’s words, or to inquire the manner how?|| 
 We doubt not of them; we think the manner to be inexplicable. 
 We believe Christ’s words in His own sense. We do not inquire after 
 them with a guomodo infidelitatis, not out of infidelity and distrust, as 
 the Jews did in John vi., 52, as if we believed not the speaker; but 
 with a quomodo φιλομαθείας, for our better information ; as the blessed 
 Virgin said, ‘“‘ How shall this be” (Lukei., 34). Christ said, “ This 
 is my body ;” we believe Him: He spake not of the modus, not of the 
 manner how: we agree with you in the object, we differ about the 
 modus, touching the manner, 
 
 * Concil. Alexandrin. apud Athanasium, Apolog. 2 Epist. Julii. ibid. 
 
 + Kat μοι μηδεὶς ἀτελεστος ἐπὶ τὴν θέαν ἐέτω. Dionys. Hierarch. c. 2 de 
 Baptismo. 
 
 t Augustin. de Civit. Dei, 1. 10. ὁ. 6. et passim. 
 
 ὃ Chrysostom. in Galat. 4. 
 
 ll Cyril. 1, 4, in Joh, c. 19, Emmissen. Homil. 5. de Pasch. Cent. 5. art. 5. sec. 2. 
 
CXXVlil APPENDIX. 
 
 §5—The Fifth Objection drawn ab Adoratione et Invocatione 
 Kucharistie, answered. 
 
 Objection. 
 
 The Fathers speak of the adoration and invocation of the host: 
 Theodoret saith, σύμβολα προσκυνεῖται, “ let the symbols be worshipped 
 or adored.”* 
 
 Solution. 
 
 l. He saith so; but Ribera the Jesuit acknowledgeth} that the 
 term προσκύνησις, or adoration, is sometimes used for worship commu- 
 nicable to creatures; as namely, to angels, saints, and kings; and then 
 he meant no more, but that they should be reverently handled, as 
 becometh so great mysteries, as is already observed.} 
 
 2. Besides, Christ may be adored in the mysteries, and yet the 
 mysteries themselves not have such honour. St. Augustine saith: 
 ‘ The sacrament is to be differenced and discerned from other meats ; 
 veneratione singulariter debita, (that is, properly or) singularly due 
 (unto it).§ Contemptum solum non vult cibus ille; that meat (saith he) 
 misliketh only contempt ;” that is, either to be daily received without 
 regard, or still refused upon pretence of unworthiness. St. Chrysostom 
 saith, ‘‘ We are to come to the sacrament, not at a venture, carelessly, 
 or in homely manner, but μετὰ πολλὴς Ppixys καὶ εὐλαβείας, with much 
 fear and reverence.”|| And this reverence and veneration we yield unto 
 it. Now, as for this term of veneration (far short of divine worship 
 and adoration), St. Angustine ascribeth it to baptism as well as to the 
 Eucharist, saying, “ We reverence baptism wheresoever,”‘! and yet 
 without any conceit of a corporal presence therein. 
 
 3. The Fathers used not any direct invocation of the Eucharist, but 
 a rhetorical figure called prosopopeia ; which is, when one calleth upon 
 that which has no sense, as if it had sense: as, “ Hear, O heavens, 
 hearken, O earth” (Isa.i.) And thus the ancients called upon the ele- 
 ment of baptism, ‘‘ O aqua que lavas omnia, nec lavaris; O thou water 
 that washest all other, and art not washed thyself.” So saith Am- 
 brose, ‘“‘O water, which once purged the world.”** So saith Optatus,}} 
 without any conceit of a corporal presence in the font-water, as is 
 already shewn iu this evidence.}t 
 
 *Theodoret. Dialog. 2. + Ribera in cap. 19. Apocalyp. 
 t Cnt. 5. art. 5. sec. 3. of the Adoration of the Host. ὃ Aug. Epist. 118. ο. 3. 
 || Chrysost. in 1. ad Corinth. Hom. 24. 
 1 Aug. Epist. 164. Baptismum Christi ubique veneramur. 
 ** In Luc. 1. 10. 22. ++ Optat. 1. 6. contr. Parmen. tt Cent. 1. art, 5. sec. 3. 
 
APPENDIX. ΟΧΧΙΧ 
 δ 6.—The Sixth Classis drawn ab Effectu Eucharistiz, answered. 
 
 Objection. 
 
 Bellarmine’s last head is taken from the wonderful effects which the 
 Fathers ascribe to the Eucharist: they say that we are thereby cor- 
 porally united to Christ. © 
 
 Solution. 
 
 1. Indeed, Cyril (one that strains it as high as any of them), makes 
 the union and conjunction between Christ and us,* real, natural, and 
 bodily : we hold the same, in the like sense, as St. Paul said,} that we 
 are σύσσωμα, con-corporal, of the same body: in the same sense as he 
 said, that “we are all bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh ;”t 
 alluding to the making of Eve, the woman out of Adam’s side; or, 
 as the same St. Paul saith, and the Fathers from him, that we are 
 σύμῴυτοι, complantati, planted together by baptism in the likeness of 
 Christ’s death :§ all which may be done by faith and the Spirit, without 
 partaking of the sacrament; and yet this wonderful union, wrought by 
 faith, is sealed up unto us in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the 
 communion of the body and blood of Christ.|| 
 
 2. And this may serve in answer to Bellarmine’s Synopsis Patrum. 
 If farther satisfaction herein be desired, it may be had in Alstedius’s 
 Supplement,4! annexed to Chamierus’s fourth tome of his Panstratia 
 Catholica. And more fully in the learned Bishop of Durham’s accurate 
 treatise of the institution of the blessed sacrament;** and yet more 
 punctually in his late learned decision of the whole doctrinal contro- 
 versy about the Eucharist ;}+ where (besides other judicious deter- 
 minations) he shall meet with an exact abridgment of the speeches of 
 the ancient Fathers objected by Bellarmine and others, for proof of a 
 corporal presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist, assoiled and 
 satisfied by the parallels and like equivalent sayings of the same 
 Fathers touching the sacrament of baptism. 
 
 And now let the reader, after he has well weighed the allegata and 
 probata out of the Fathers, judge, whether the Romish device of the 
 substance of the bread and wine to be flown away and gone, and in the 
 room thereof, a remainder of nothing else but accidents to stay behind, 
 were known to antiquity or not. 
 
 * Cyril. Alexander. Cent. 5. art. 5. sec. 2. + Ephes. 111., 6. | Ephes. y., 30. 
 § Rom. vyi., 5. || 1 Cor. x., 16. q Cap. 6. sec. 11 
 ** Book 8. c. 2. sec. 8. 
 ++ Totius Doctrinalis Controversiew de Eucharistia Decisio. Part. 3. per totum. 
 
 r 
 
“WAKEFIELD: 
 CHARLES HICKS, PRINTED, MARKET-PLACE. 
 
ney ᾿ if os a Hh a ; 
 
 ᾿; i » ἔν 
 ea hia eae ONIN el, ite Mae 
 
 Ν μ ἣν Ἵ 
 ’ i 
 ; ᾿ ἢ iy 
 a 1 
 5 as 
 τ 
 ΜᾺ Ἷ ὡ ig ᾿ 
 ᾿ , Ἢ ‘ HR 
 . ] 
 puters 
 alte 
 : “ 
 uf ἌΝ kh 
 ΠΡ ἢ ' iyi a 
 ' ATS. δι 
 εἶν ΥΩ, 
 δ 
 V¥ ¥ ‘s f 
 a) Ree 
 ᾿ κι, 
 ¥ Ν "Δ δ" 
 Vy 5 if ἊΝ ¢ Ae ᾽ν" 
 Ρ "τ PY, aa, ἢ ὲ 
 i or, ae 
 4 Ἷ ἊΝ 
 ἀν 
 
 ᾿ a a ἢ i 
 ¥ ἣν : ih Ὶ 
 Vi eee ἵν 
 Ἷ fsk ae 
 ies ἢ c 
 1 ᾿ in 
 a Ve 
 ᾿ ‘ ea ie 
 
 a ws j on 
 ae 4 ὯΝ 
 ; ὶ G1 ὑπ ns 
 
 ; ee 
 
 f aha QU on 
 pel el es ie 
 Hate i εἰ 
 
 be if ΚΟ Lie 
 
pee 
 
 0797 
 
 1 1012 0103 
 
 1 
 
; Bey ‘ 
 ἥν ἐὴ ot 
 
 ih 
 
 ᾿ , 
 
 Nh ie 
 
CSI eS, 
 SSL ge er bay TENE ree Page ψι ᾿ς πε oh οι δ MONT A MEAT AERA 
 
 ae aerasner ae 
 perdu orem 
 
 ot 
 ρον εν 
 
 mite" ; 
 weg LAY 
 sees aire 
 
 emit WN 
 eran 
 ms