ty a Pare wie vatalyte stein tate a AA } wey 4 Malis wA* ’ } Pree an Sem ee ! pedelateraty ala i tet Aad ] ahgie’ Vaetig hy ‘ ¢ 4 Kh at j pole, ei t : Wk gh Sh Aen es iy has ; satitanae ath hi } 4 » d nee Me dient ; oe if ‘ 5 ; be gto elilitad ys ac atin rats beat vey tod Senet Ns pertetet ct lets the sted rebate see eshte vr ein? r prauaget Fae Hash wietey sera ih 10 J ebro at Zu tf at dist td ate danbiceoat veh 7h aanesdst ear t se eae a eae Ta Wee at wee panera bya dni ana ie re * pti el eso. Leto +64 sh + + ¢ yy mo my ae Rs - 2 ae mes ...tC~:”:—‘“‘“‘(_ Dé. : ae Sates bose BV 825 .M342 Malan, Solomon Caesar, 1812- 1894. The Holy Sacrament of the Tardate« Gunnar Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/holysacramentofloOmala THE HOLY SACRAMENT THE LORD'S SUPPER, According to Scripture, Grammar, and the Faith. BY y THE REV. S. C. MALAN, M.A., VICAR OF BROADWINDSOR. “ Beloved—earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.’—Ep. 8. Jung, 3. LONDON : DAVID NUTT, 270, STRAND. MDCCCLXVIII. 7. RICHARDS 87 GREAT QUEEN STREET, WC. 4 rit VaR bik eh. ast i PREFACE. Havine been referred for certain doctrines concerning _ the Eucharist to godly doctors of old time, whom I took to be the early Fathers and Anglican divines, I looked into those I have at hand for the teaching in question. But, instead of it, | have, as yet, only found very different lore, some of which I have here brought together; in the hope of thereby saving a few of my brethren, as well as myself, from being “carried about with every wind of doctrine’’—earnestly wishing, as far as I can, in these days of trial and treachery, to help them in abiding loyal to their Church; and with her also, faithful to Christ and to the Truth as it is in Him. With the translation of the passages quoted from the Fathers, I have often given their original words ; not only out of respect for them, but also for the sake of greater accuracy. S. C. MALAN. Broadwindsor. Sept. 80. CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION. : : , : : ? Rene: ON THE TERM “ SACRAMENT”’ : ; : ae Or tHE Hoty Communion, or EvcHaRist . ; 2:20 1. OF THE Passover : ; f ; : a2 220 um. Or tHe InstituTION OF THE LoRD’s SuPPpeR . 42 1. Or THAT SACRAMENT AS REGARDS OURSELVES . 48 iv. Or THE InwaRD AND SprrituaL GRACE WE RECEIVE IN THAT HoLy SACRAMENT . . 109 Notes ON THE BREAD AND WINE FOR THE EUCHARIST j : ; ‘ : : . 161 INTRODUCTION. i: I. Tue inestimable benefits wrought by Christ for His Church are twofold : First, general, bestowed upon her as His Body, when by His atonement He rescued her from sin and death, and gave her eternal life and glory, through His inef- fable union with her in His human nature; to the end that ‘He should present her unto Himself a glorious Church, holy and without blemish’’,' when complete, and glorified with Him in His kingdom above. Secondly, the benefits of His Incarnation may be considered as particular, when applied to every one of us as members of His Body, through His personal intercourse with us individually, whereby we are made partakers of His divine nature or Godhead. This is the special boon we receive through our union with Him as God-man. It forms, as it were, the frame- work of our salvation, which consists in our fallen nature being once more raised by Him to its former state of acceptance with God; other graces which fill in or adorn that framework being more especially the work of the Holy Ghost as Third Person of the ih Holy Trinity. 1 Eph. v, 27. 9 INTRODUCTION. TI. But, as Christ’s human body is now in heaven, our union with Him, and His fellowship with us, must of necessity be through His Spirit or divine nature— spiritual. And this Spirit circulates in a mystical flow of hfe from Him, the head, through the body into the members; and from these back into the body, thus placing every living member of the Church both in fellowship with all other members of it, and in direct communion with Christ, the head: “ From whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love.””! ITI. But, as this body is mystical, both the real form and outline, and the true members thereof, are known only of Him who alone “‘ knoweth them that are His’’;” wherefore have men often greatly erred in trying to frame and fashion this body of Christ after their own conceits. Meanwhile He opens His arms wide, calling all men to share in the eternal life and glory that belong to His Church, on conditions so easy that every one who will may fulfil them. Not only does He send us “the word of faith’ through the preaching of His Gospel, giving us, withal, free access through Him to the throne of grace; but in pity for our infirmity, and lest we should stagger at things wholly spiritual, and thus beyond our compre- 1 Eph. iv, 16. 2 Tim. ii, 19. “ Numguid numerus eorum incertus est, qui in libro Dei scribuntur? Ergo nulla est difficultas in numero, quo- rum veritas manet in Scripto.”’—S. Hilar. Tract. in Ps. exxxix, 39. Of Sacraments. 3 hension, He gives us “outward and visible signs” of some ‘‘of the inward and spiritual graces’?! He has in store for us. By the one “outward and visible sign’? we receive from the Father, through Him, “ the adoption of sons”,? To Bamricpa viobecias yapw Tuyxaver ;> and by the other sign we are made “‘ very members incor- porate in His mystical body’* through faith.> In token of which faith “God sendeth forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba, Father’’;® that same Spirit the while “bearing witness with our Spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ’’.* Wherefore is that Spirit rightly said to be “in them that believe’ the handsel or “ earnest of their inherit- ance’’.§ IV. Yet, like as the life of our natural body is hidden, showing itself in outward acts or tokens, so also is the ! «Nos quidem mente atque intelligentia adeo cclesti Divina- que preediti non sumus, ut nobis Angelorum instar Divine gratie pure per se appareant; hac ergo ratione infirmitati nostre consu- luit Deus, ut qui terreni sumus atque ceci, in externis elementis ac figuris, quasi speculis quibusdam, ccelestes gratias, quas alioqui non cerneremus, intueremur; et id nostra maxime refert, ut sensi- bus etiam nostris Dei promissiones ingerantur, quo mentibus nos- tris sine ulla dubitatione confirmentur.”’—Nowelli Catech. de Saer., p. 156. «We may well, concerning the use of the Sacraments,” says Hooker (#. P. v, ch. lvii, 2) ‘‘ respect the time of their institution ; and it thereby appeareth that God hath annexed them for ever unto the New Testament, as other rites were before with the Old: regard the weakness which is in us, and they are warrants for the more security of our belief.” “Iva 5: Trav cuv7bwv nat Kata dvow, év Tots Umep Pvaw yevoucda.—J. Damascen. De Orthod. Fide, lib. iv. 2 Gal. iv, 5. 3 §. Cyril Hier. Cat. Mystag. ii. 4 Post Communion Service, second Collect. 5 Art. xxviii. 6 Gal. iv, 5, 6. 7 Rom. viii, 15. 8 Eph. i, 14; 1 Cor. i, 22. 4. INTRODUCTION. life or spirit of the mystical body of Christ hidden and mysterious ; seen only by its outward fruits in them that have it, but in itself beyond the ken of the human intellect. No amount of intelligence can make a man spiritual; that is, place him in intercourse with God. This is wrought only by God’s Spirit in fellowship with man’s own; it is a life divine, heavenly, that bears witness of itself in the heart that lives thereby, as the pulse that throbs in our veins tells of the life it carries throughout the body. This Spirit, however, is not breathed from above, this divine, heavenly life does not begin to beat within us, until we have received in simple faith the promises of God to us in Christ. Then is the Holy Spirit set by God as a seal to our faith, in proof that this is genuine and true. Notelse. For “since our life is hid with Christ in God’’, it must of necessity, on our part, rest on faith, ‘‘ which is to us the evidence of -thines not seen”; and as such, is.the prime principle, the foundation of all spiritual life in us. Ov yap apo Ths miaTews, AAN ek THS Twistews Téxva Ocov yiverOat KaTnéwmonoay avteEovciws. ‘‘ Not before faith’’, says S. Cyril of Jerusalem, “ but for their faith are they thought worthy rightfully to become children of God. Knowing this, therefore, we live in the Spirit, that we may be counted by God worthy of His adoption.’ For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God’”.? VY. This aspect of our mystical and mysterious life in God, which for us rests on faith, and on that only, 1 That is, here, “the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body’.—Rom. viii, 23, 2 Rom, viii, 14; 8. Cyril. Hier. Catech. vii. Of the Sacraments as Mysteries. 5 is the one that was best suited to the imaginative turn of the Greek mind. Hence were ‘‘the outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual graces” instituted by Christ, called wuornpia, Mysterizs, by the primitive apostolic Greek Church, in token of the deep, hidden, and mystical relation of the visible signs to the invi- sible graces, whereon our faith is brought to bear as “‘ evidence of things not seen.” For the term mystery (wuvotnptov),) which was a household word in every Greek family, comes from the verb “vw, which means both to shut one’s mouth, and also partly to close one’s eyes. Hence was puorypiov (mystery) said of sacred rites to which only certain persons were initiated (wewvnévor) and taught the hid- den and mystical bearing (wuotixds Noyos) of things represented by outward signs or symbols (cvpBona);? 1 Muornpiov comes from pio, and not from pvéw, albeit uvéw may be derived from pia. It is not easy to determine the time when the term pvorthpioy first came to be used. Mv’w occurs in Homer and Hesiod, though not uvorthpiov; but if one could believe what Ephorus said (Diod. Sic., v, 64), that about the time of Minos, when the Idzan Dactyli came to Europe, Orpheus brought to Greece teAetas kal wvothpia, we should then be able to notice pue- Thpia &yva mentioned in the Orphic hymns, 43, 78, etc., as well as the frequent occurrence in them of wviorns, ptotis, uvotaywyla, ete. ; but, of course, no faith can be put in them. Althotigh pvorjpioy clearly comes from piorns, and this from wiw, Clement of Al. de- rives it from a certain Athenian mentioned by Apollodorus, ard Muowvtds twos (Admon. ad Gent., p.10); while Aristotle (Rhet. ii, 24) derives pvorhpiov from pis, a mouse. “Ev 5€ 76 mapa Thy duwvuular, as TO pavat omovdaior eivar pdv, ap’ 08 y éoTly | TimwTdaTyn Tacav TEAETH’ Ta Yap mvoThpla Tac@v Timiwtdtn TeAeTH. Vossius, however, derives pos from pew, to hide itself; while others think it comes from uvw, to shut oneself up. For real scholarship on the subject, see Lobeck, Aglaophamus, Eleus., vol. i, ad init. 2 Pythagoras is generally said to have been the first to make use of symbols in his teaching: ’Avayxadtatos 5€ map’ a’te tpdros 9) j INTRODUCTION. which they were forbidden to mention (dppyta), not only because they were sacred, but also because they were mystical (wuotixa), hidden; and therefore but dimly seen, imperfectly known, or altogether unintel- ligible. The public festivals connected with these outward symbols, or representations of mystical subjects, were celebrated with great pomp in presence of the people ; but the rites themselves were performed, with the utmost secrecy, only before the initiated, for whom they were held to be of untold benefit, by reason of the mystical thoughts and contemplations (Pewpias puate- xat) to which they led. Thus Diodorus Siculus,! allud- ing to the famous mysteries of Samothrace, and to the rites connected with them, says: Tivec@au b€ pact Kat evaeBectépous Kal SuKaloTépous Kai Kata Tay Bedtiovas éavT@Vv TOUS TOV puUoTHpioy KoWwYjcavTas; that it was in general reported that those who thus took part (communicated) in those mysteries, were the most pious, the most just, and in every respect the best men among the rest. VI. The term mystery was thus readily adopted by the primitive Greek Church for whatever lore was be- yond human intelligence. Hven common phenomena, such as the decree set to the sea, and the course of the heavenly bodies, are by Justin Martyr? called ‘rou RidackaArlas trjpxe kal 6 dia Tov cuuBddAwv, 6 yap XapaxThp obTos Kal wap’ “EAAnot mev oxeddY Gmagwy, ate TadadtpoTos dv, eomovdagero (lam- blich De Vita Pyth., c. 23); while Porphyrius (De Vit. Pyth., p. 12, ed. Kiessl.) adds: “Edeye 6€ tia kat uusting tTpdry cuuBodriKGs—oiov br. Thy Oaddooay mev exdArer elvat Sdxpuov, Tas SE UpKrous, “Péas xeElpas kK. T. A. Q@cGv Te eixdvas ev SaxtvAlots uh popeiy, TovTéoTL, THY wepl Beav Sdtav Kat Adyov, uh mpdxetpov mnde pavepov Exe. 1 Lib. v, 49. 2 Ad Diogn., p. 498. Of the Sacraments as Mysteries. ~ Geod Ta xvotnpia, God’s mysteries, which all elements observe faithfully.” So also were the most solemn rites of the Church called in Greek Hoty Mysrerinzs. The Western Church, however, neither so imaginative nor so elegant in thought, nor yet so rich in language,! chose a more matter-of-fact term of her own, and called these mysteries Sacramenta, SACRAMENTS. It is, we will hope, owing to this term, which only implies, but does not itself express, a mystical act, that so much strife has taken, and still takes, place in the Church about “the Sacraments.” For it is but charitable so far to presume upon the common sense of most men, as to believe that, if they looked upon them as upon mysteries, namely, things which, as Bishop Jeremy Taylor says, “are not fit to be inquired into,” they would hearken to Hooker’s sensible ad- vice, “rather to meditate with silence what we have by the Sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how.” 1 This notorious poverty of the Latin tongue is often complained of even by Latin fathers. S. Basil also (Epist. cexv) alludes to it when speaking of of ard tijs Avoews ddeAgol, Td otevov THS EauvTaY yAdéoons bhopwuévor k.T. A.; While S. Hilary ceases not to expose the defects of the Latin version of his day,—e.g., Ps. exviii (cxix), v.32, ** Cor igitur dilatatur in quo sacramentum Patris et Filii residet ; verbi utriusque hujus latinitas nostra vel obscuritatem nobis affert, vel alterius intelligentie opinionem prebet.” And again, v. 33, * Rationem consequi versus hujus ex latina interpretatione difficile est.” And again, Ps. exxxviii (exxxix), “ Latina translatio, dum virtutem dicti ignorat, magnam intulit obscuritatem, non discer- nens ambigui sermonis proprietatem.” And that it was not mended after centuries of Romish manipulation is proved by Six- tus Senensis confessing that in the Latin Bible, “ as all the world knows, there are innumerable barbarisms and improprieties”’, says Bp. Jer. Taylor, Real Pres., p. 565. > E. P., bk. v, ch. lvii, 3. J & INTRODUCTION. i ie OF THE TERM ‘“ SACRAMENT.” I. The term Sacrament comes to us from the Latin sacramentum, which has various meanings; all of which, however, imply faith, and the sanctity of that faith when pledged. The Latin Christians, living as they did, surrounded by Roman legions, and often serving in them, adopted the term sacramentum, which they were in the habit of using for “‘the oath of faithfulness pledged by a soldier when enlisted to his captain,” in order to designate the avowed and formal acts in which they pledged themselves by a sacred faith, as soldiers of Christ, manfully to fight under His banner, and, for His sake,.rather to die in His ranks than yield ;' for such is the meaning of the term “ sacrament,” or “sacred and solemn pledge, or oath”, when said of Baptism and of the Supper of the Lord. Expressions, then, like the following, which we re- peatedly meet with in Latin writers—“ Ego magnopere suadeo, eodem animo, quo, si stantibus vobis in aciem armatis—consulibus sacramento liberi vestri dicant, ad quorum edictum conveniant, sub quorum tutela atque cura militent ;”? or, “ Tribuni plebis—ad populum fer- rent, ut qui minores septem et decem annis sacramento divissent,iis perinde stipendia procederent, ac si septem et decem annorum, aut majores, milites facti essent,?* 1 « Jam vero infame in omnem vitam ac probrosum, superstitem principi suo ex acie recessisse. Illum defendere, tueri, sua quoque fortia facta glorie ejus adsignare, precipuum sacramentum est.” —Tacit. Germ., xiv. a7 iw. EXE, Os 3 Tb.; SEV, 2. Of the term “Sacrament.” 9 etc., help us to understand the words of Tertullian : “Voeati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi jam tune, cwm in sacramenti verba respondimus” ;—“ > e \ \ >. / iE a € @ otpateverGe ab ov Kal Ta ofrwvia KomiferGe “ Please Him for whom ye fight, and of whom ye re- celve your pay,” said the holy champion for Christ,® when about to be offered, “Matus tay Sdecéptwp etpeOH, \ 4 e lal "4 e cA TO BaTTLT MA VLOV MEVETW WS OTda, let none of you de- 1 Tert. ad Martyr., c. iii. 2 S. Ambrose De Sacram., lib. i, c. 2. The same expression occurs elsewhere: Omou d€ ayav éxe? cal orépavos.—S. Ephrem. 3 Tac., Hist., iv, 46. +. Tds, 375: 5 Id., 56. ® Ces., Bell. Gall., vi, 1. ‘ Sacramento milites rogare, sive, ut est apud Festum, interrogare, significat rogare, an velint jurati nomen dare militiz. Alibi dicit sacramentum vel sacramento, h. e. inter- posito sacramento dicit, se esse velle militem.” On the oath then taken, and in what respect it differed from the sacramentum, see a note of Ernesti, s. v., in his index to Cicero, compared with Cre- vier’s note to Livy, xxii, 38. : 7 Ep. ii, 97. 8 §. Ignat. ad Polyc., vi. 10 : INTRODUCTION. sert from his ranks; but let your baptism be to you for armour, your faith for head-gear, charity for a spear, and patience for a panoply. Let your works be your pledge, laid under the standard of Christ, that ye may at last carry away your reward.””! II. But, as the term sacramentum, like puortnptoy in Greek, had various significations in the Roman tongue, though always implying a thing sacred, so do the Latin fathers apply it in other ways than to the sacraments of Baptism and of the Holy Hucha- rist. Indeed, “‘ few terms are used in a wider sense by them,” says John, Bishop of Oxford, in his Notes to S. Cyprian,” who writes of orationis Dominice sacramenta, the sacraments of the Lord’s Prayer; of sacramenta occulta rendere, scil. mysteria fidet, hidden sacraments or mysteries of the faith con- tained in Holy Scripture. Likewise 5. Ambrose, who calls the sacraments “‘ mysteria,”’ speaks also of sacra- mentum veritatis im eccl. predicate, the sacrament of the truth preached in the Church; of sacramentum mystertt Dei, quod est Christus im carne, the sacrament of the mystery of God, which is Christ in the flesh,’ etc. So also Tertullian uses sacramentum in speaking of religion ;* of the gospel ;> of the Word made flesh ;® of martyrdom ;’ of dreams caused by God;* of parables; 1 And 8. Cyril of Jerusalem also beautifully : “Iva uer& cwhpood- vns Kat Soyudtwy evoeBav Toy étidrotTov év capkl Bidoas xpdvoy THS mas TOU AvUTPOV owTHpias aroAavons, oTpaToAOynOEls TE OUTWS ev Ovpaviats OTpPATiais, TE TaTpt Kat Oc@* Kal Tov odparioy Katakiwbels sTEpdvar, ev Xpic7@ Inood TG Kuplw nuay, @ h Sdka eis Tovs ai@vas TOY aidvwr, aunv. —Catech., iv. * De Orat. Dominica, p. 142, ed. Oxford. ‘“ Nulla vox apud scrip- tores ecclesiasticos laxioris est significationis quam sacramentum.” SLAs LA 2 Cy dll, 4 Apol. adv. Gent., c. xv. 5 De Prescr., c. xxvi. 6 Tbid. 7 De Jejun., c. vii. 8 Ihb., c. viii. Of the Seven Sacraments. 11 of Baptism and of the Holy Communion; of the re- surrection ; of Christ,! etc. Likewise also does 8. Hilary frequently. Ill. To this variety of meanimg given to the term sacramentum in the early Latin church, may we ascribe the origin of the five other sacraments than the two we receive as having been ordained by Christ, namely Baptism and the Holy Communion. For as to the other so-called Sacraments of chrism, repentance, holy orders, extreme unction, and marriage, generally observed by the Western and Hastern Churches, not only do they rest on no special institution by Christ, but as some of them are neither necessary nor generally applicable to all, it is clear that they are not indispensable, and that therefore they are not, strictly speaking, Sacraments in the sense in which we rightly understand Baptism and the Supper of the Lord; that is, means or channels of certain spiritual graces, which, for aught we know, are necessary to salvation in the Church of Christ. (a.) Thus, as regards Chrism, or anointing with holy oil after Baptism, the Greek Church founds it on DUOC a ol 2am, Acts wang: W421 7.2.6 Livis,ad* ministered,” says the Armenian Church, “in memory of the descent of the Holy Ghost at the Jordan, and at the Pentecost, according to our Saviour’s promise. The Holy Ghost was conferred by the laying on of hands of the Apostles ;? but this sacrament is now ! The Emperor Maximus having called together the whole army to a solemn sacrifice, said in his address: ’Avti mod€uou pev eipnyny exovTes mpos deovs, ovs OuwudKate Kal viv pPuvddcoorTes THY OTPATIwWTIKOY bpkov, Os e€oTt THS ‘Pwalwy apx7s ceuvdy puvothpwv,—a passage which illustrates the ‘‘ militare sacramentum” as rendered into Greek by Herodianus, lib. viii, p. 179, ed. Steph. 2 ‘Iepa nat. 4. See also 8. Cyril Hier. Cat. Mystag., iii. 3 Acts, xix, 8. ibe 4 INTRODUCTION. administered by anointing the forehead, nose, and other organs of sense.! In both these Churches it is ad- ministered immediately after Baptism. In the Romish Church, however, wherein it is called Confirmation or Chrism,? it is administered when the child is come to years of discretion, by anointing only, without imposi- tion of hands; at least, Cardinal Bellarmine does not mention it, albeit Latin Fathers do. Thus, 8. Cyprian (Hp. lxxii) says: ‘eo quod parum sit eis manum im- ponere ad accipiendum Spiritum Sanctum, nisi accipi- ant et Ecclesie baptismum. Tunc enim demum plene sanctificari, et esse filii Dei possunt, si sacramento utroque nascantur.” Itis clear, however, (1) that even though Confirma- tion be a holy rite, tending to edification in the Faith and in greater grace of the Holy Ghost, it lacks the institution by Christ necessary to constitute it a sacra- ment properly so called; and (2) that if so be the inward and spiritual grace, whereby we understand the promise and gift of the Holy Ghost, implied in baptism, be deferred until later in life, it not only derogates from the intention and meaning of that sacrament, and makes it of less effect ; but it also places the baptized child in a less happy relation to his heavenly Father. But chrism, when administered at baptism, whether by pouring it upon the water as a figure of the Holy Ghost at Jordan, by anointing the child, or by both ceremonies, is an entirely human addition to the rite of baptism as ordained by Christ. For if so be, chrism is intended to represent the gift of the Holy Spirit, then (1) our Saviour’s words, “and of the Holy Ghost,” used at Baptism, are use- 1 Hrahank, Chr., p. 47, 19. 2 Bellarm., Dottr. Crist., p. 173. Of the Seven Sacraments. 13 less ; and (2) if the gift of the Holy Ghost be delayed until afterwards, and not promised, offered, or given to the child according to lus years from the first, in what relation does he stand to God as member of His Church ? | For this chrism, as part of baptism, we have no warrant whatever in Scripture, by which we will abide. “Ad initia redeundum est,” rightly says Bp. Jewell. The Church of England, therefore, very properly holds Confirmation to be what it really is, namely a holy rite whereby the promises made for the child at baptism, are solemnly confirmed by him, and God’s gifts ratified ; wherein it differs greatly from the Greek Church, that teaches respecting chrism administered immediately after baptism, ézevdn Kal tovTn 1) ydpis (va AGBy TO mvedpua TO’ Aytov) eivat dXAn ATO TOU Barticparos,! that the grace it confers, namely receiving the Holy Ghost, is different from the grace given at baptism. This, how- ever, is clearly repugnant to Scripture and to common sense. For, if itwere true, and the sacrament of baptism were thus divided into two distinct rites at the will of man,—the one of water, for the outward sign, and the other of holy oil, for the inward grace,—then would this inward grace clearly become man’s gift, as much as the outward sign. Man’s part, however, is only to administer the outward and visible sign, as minister of Christ’s ordinance ; but the inward and spiritual grace is God’s gift, and His only. (b.) As to Repentance, Penance, or Penitence, as it is variously called, which implies Confession and Absolu- tion, the Greek Church rests its sacramental character on St. Matt. xvii, 18, St. Jam. v, 16, ete. I will not 1 ‘lepa nar. p. 4, and 8. Cyril of Jer., Catech. Mvst., iii. 14 INTRODUCTION. here discuss the question of Absolution, leastwise that of Indulgences, sold or given by the Romish Church ; but only state that how far soever the question of Absolution be supposed to reach, and howsoever it be understood, it was neither ordained nor instituted by Christ at any particular time for any definite object, like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper ; but it only was a power given to His apostles as part of their apostolic office, to be by them used at discretion, as occasion required. Even supposing this “ power of the keys,’”! as it is called, to have been handed down from the apostles, in the same degree in which they received it—a doc- trine for which assertion does not suffice, but which requires proof, seeing sundry other gifts made to the apostles ceased altogether with the apostolic office—if the inward grace of remission of sins, said to follow upon the outward and visible sign of the priest’s 1 «Claves autem quibus aut claudere regnum ccelorum aut ape- rire possint [ ministri], ut Chrysostomus ait, dicimus esse scientiam Scripturarum: ut Tertullianus, esse interpretationem legis: ut Eusebius, esse verbum Dei. Accepisse autem discipulos Christi hance potestatem, non ut audirent arcanas populi confessiones, aut captarent murmura, quod sacrificuli nunc omnes passim faciunt, quasi in eo solo sita sit omnis vis atque usus clavium; sed ut irent ut docerent, ut publicarent evangelium; ut essent credentibus odor vite ad vitam—ut piorum animi, ut fores clave, ita illi verbo Dei aperirentur, hance esse rationem clavium: hoc facto aut aperiri aut claudi hominum conscientias; sacerdotem quidem esse judicem, nullius tamen eum potestatis, ut ait Ambrosius, jus obtinere. Igitur, ubi non sit verbum, ibi dicimus non esse claves.” —Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury, in his Apology for the Anglican Church, p. 15. «What, then, was the key given to 8. Peter?” asks S. Ambrose. “Clavem Petri fidem esse dixerim Petri, per quam ccelos aperuit,”’ ete. ‘The key of S. Peter, I should say, was his faith, by which he opened the heavens,” ete.—S. Ambr., Serm. xxxviii. Of the Seven Sacraments. 15 absolution, constitute this a sacrament, then clearly must also other priestly functions be sacraments as well. Faith, which is often called ‘‘ sacramentum,” is a grace that “cometh by hearing,” and hearing comes by the outward preaching of the Word of God; preaching, therefore, must also bea sacrament. Read- ing the Church Services, comforting the afflicted, praying, visiting the sick, &c., are all outward acts which are means of certain graces expected to result from them ; so then, must these also be called “ sacra- ments,” quite as much as the other priestly function of assuring a poor penitent sinner, that there is for- giveness for him with God, “ Who alone hath power to forgive sins.” This, however, is no sacrament, except, perhaps, in the sense given to it by Ter- tullian. But so are also certain dreams “ sacramenta”’ according to him. (c.) There would at first sight be more to say in favour of the so-called Sacrament of Holy Orders; for if so be baptism is an enlistment in the ranks of Christ, what else are Holy Orders, than that in a greater degree? Yet, neither is this a sacrament in the sense we take it, inasmuch as it does not belong to the whole of Christ’s body, but only to some of its members thereby set apart for their office; neither is it necessary to their salvation, inasmuch as they might be saved more easily without it; since it entails on them far heavier responsibilities than on any other members of the Church. Yet, the more the clergy look upon their orders in a sacramental light, the better for their own individual benefit. (d.) Neither is Hatreme Unction, which rests on St., Mark, vi, 13, St. Jam. v. 14, a sacrament properly so 16 ae es INTRODUCTION. called. Moreover, it is administered at different times in different churches ; the Romish Church administers it to all at the pomt of death; while the Armenian Church administers it only to sick or dying priests. The lay members of the Church have only prayers offered for them by the priest at their bedside. (e.) So also as regards Marriage, the sacramental character of which rests according to the Greek and Latin Churches, on S. Matt. xix, 3-11, and Eph. v, 25-32; the Armenian Church adding that, until, as they say, marriage was by Christ raised to the dignity of a sacrament, it was only a civil contract ; apparently forgetting that from the beginning “‘ God joined toge- ther the man with his wife.” It is then evident that the so-called seven sacra- ments were wrongly all raised to the same rank and dignity ; for the institution, object and benefit of Bap- tism, and of the Supper of the Lord, are other and greater than those of the rest; being, in their inten- tion definite and universal; and as regards the gifts imparted bythem, the same for all. All those so-called *““ sacraments” are indeed equally mysteries ; for what- ever we cannot understand is, to us, a mystery; and such is the connection between the grace given and the means or channel through which it is conveyed. But, so far, everything that relates to our spiritual life and growth in grace, through the inworking of the Holy Ghost in us as members of the mystical body of Christ, is mysterious; that is, beyond the power of our understanding to thread out or dissect. Therefore are we continually made to fall back upon faith, in-order to be practically reminded, that we are to “‘ walk by faith and not by sight,” as pilgrims “ to- Of the Two Sacraments. 17 wards the city which hath foundations, the builder and maker of which is God,” who is Spirit. So that the Greek Church errs in saying, “ toca pvoTnpia POdavouy, Kal Toca Eival ApKETA TpOs WuyeKiy coTnpiav, that so many (these seven) mysteries reach unto the salvation of the soul, and are sufficient for it’’; since prayer, without which we cannot live, and inter- course with the Father at the throne of grace, with- out which our life on earth would be a barren and desolate wilderness, are both mysteries to us. They are mysterious in their operation, mystical in their bearing, and assuredly necessary to our salvation, if this have to be “‘ worked out with fear and trembling.” Mysterious then and mystica! though they be, they yet are no “‘ sacraments.” IV. So then, as these seven mysteries are not the only ones connected with the salvation of our souls, so neither are they the only sacraments bearing on our spiritual life; according to the wide meaning of the term sacrament in Latin fathers. Rightly, there- fore, does the Church of England agree with the Primitive Church,! and in this respect differ from other branches of the present Catholic Church, in acknowledging only the two sacraments ordained by Christ. She thus takes the term “sacrament” in its most endearing, and, at the same time, most practical sense, 1 «Duo autem Sacramenta, que eo nomine proprie censenda sint, agnoscimus; Baptismum, et Eucharistiam. ‘Tot enim vide- mus tradita esse et consecrata a Christo, et 4 veteribus patribus, Ambrosio et Augustino, approbata.” —Jewelli Apol., p. 17, ed. 1837. For an interesting description of these two sacraments, as admi- nistered in the early Church, a.p. 143-150, see Justin Martyr, Pro. Christian., Apol. ii, p. 94. C 18 J INTRODUCTION. of pledged faith in an oath of allegiance to Christ, the Captain of our salvation, first taken by us, as in loyal duty bound, at our baptism (prius militare sacra- mentum ;* confessa et jurata m baptismo, in regenerati- onis sacramento, fides) ;? and afterwards renewed (reno- vandum, resumptum saci.) at the Holy Communion of His body and blood, in loving acquaintance with Him,’ and in fellowship with other members (eusdem sacra- menti mtlites, ac eodem sacramento imbutr) of His own mystical self, V. The two sacraments ordained by Christ, who alone could embrace them both within Himself, évos yap movou Lays avTY éoTl Kal ETAL, Ov TO dvom“a TaCA apy Séduev,’ as generally necessary to salvation, are Baptism and the Supper of THE Lorp. ‘They are said to be “ generally necessary,”’ because to speak other- wise would be to limit the grace of God to our own estimate or gauge of it; while, at the same time, we have no right to presume upon His grace being bestowed on us, unless we use the means which He has appointed for that purpose and placed within our reach.? Concerning which, “‘ howsoever men’s opinions do otherwise vary,” says Hooker, “ nevertheless touching baptism and the Supper of the Lord, we may, with consent of the whole Christian world, con- 1 Tacit. 2 §. Hilar. Ad Constant. August., lib. i, 4. 3 « We receive Christ Jesus in baptism once as the first begin- ner; in the eucharist often, as being by continual degrees the finisher of our life.”,—Hooker, E. P., bk. v, c. lvii, 6. 4 J, Mart., Dial. c. Tryph., p. 338. 6 «Si quis sacramentorum usum ac si opus iis non haberent, as- pernarentur, non modo arrogantiz summe, sed et impietatis etiam in Deum merito damnari debere existimo.” (Nowelli Cat., p. 153, ed. Oxf.) Of the Two Sacraments. be clude they are necessary, the one to initiate or begin, the other to consummate or make perfect our life in Christ.”7 1 Keel. P., bk. v, Ixvii, 13, and lvii, 5. « 9.—Quot in ecclesia sua sacramenta instituit Dominus ? «A,—Duo. “Q.— Que ? «A.— Baptismum et Sacram Coenam: quorum communis est in- ter omnes fideles usus. Altero enim renascimur, altero sustenta- mur ad vitam eternam.” (Nowelli Cat., p. 159.) Dean Nowell died in 1602, aged ninety-five. He was the last survivor of the fathers of the English Reformation, giants of old, men of renown, who for learning and loyalty to their Church have but few representatives at present. OF THE HOLY COMMUNION, OTHERWISE CALLED THE EUCHARIST, OR SUPPER OF THE LORD. I. Whatever dissensions ever took place in the Christian Church with regard to Baptism, they amount to very little compared with the warfare caused by the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The reason may partly be this: that Baptism, though a Sacrament, is nevertheless also a rite of initiation, which is valid by the riteful or correct administration of it alone, inde- ‘ pendently of the faith or feelings of the recipients, as in the case of infants; whereas the Holy Communion bears wholly on the faith and feelings of those who partake of it. Whence it has come to pass, says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, that instead of ‘ the holy sym- bols of the Eucharist being, as they were intended to be, a contesseration, and an union of Christian socie- ties to God and with one another; the evil taking it disunites us from God; and the eyil understanding it divides us from each other.””! “And yet,” continues the same learned, sensible, and holy prelate, ‘‘if men would but do reason, there were in all religion no article which might more easily ex- cuse us from meddling with questions about it, than this of the holy sacrament. So we may say in this mys- tery to them that curiously ask what or how is it? 1 Real Pres., sect. i, 1. The holy Eucharist a Mystery. 21 mysterium est; it is a sacrament and a mystery: by sensible instruments it consigns spiritual graces; by the creatures it brings us to God; by the body it minis- ters to the spirit. And that things of this nature are undiscernible secrets, we may learn by the experience of those men who have in cases not unlike vainly laboured to tell us, how the material fire of hell should torment an immaterial soul, and how baptismal water should cleanse the spirit, and how a sacrament should nourish a body, and make it sure of the resurrection.” “Tt was happy with Christendom when she in this article retained the same simplicity which she always was bound to do in her manners and intercourse; that is, to believe the thing heartily, and not to inquire curiously ; and there was peace in this article for almost a thousand years together, and yet that tran- substantiation was not determined, I hope to make very evident. In synaaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit ecclesia; diu satis erat credere, sive sub pane consecrato, sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Christi’ So said the great Erasmus (1 Cor. vii). “Tt was late before the Church defined transubstantia- tion; for a long time together it did suffice to believe that the true body of Christ was present, whether under the consecrated bread or any other way.’”? Then, after quoting various Romish authors, and 8. Cyril of Alexandria (in 8. John, 1. 4, c. 18), to show that, ‘not only would he not have the manner [“ the manner how”’—Hooker] determined, but not so much as thought upon, for if we go about to think it or under- stand it, we lose our labour”—and likewise 8. Bernard (Ep. 77), quomodo enim id fiat, ne in mente intelligere, 1 Real Pres., 2. 2 Tbid., 2. 22 ' The holy Eucharist a Mystery. nec lingua dicere possumus, sed silenter et firma fide id suscipiamus, to the effect that ‘we can perceive the thing by faith, but cannot express it in words, nor understand it with our mind’’—Bishop Taylor sums up the whole, saying :— “The sum is this. The manner was defined but very lately ; there is no need at all to dispute it: no advantage by it, and therefore it were better it were left at hberty to every man to think as he pleases; for so it was in the Church for a thousand years together; and yet it were better men would not at all trouble themselves concerning it; for it is a thing impossible to be understood ; and therefore it is not fit to be in- quired after.’’} II. And so it would be best, in sooth, if men would but hearken to the sober advice of so high an autho- rity and “do reason,” and let alone a mystery into which one man can see no deeper than another, what- ever be his pretensions ; and thus agree to differ on a subject which no man can determine, simply because “it is an undiscernible secret,’? about which every one must, after all that is said and done, think as he will, as to “the manner how’’, so that he believe in the truth of the sacrament itself. This would be but sensible, and we should have comparative peace in the Church. Whereas it would seem as if the more mys- terious the subject, the more were certain men bent on laying down the law—not always that of charity— for others either to follow, or, if not, to be by them thrust out of the pale of the “ Catholic” Church as they call it; making “ by error or interest,” as Bishop Taylor says, ‘“‘ the manner an article, and declaring it 1 Real Pres., sect. i, 2. The holy Eucharist a Mystery. 23 to be of the substance of the thing,” which it is not and cannot be; for us men, at least. For it is part of a mystery, which even angels desire to look into. Adros 8€ otSev 6 Oeds To 7as éotw.' God alone knows it. But as, unfortunately, this sacred subject has been, and is now, made one of party strife m the Church, we are driven to examine certain questions in the matter of the Holy Eucharist, put forth with enough assur- ance to awe the unlearned. Now, therefore, as often before, must every man who will not seek peace and unity in either doubt, indifference or sleep, make ready to give a reason of the hope that is in him, and see for himself what the truth is. For we hear a great deal of the Catholic Church and of the Catholic truth, as if they both were a new discovery, from certain men lately sprung up in the Church of England who call themselves Catholics, but, “whom,” said Arch- bishop Laud in 16738,? “ I ever observed to be great Pre- tenders for Truth and Unity, but yet such us will admut neither, unless they and their faction may prevail im all; as if no Reformation had been necessary.” “For there is no greater absurdity stirring this day in Christen- dom, than that the Reformation of an old corrupted church, will we, nill we, must be taken for the building of anew. And were not this so, we should never be troubled with that idle and impertinent Question of theirs : Where was your Church before Luther? for it was just there where theirs vs now.” 1 §. Epiph. Ancor., iv. 2 Relat. of Conf., preface. The italics are in the text. 3 None of those who now mourn over the Reformation, and who even call the Reformers “unredeemed villains” (see The Guardian for May 20, 1868), can well find fault with my quoting from a copy of Archbishop Laud’s Conference with Fisher, given me when I was 24, , Holy Scripture our Rule of Faith. How well these words suit the present time, I need be at no great pains to show. For, in sooth, one may well wonder at sundry things, both in doctrine and practice, which are now taking place in the Church, while the works of such men as Jewell, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Archbishop Laud, and Hooker, are yet to be had. Are those writings too old or too plain, too sound, too honest or too learned for some of the pre- sent race of clergy, who talk and write as if they alone were “the Catholic Church,’ and alone knew “ the Catholic Truth’; and as if wisdom was born and would die with them? Strange that they should try so hard—‘‘ as if no Reformation had been necessary” to undo the work their fathers did, by disloyal acts towards the Church for which those frail, yet great and good men hazarded their lives unto death. III. To the law, however, and to the testimony. To that word which, says 8. Augustine, “ nunquam silet, sed non semper auditur,” “ which, though i be never silent, yet 1s not always heard. That it is never silent is his great mercy ; and that its not always heard is not the least of our misery” says again Archbishop Laud.”! For Holy Scripture alone draws the bound- aries of the Catholic Church, and settles what is the Catholic truth, against, over, and above all possible assumptions, pretensions or professions of men; be they who they may. For “Holy Scripture containeth an undergraduate, by my late excellent friend, Charles Marriott of Oriel, who then asked me to study it. This shews how little like the deep, earnest, and withal loyal Anglicans of thirty years ago, the pretended followers of them are at present; but rather what a strange development of those men some of the so-called ** Catholics” of to. day seem to be. 1 Relat. of Confer., preface. Holy Scripture our Rule of Faith. 25 all thing's 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 faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” So says the Church of Eng- land, and with her all the true and most devoted men of old.! Sdharrcrbat yap avayKy méyata Tois weylaTous 1 Art. vi.i—< Extant hodie Sacre Literz, extant Scripta Aposto- lorum et Prophetarum, ex quibus omnis veritas, et doctrina Catho- lica probari possit, omnis heresis refutari.’—Jewelli Apol., p. 9. No true Anglo-Catholic priest can omit the study of that honest man’s book, especially at the present time. “All those writings which contain in them the Law of God, all those venerable books of Scripture, all those sacred tomes and volumes of Holy Writ, they are with such absolute perfection framed, that in them there neither wanteth anything the lack whereof might deprive us of life, nor anything in such wise aboundeth, that as being super- fluous, unfruitful, and altogether needless, we should think it no loss or danger at all if we did want it.” ‘In like sort, albeit Scripture do profess to contain in it all things that are necessary unto salvation; yet the believing cannot be simply of all things which are necessary, but all things that are necessary in some cer- tain kind or form; all things which are necessary to be known that we may be saved; but known with presupposal of knowledge concerning certain principles whereof it receiveth us already per- suaded, and then instructeth us in all the residue that are neces- sary. In the number of these principles, one is the sacred author- ity of Scripture.”— Hooker, E. P.,bk. i, c. xiii, 2, 3; xiv, 1, 2, et seq. «But, sure I know, there is a great deal of difference between ethnicks that deny and deride the Scripture, and men that are born in the Church. The first have a farther way about to this prin- ciple; the other in their very Christian education suck it in, and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it, that the Books com- monly called the Bible, or Scripture, are the Word of God. AndI dealt with you as with a Christian, though in errouwr, while you call Catholike.”—“ My meaning is that the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God, and infallible, is an equal, or rather a preceding prime principle of faith with or to the whole body of the Creed.”— , “You see neither Hooker, nor I, nor the Church of England (for 26 é Of the Passover. eyyelpovvTas Tpaymacw, HV wn TOV Kavova THS adnOeias [Tas dylas ypadds| wap’ avtihs NaBdvtes Eywou THs adnGeias. “For they must needs very greatly err in important matters,” says S. Clement of Alexandria, “unless they take the rule of truth from the truth itself, Holy Scripture.” ! | iB OF THE SUPPER OF THE LORD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ; OTHERWISE CALLED THE PASSOVER. I. Without dwelling at length on facts familar to us all, we must nevertheless notice how little of chance or of accident, and how much of deliberate purpose and settled design there is in the way in which God led His Church at her beginning. Christ, says the ought I know) leave the Scripture alone to manifest itself by the light which it hath in itself. No; but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way, like a preparing morning-star to sun- shine, then indeed we settle for our direction, yet not upon the first opening of the morning light, but upon the Sun itself.”—Abp. Laud, Relat. of Confer., p. 75, 28, 77 et seq. *Tyvatios—Avyvou Sixny Oetxod Thy Exdotov dwtifwy Siavoiay bia THs TaV Oelwy ypapay é&nyhoews.— Martyr. Ien., i. ’Evedarrete eis Tas ypa- pas, Tas GAnOEts Phoes Mvedpatos Tod ‘Aylov.—S. Clem. Ep. ad Cor., i, 45.—K’ ayo efrov ypapas buiv aviotopety méAAw, ov KaTacKeunY Adywy ev porn TéexYN emtdelkvvcbat oretdw'—kal cov A€yorTos odx Hverxducba Ef LH rdvra emt Tas ypapas aviyes. c& avTwy yap Tas dmodet~ers moretoOa omovdd- fes.— Justin Mart., Dial. c. Tryph., p. 280, 277, etc. It would be needless to multiply examples of this from the Fathers. I will only add the testimony of 8. Hilary: ‘ Quia in divinis rebus non frequentius dicta, sed tantum dicta sufficiunt: tamen quid de hoc eodem dictum sit, cognosci oportet. Non enim divinorum dicéo- rum, sed intelligentie nostre a nobis ratio prestanda est.’”’—De Trinit., lib. iv, 19. 1 §. Clem, Al. Strom., lib. vii, p. 756. Of the Passover. 27 holy apostle, was with her in the wilderness where He already fed her with spiritual meat and drink; yet only after she had been baptized in the sea unto death to Egypt and unto life to God. But ere she could be baptized, fed, followed and ten- derly cared for on her way to the Land of Promise, she must first have been rescued from bondage to the world, Egypt; and saved from the doom that land had brought upon herself. This was done, when on that memor- able eve in the early spring, the blood of the Lamb without blemish was by God’s order sprinkled over the doorposts and the lintel of every Israelitish home. The angel of Death saw it, halted [ D5], passed it over, [tmépBacts, Jos. duaBdous, Theophyl. dva8arnpia, Phil.| and did not touch it. II. It was saved by the blood of the lamb. But the lamb itself, which was killed by every householder, was by the family eaten in common, not in order to be saved by the flesh of the lamb,—the salvation was wrought by the blood thereof alone, sprinkled over the doorway,—but in token that, being now saved by the death of the lamb, which death was seaied by the shedding of its blood, the family was now through it alive unto God. That lamb was eaten roast, with bitter herbs, and with the purtenance thereof ;! no bone of it was to be broken, and nothing of it left until the morning; or, if left, it was to be consumed with fire ; and those who ate it, in that night, fleemg as they were for their life, had their feet shod, their loins girt about and their staves in hand, as wayfaring men ready to depart. III. But as the salvation, the rescue, and the flight _ i Ex, er. Ae! Of the Passover. could only be wrought that once; and as the same circumstances would never again take place, so also were all the special ceremonies connected with that one night only, never again to be repeated; as, for instance, the sprinkling of blood, the common way of eating the lamb, the hurried departure etc. reckoned to nine particulars which distinguished “ the Passover of Kgypt,” say the Jewish Rabbis, from the Passover of the following generations ;! the Egyptian Passover being the Institution of the Feast, and all other after celebrations of it being kept only in remembrance of that one. Thus in the wilderness was Israel told that when he came to the Land of Canaan the Passover would only be killed in one place; in the place which the Lord would show. And he showed Jerusalem,? the Salem of Melchise- dek, who, there also, met Abraham and refreshed him with bread and wine. For while Israel was with Joshua taking possession of the Land of Promise, no particular place could be named wherein to celebrate the Passover; since the country was not yet declared to be God’s territory, nor Jerusalem the city of the great King. The first Passover, therefore, of which we hear after the one kept in Joshua’s time, was at Jerusalem, neither could it have been kept any where else ; when once the ark had found a resting-place in the Temple, reared on Mount Moriah, hallowed as this hill had been by the sacrifice of Isaac, by the blessing of Melchisedek, and consecrated as it was to be for ever- more by the Sacrifice upon the Cross of the Son of 1 peysyy mDSS OMY MDD. see A. Ezra on Exod. xi, Carpzov. Appar. Critic, p. 405, seq. Relandi, Antig. Sacre, p.424 sq. 2 Justin M., Dial. c. Tr., p. 259. Of the Time of the Passover. 29 God Himself—of the Lamb without blemish and with- out spot prepared before the foundation of the world. To puotipiov ody tod mpoBdtov 6 To mdacya Ovew évtétartat 0 eds, TUTr0s Hv TOU Xpictov, ob TO aipare KaTa TOV NOYOV THS Els avTOV TlaTEWS, XplovTaL TOS olkous EAUT@V, TOUTéCTW, EaUTOUS, Of TlaTEVOVTES Ets avtov. The Sacrament (or the mystery), therefore, of the lamb which God commanded to be sacrificed at the Passover, was a type of Christ, with whose blood those who believe in Him sprinkle (anoint) their own houses, that is, their own selves, according to the analogy of faith in Him.”?! It is here, therefore, at Jerusalem, that we must look for the rites and ceremonies of the Passover, which bear directly on the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Christ at the last Passover He kept with His disciples. (a.) Of the Time of the Passover. I. A feast like this, which was at once typical of death and of resurrection, could oniy take place in the early spring, when winter is just over and the earth sings afresh a hymn of life and thanksgiving unto God. "Apa ovxt viv 9 yh av@av wrypns ; is not the earth now covered with flowers? says 8. Cyril of Jerusalem,” Kal Téuvouct Tas GuTrédoUS; OAs OTwS Kal TOV YELLavA elmre RowTrov wapeNOovta, EZavOixod tovtov Tod pnvos évesT@Tos: éap eats douTrovs O dé KaLpos eoTLV OvTOS O pany o tap’ ‘EBpaious mpa7os, €v 6 7 €opTH TOD Tacya TOD mpotépov Tvmtxov, voy dé adnGwod; and do they not ' Justin M., Dial. c. Tr., p. 259. 2 Catech. xiv. 3) Of the Time of the Passover. now prune the vine? Thou seest how he says (Song of Songs, ui, 14), that the winter is passed now that this month of Xanthicus is at hand, and spring is coming. ‘This season is called by the Hebrews the first month, in which the feast of the typical Passover took place, and in which the true one is now celebrated.” This Macedonian month, which corresponds in part to March and April, was so called from the yellow or tender green of the early spring,’ and thus agrees even in meaning with ‘‘the month of the green ear,” rendered by mistake ‘‘ the month of Abib,” which was to be the first month or head of the year for the Israel- ites when an independent people; as Aprilis (April) was so called from opening (aperire) the season of a new existence® after the trance of winter months. 1 EavOucds or Zavdinds (Xandhicus) must have reference to the fresh green of early spring rather than to the colour of the crops when ripe, inasmuch as in Macedonia the harvest does not take place in spring, but in summer. With this agrees the definition of fav@ds, given by Aristotle (mep? aio@. 4, 18), Acimera: yap Tb EavOdy mev Tov Aevaud Evor wowep TO Aimapdy Tov yAuvKeos; wherewith we may com- pare tas xépas—Aevkal cio. mpds Oepicudy H5n.—S. John, iv, 35, where Aevxal is said of the wheat when changing colour, which expresses exactly 3°ANr1 the ear when aviv, green, succulent, full-grown, and just beginning to ripen. As a further proof of this, I may quote the sixth line of the Greek inscription of the Rosetta Stone : envos Eavdixovd rerpaddi, Aiyurtiwy 5¢ Mexelp oxtwxaidexdtn, where we read that the 4th of Xandhicus corresponded with the 18th of Mechir, that is, March the 27th B.c. 196. Maivojjs 5¢ roby Nioay, bs éort ZavOinds, pivampGrov ém rats Eoprais Spice, Kata TovTov é&’Arvybnrav tovs ‘EBpalous mpoayayév. Ovbros § ait@ Kail mpos amdoas Tas eis TO Ociov TIMaS Hpxev’ emt wévTovye mpdces Kal avas, Kal Thy &AAnY Sioiknow, Tov mpaTov Kéopov SiepiAake.—Josephus, Ant. Jud., lib. i, ¢. ili, 3, and lib. iii, c. x, 5. 2 Tives 8 od Si ’Adpodirny tov ’AmplAdtov daciv, ddA’ bowep Exet Tov- voua wiAdv, AmpiAdiov KexAjoOu roy piva Tis éapwis Spas axualotons avoiyovta Kal dvakadtatoyta Tovs BAacTo’s TOY puTHY' TOVTO Yap 7 YAGO- oa onuaive. (Plutarch, Numa, c. 19.) Of the Time of the Passover. 31 II. At the institution of the Passover, God men- tioned to Moses no name of any particular month, either Egyptian or other, for the following reasons :— (1.) The Israelites had no reckoning of months of their own while in bondage, but were now about to begin a new existence as God’s people, through the rescue He was working for them. (2.) Whatever the popular names of Egyptian months may then have been, whereof we have only few traces left at present, the vague and the tropical years of the Egyptian calendar so crossed each other, that the same month, which at the time of the Exodus was in the early spring, would in course of time go the round of the seasons, and thus be, years after, either a winter or a summer month. And (3) because no Egyptian reckoning would have been fit for the people of God, which was forbidden by Him even to mention the country, her worship or her gods ever after; except to thank Him, as in the pas- chal blessing of the bread, for having brought them out thence. III. Neither could this deliverance have taken place at any other season :— (1.) Because; later in the year, so great a multitude of men, women, children, and cattle, could not have escaped dry-shod from the land of Rameses, on account of the inundation of the Nile that would have hemmed them in. But (2) especially, because the circumstances of the Passover and of the Exodus were so wholly typical of a new and better state of existence for the redeemed of Christ, our Passover, who is the true Paschal Lamb, that those types must needs have taken place ' on! Of the Time of the Passover. at the opening of the new year, at the season of the new fruits, when the earth brings forth her bud and is covered with flowers; and at no other.! Therefore, not only was “ the month of the green ear,” the first of the Jewish year, but even in Egypt, where the civil year began with Thoth late in August, did the Church adopt a reckoning of her own, and make Pharmuti (March-April) the beginning of her Christian year ;” THY apxnv Tov véov ETOUS @ KaLp@ edeL TO TaTYA Qvec@a, “the beginning of the new year,” says S. Athanasius,? ‘the season at which the Passover should be killed.” IV. But, inasmuch as this “‘month of the green ear” must of necessity vary in its position in the calendar, to the extent of a whole moon, the Hebrews intro- duced, when requisite, an intercalary or thirteenth month called Ve-adar, in order that, come what might, “the green ear” or first-fruits of barley then ripening 1 Ka@ Exacrov obv eviavtby broutuvhjoKkwy 6 @eds TAS ToD Kdopou yeve- cews, avepnve TO Cap, ev @ mavta avOet Kal BAacTave:, Sidrep ovK amd TKO- Tov Tp@TosS avayéypamTa: wv ev Tos véuors. ‘God wishing to remind man every year of the creation of the world, brings out spring, in which every thing blossoms and buds forth. Wherefore is it not without reason that this month is called “ first” in the law. ( Philo. De Fest., p. 1191.) 2 8. Cyril Al. in Zoega Codd. Memph., p. 24, and Codd. Sahid., p. 615. 3 C. Ar, Disp., Vol. i; p. 139; 4 Suvarre 5€ tats SiaBatnplois éopty—efuua. The feast of unleav- ened bread is attached to the Passover; and the unusual food then eaten, unleavened bread, was a figure of the unripe corn: kata 6€ Tov Kaipov exeivov (Aéyw 5& Ti eapiwhy Spar, év f ovuBaiver thy éoprhy &yeoOa) 6 Tod olrov Kapmds areAns eott. For about that season, I mean spring, when the feast is kept, the corn is not yet fully ripe ; but the standing corn not yet ready for harvest, was by the law figured in the unleavened bread, which is in itself imperfect, being without leaven.””—Philo De Fest., p 1191. Of the Time of the Passover. 35 should always be “in the first month,” and the Pass- over on the fourteenth day thereof. As this feast thus moved with the season, all other important feasts of the Jews which were regulated by it were also, with it, moveable. For the Passover was the feast not so much of a particular month as of a particular season— spring. And as it was the commemoration of a rescue wrought by God for Israel, with “a high hand and a stretched out arm,’ and from the political death of a grinding bondage to the political life of freedom as people of God, the Passover was not only the first solemnity of the Hebrew Church, aitn (€optn) yap KaTapye Tacw éribavelas Kal ceuvoTntos ;} but it also was chief in the civil reckoning that began in October.’ With Israel, therefore, it was “the Feast,” and so it has been with the Church of Christ ever since, 7) BaciNiooa Tov nwépwv,® the queen of days. V. There was another and “lesser” Passover, kept on the 14th of the following month, Tar, for the benefit of those who were prevented from keeping “the Feast.” Jt lasted only one day, and was celebrated with far less solemnity.” . / / Philo speaks of o:rés, corn, in general; but Josephus is more exact, and specifies barley as the first-fruits waved as a peace- offering on the second day of unleavened bread. Kal ta @e@ tds dmapxas THs «pbs empepovot tpdrov Todrov' ppttavres TaY oTaxvev Td dpayua Kal mricavtes, kal naapas mpbs GAcoTay Tas KpiOds monoarTes, TO Bwug aoodpova mpocdyove. 76 cw. Then adds Josephus, xa) rére eteots maow bef{fev, after which the people is allowed to reap (An- tig. Jud., lib. lii,c. x,5) ; for, says Philo (Quest.in Exod. I. Armen.), spring is the time of harvest. 1 Phil. De Fest., p. 1191. * Joss 4... lib. ive. 3. 3 8. Greg.. Naz., Orat. xlii. 4 Numb. ix, 10, 11. D 34: ; Of the Celebration of the Passover. (b.) Of the Celebration of the Passover at Jerusalem in the days of our Saviour. I. The lamb set apart, whether on the 10th day! of the first month, or later, was killed on the 14th. This was strictly speaking the Passover, MDSM, Tacya kupim; the next day, 15th, being called “the feast,’ €op77, IM; and the beginning of the unleavened bread, which was eaten until the 21st day of the month. “’Exeivny thy jpépav povnv Ilacya ot viol ‘lopaiyX mpocnyopevov, THY Sé Le Kal Tas peT aLTHY ¢' nyepas.é€opTyv “Afvpov.” The children of Israel called this day alone “ the Passover,” but the 15th and the six following days, they called “the feast of unleavened — bread.”? But inasmuch as the Passover was eaten with unleavened bread? in the night of the 14th, there- fore was this night reckoned both to the 14th and to the 15th day, according to Jewish custom, which was, in civil matters, to reckon from sunrise to sunrise, and im sacred ones from evening to evening.t So that, while “the Feast’? was sometimes held, as by S. Clement Al., to begin on the 10th day—arro dexarns,° when the lamb was chosen; or said, as by Philo, to last €x dvotv EBdoucdébow,' the best part of two weeks— “the Passover’? was often called “the feast of un- leavened bread,” as by 8S. Luke, xxu, 1; or also 7 TpaTn [nepal Tov avimar, as by S. Matt., xxvi, 17, which may thus be rendered—either “ the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the passover,” L Ex, xii. 2 Chron. Alex. in Reland’s dAntiq. Sacr., p. 422. 8 Ex. xii, 18. 4 H. g., ofjmepov év tH vuntt tadTn.—S. Mk. xiv, 30. » Strom. li, p. 302. 6 De Septen, et Fest., p. 1190. Of the Celebration of the Passover. 30 S. Mark, xiv, 12; or else “the day before the feast of unleavened bread,” if this be reckoned from the 15th only ; zp#rn being here understood in the sense of mpatos in S. John 1, 15, 30, namely, “before,” as Reland remarks. II. On this 14th day was the lamb killed—zravdnpet, by the whole people.! This, by God’s order and according to the testimony of Josephus, took place “‘ between the two evenings,” oan Pa, that is, aro évvatns Opas péype EvdeKaTyS, from the ninth hour to the eleventh—from three o’clock to five of our time; but owing to the great number of lambs (256,500 were slain at one feast) the slaughter lasted xara pweonwSplav ews éorrépas, “‘ from about noon until the evening.”* When the house was too small for the lamb, men joined in companies, dpatpias, AYNIM, of not less than ten and not more than twenty, in order to kill and eat the passover together; inasmuch as, wovov yap ovK eats baivuc Gat,’ it was not lawful for one man to eat it alone. Il. The lambs, however, were not killed in private houses, but brought by the people to the temple, and there slain in the outer courts by relays of men, from whom the priests received the blood in a bason, and poured it at the foot of the altar. For there could now be no sprinkling of it on the houses: that was done once for all when the salvation of the people was thereby wrought in Egypt. This of course could not be acted twice; but the feast, t7o- LUNTLKH THs pweylatyns aTrouias, was held in memory of the great exodus, To 6¢ mpayOev dpav éedijxev 6 vopos 1 Philo, ib. Hx, xii, 6) 3 De Bello Jud., lib. vi, ec. ix. 4 Philo, ib. > Josephus, ib, 36 1 Of the Celebration of the Passover. amaké, Kat éviavTov ExacTor, cis evyapLoTias UTOmVyCL, and the law directed that what was then done should be repeated afterwards once every year, aS a com- memoration of thanksgivings.' It was, in very truth, dypodavns éopty, “a feast of the whole people,” “in which,” continues Philo, himself a Jew, “ private individuals did not, as at other times, bring to the altar victims to be slain by the priests; but it is a feast in which, by order of the law, ctumav To éOvos iepatat, the whole nation sacrifices, while every one for himself slays his victim with his own hands.”? Then did the people rejoice greatly, every man thinking himself honoured with the office of priest, lepwourns TeTLuno Oat OTe Ovover Tavonpel AVTOV ExacTOS, Tovs lepels AVT@V OUK avapévorTEs, lepwatynY TOD Vop0U yaploamévov TO EOver TravTi lav ipuépay eEaipeTov ava Tap €TOS, els avToupyiav Ovovmy, when every one of the people killed for himself, not waiting for the priests ; the law having granted to the whole nation one chosen day every year for them to offer their own sacrifices.® In ratification, even under the law, of this promise— “Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation”’*—a shadow of the real and holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, “acceptable to God by Jesus Christ ;”> and a fact that deserves notice in connexion with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as our Pass- over. IV. Every lamb was then skinned, being hung either on iron hooks against the walls of the court, or, as these did not suffice, on small sticks placed on the 1 Philo, De Septen. et Fest., p. 1190. 2 Id., De V. Mos., lib. iii, p. 686. 3 Id., Decal., p. 766. 4 Ex. xix, 6. 5 1 Pet. ii, 5, 9; Rev. 1, 6. Of the Celebration of the Passover. 37 shoulders of one or two men. It was then opened, and the parts unfit for food were taken out, placed upon a paten or dish, and burnt on the altar. When thus prepared the lamb was taken home by him to whom it belonged to be roasted. This was done, without breaking a bone of it, by running it through the mouth downwards with a spit of pomegranate wood; and sometimes also, as it would appear from Justin Martyr,! thrust crossways with another stick, Kata TO weTadpevov, through the back, from arm to arm. It was then suspended, head upwards, in an oven made on purpose, with fire under; the purten- ance being taken out, hung and roasted by the side of the lamb, lest, if left inside it, it might tend to stew the meat instead of roasting it. V. Then, when ready, it was laid on a dish and put upon the table, around which either “‘ the goodman of the house,” the father of the family, or the foreman of the company, ¢dpatpia-eraipor, with the rest, were seated, either after the Jewish or the Roman fashion. With it also were laid the 7}'3M or feast-supper; then PSD, unleavened loaves, large, flat, and round ;? and P=pyvn, a thick mixture of apples, pears, figs, etc., with bits of ginger and cinnamon to represent bricks, straw, and stubble used by Israelites in Egypt; and also bitter herbs, such as lettuce, purslain, etc., with vinegar, into which they were dipped ere they were eaten. The feast-supper of common food was eaten first, and the paschal lamb last of all; because (1) according to Jewish tradition, the guests should par- take of it when they were full, so as to eat it last, in order that the taste of it might remain longest in the 1 Dial. c. Tryph., p. 250. 2 See note 1 at the end. J 38 Of the Celebration of the Passover. mouth, and keep up a feeling of gratitude for it in them that had eaten; so that (2) none of the usual dessert or second course was allowed at that supper. VI. The meal began with the good man of the house, or the father of the family, as the case might be, taking the loaf and blessing it whole; after which he brake it, and gave a portion of it to every guest. Likewise was the cup of wine, called 7237 5, yéevynua THs ap- méXov, “ the fruit of the vine’, and the best to be had, if possible red, if not, white; mixed or not with water,+ also blessed at the beginning of the supper. Then after supper they all partook of the roast lamb, called MDS bess \5)3 “‘ the body of the Passover”; and, mention being made of the affliction in Hgypt, and of the rescue thence, the meal ended with a cup of blessing (evAo- las, evyaptotias) passed round, whereof all partook. Then a hymn was sung (Is. xxx, 29), and the company rose from supper, generally at a late hour. VII. That was called ADSM MWY, woretv To tracya, to celebrate or keep the Passover, as it 1s well rendered in the Authorised Version ; and it implied (1), Qveuw ro ? For full information on this subject, of which this is hardly an outline, see J. C. Scaliger, De Emend. Temp., lib. vi, p. 525-537, ed. Leyd., 1580; and how justly he is refuted by Joh. Buxtorf (fil.) in his Dissert. vi. de Cena Domini, p. 287 sq. The whole of this treatise, p. 282-335, with the “ Vindicatio” attached to it, is well worth studying, as it is full of a learning which is now a thing of the past. But if this dissertation is not to be had, Carpzov, in his Apparat., Critic. p.407, gives a summary of Scaliger’s and of Buxtorf’s views, with Hottinger’s attempted reply to them. For more available information, see Lightfoot on S. Matt. xxvi; Relandi, Aniiq. Sac., pp. 351-357, 421-438; Ikenii Antiq. Heb., p. 182, 311 sq.; also Schottgen, Hore Talmud. in N. T., 8. Matt. c. xxvi, 26, where he argues that the institution of the Eucharist cannot be borrowed from Jewish customs. + See note 2 at the end. Of the Celebration of the Passover. 39 maoya, to kill or sacrifice the lamb; (2), érouuafewv, to prepare it; (3), owrayv, to roast it; and (4), écOiev, dayely TO Tacxa, to eat the Passover; all distinct cere- monies included in 70 zrovetv, the keeping or celebrat- ing of the paschal feast. VIII. In vain, therefore, shall we attempt to find a hidden or particular meaning in the words zrovety to macya, as if they were consecrated by occurring in the LXX ; for it is not so. (a.) As to the frequent expression, “ found or used in the LXX”’, it means absolutely nothing as regards movetv, which occurs there some two thousand three or four hundred times, and in various senses. (b.) As regards vrovety TO Tadacya, or any such idiom, the Alexandrian Jewish Greek of the LXX is so im- pure, and in many respects so peculiar, that it carries little or no weight. Besides, if a locution found in the LXX be de facto an authority for the meaning it has in the New Testament, what shall we then say about ‘““eating”’ the Passover, which in the LXX is always rendered by édouaz (except once, Hsd. vi, 21, where to macya is not found in the Hebrew), while gdayetv to maoya is alone used in the New Testament ? (c.) But ovetv or rrovetcPar TO Tacya, is a simple rendering of the Hebrew verb MWY, wovety, in its many senses, which both in Hebrew and in Greek is said of the Passover, as it is said of— (1.) The Sabbath Day, duvAd£ovew—ta cadBBata trot- ely avta ;+ (2.) Of the Feast of Weeks, roujoess éoptny EBdapa- Sav Kupio ;? (3.) Of the Feast of Tabernacles, éoptyy oxnvav rot- HoeLs 3° 1 Ex. xxxi, 16. 2 Deut. xvi, 10. & Thid. v,; 13. 40 Of the Celebration of the Passover. (4.) Of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, roijoae tiv éopTyy Tav atvpov 3} (5.) Of any feast, évrofjcev éoprynv;? for this idiom is neither a Hebraism nor an Hellenism ; but— (d.) lt is the usual Greek expression, éoptiv, ayava, Tommy, ayew, ayeoOat, Tee, TENTOaL, TroLeiy OY TroLi- cat. ‘Thus it is said (1.) Of the Olympic: games: ta ’Odtpmia trovjoas? aryew,* (2.) Of other games and contests: tov ayava TO ‘Ordvprria Au éroincev 3° Tov aydva ayew 37 év Ano TOLELD 5° ayova Tronsacbar Té’Am 3° ev TO lcOu@ Tov ayava aye, troumoat.'? (3.) Said also of a musical contest: of A@nvatou Tov povoixoy ayava éroincay 3! (4.) Of various feasts : ov’ A@nvaios thy mevteTnpisa— érroinoav, Ta Anda ;” ’Amratovpia ayovow opti 3 Ta 4 e > / s c ol AfLLOlL TTOLNOAVTO Op- Avovicia Trovetpeva TO Oed ;} TH 3° 0 Oncedts—lavabynvaca Ovciay éroince Kxowny ;\ also opriyv avayeuv," érutenciv.® (5.) Of processions and public assemblies on solemn festivals: avdyew tavnytpias ;° mwavnyipias dpa Kat TOLTAS Kal Tpocaywyas TpaTot—Eerrolncay,” etc. And as 7rovety To Tacya, both in Hebrew and Greek, implied all the ceremonies of the whole feast, and not 1 1 Kings, xii, 32. n Thuce., iii, ¢. iv. 2 2. Chr.) xxx: 12 Thid. 3 Paus., lib..v, ¢, 1x. 13 Herod., i, 147. 4 Thid., lib. vi, e. ii. 14 Thid., ii, 48. > Demoth., m wapar., p. 448. 15 Thid., ii, 48. 6 Paus., lib. v, c. viii. | 16 Plut., Thes., c. 24. / Ebid 0) ig 17 Herod., i, 79. 8 Paus., lib. viii, c. 48. : 18 Lue., Ep., Sat. i. 9 Thid., lib. i, c. 44. 19 Herod., vi, 3. che Rito Bet il vp hig #0 Thid., ii, 58. Of the Celebration of the Passover. Al merely the killing of the lamb, so also did rocety éop- tnv in Greek imply eating, drinking, dancing, and every other kind of public rejoicings or ceremonies :!_ tv7r- TovTat, yva Kalovat,Ovolas ev Kal ipa Trolévat.” Nay, Lucian expressly makes even the preparations for the feast a part of it when he says: iv tTadTa érravop0acns, Kal petakocpnons, ® Kpove, éoptiy S€ tiv éeopTny éon metroinkws ;> “ thou wilt, indeed, have made a feast of it”. This will help us to understand the real meaning of the expression used by Lysias when accusing Al- cibiades, puvotypia ctrovety,* “ mysteria facere”;° not, assuredly, of “making mysteries”, but of performing sacred rites, in his house; where they were zrovevpeva TO Oew.6 IX. When, therefore, Josephus says, 76 Ilaoya (b7répBacwv) TeXodpev,’ or Philo speaks of dia8acw rros- ela Oat,8 and of dvaBatypia ayeo@ar,* they both speak, not Hellenic, but pure Greek, good Hebrew, and, I may add also, classic Egyptian. For the expressions, cupTeneiy TA vopitopweva, TapaTibévat, (epov KOTpmoV, Eop- THY ayew Kal TaviyupL, Tedeiv oTroveds, etc., in |. 40, 41, 46, 47, 49, etc., of the inscription on the Rosetta Stone, are all rendered by the Egyptian term, ER SHA, Troveiv EopTiv ; ER HBAI, Trovety Tavynyupw, etc. The same idiom occurs also in papyri of the date of Moses. 1 See the Programme of the Navaéjvaa in Mommsen’s Heorto- logie, p. 199. 2 Herod. ii, 60. 6 Herod. ii, 49. 3 Ep., Sat. i. v Ant. J., ie tie ©. Sp. 4 Kara ’AAk., p. 349. 8 De Sacr. Ab. et C., p. 140. 5 Corn. Nep. in Alcib. 9 De V. Mos., p. 686. Ae" Of the Institution of the holy Eucharist. Tt OF THE LORD'S SUPPER AS INSTITUTED BY OUR SAVIOUR. I, The foregoing remarks on trovetvy TO Tacya were necessary in order to enable us to understand the words used by the Evangelists with regard to the last Passover kept by our Lord.! That expression being a simple idiom of the language, and free from all mys- ticism, neither 8. Chrysostom,” nor any of the earlier fathers, even alludes to it; no, not even Theophylact when speaking of the pretended petamoinots, or trans- formation of the elements, which we naturally might expect to result from the fanciful meaning attributed to Trovely TO Tacya. The accounts given us by the Evangelists, all, in the 1 T forego, as foreign to my object at present, all discussion on the number of Passovers kept by our Saviour; and whether this last was the fifth, as Scaliger (De Emend. Temp., p. 525 sq.) main- tained, or only the fourth, as Cedrenus (Hist. Comp., vol. i, p. 307) says, Td TéTaptoy Mdoxa—ev @ wérovOey brEp Huav 6 Xpiotés. Neither will I now attempt to settle whether, as many believe, our Saviour did eat the Passover with his disciples, anticipating it by one day, or whether He then only partook of a common supper, at which He instituted the Eucharist, without tasting of the paschal lamb, as others think, like Cedrenus (ibid., p. 308}, St. Clement of Alex- andria, Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis, in his treatise, 6m: ev ¢ Kap 6 Kupios éraGev odk epayey 7d TumiKdy macxa, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria and Martyr, who maintains 61: 6 Swrhp odk epaye tov auvév. Of this, however, Petavius (Uranol., p. 397) says, “falsa ista sunt’’, and refers to lib. xii of his Doctr. Temporum, c. xix. Neither is it my object at present to enter into the question of the «‘ Quarto-decimani”, and of the solar and lunar cycles relatively to the Passover. These are fully treated by Isaacus Monachus in his Computus, given by D. Petavius in his Uranologia, p. 359 sq. 2 On S. Luke, xxii. Of the Institution of the holy Eucharist. 45 main, agree, and leave no doubt that Christ first par- took of the paschal lamb Himself, at the end of the supper ; after which he instituted the Sacrament of His own spiritual feast. II. It was the 13th of Nisan, in the afternoon, when the disciples came to Jesus, and asked Him where He would that they should prepare for Him to eat the Passover. From six o’clock in the evening, however, was that day reckoned to the following, the 14th, which being both the day of the Passover and “the prepa- ration day, mapackevy, 6 éott mpocd@PRarTov,' that is the day before the Sabbath”, was often called mrapac- kevn” only ; but on that one occasion it was also said to be tapackevn Tov macya;? not the preparation of the Passover, as if it were the eve of that feast, but “the preparation day” on which, in that year, the Passover was kept. Therefore was the evening of this 15th day called TpoTn TOV alvuwv, or TPATH iuEpa TOV alvpor,' as already mentioned, either as the first day of the feast of the unleavened bread that was always eaten with the paschal lamb, if this day (13th) be considered as one with the following ; or else, and more likely, rpwrn is here to be taken in the sense of wpotépa, the day ‘“before” the actual “ day of the feast of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover’’. And this is the opinion of 8. Chrysostom: mpeatnv tav alipwrv, THY mpo Tav atipov dnow: ei@act yap amo THs éotrépas ael apiOpeiy THY Tuépav—Th yap TéuTTn TOU caBPRaTou mpoondGov ; that the first day of unleavened bread means the day before the unleavened bread; for the 1 §. Mark, xv, 42. 2 §. Luke, xxiii, 54; S. John, xix, 31. 3 Thid., v, 14. 4S. Matt. xxvi, 17; S. Mark, xiv, 12. Ad) Of the Institution of the holy Eucharist. custom was to reckon the day from evening to even- ing,—and the disciples came to Christ on the fifth day of the week (Thursday).1 So also write those who follow him, as do Theophylact and Huthymius Zigabe- nus; and with them Michael Glycas, who says: mpern TOV alupev héyeTaL ) pmeyadn TéuTTH ws TPO TOV avv- wv ovca; the great fifth day (Thursday) is said to be the first a the feast of unleavened bread, as bets just before it.? II. The disciples then went into the city, and did as the Lord told them. ‘They prepared the Passover in the dveyeov péya éotpwpévov, either large upper room, or gallery in the inner hall, furnished, at the house of the man appointed; and there they made ready. S. Matthew alone quotes our Saviour’s words, pos cé mToww To Tacya; which S. Mark and S. Luke render dTov To Tacya—ayw, the one to eat, the other to keep the Passover; so that, unless both expressions mean in fact the same thing, which are we to believe was really spoken by the Lord? He certainly did not say it in Greek; so that each inspired writer rendered His words by the terms of equal meaning which occur- red to him at the time. III. When every thing was ready, the Lord avérrece, sat down with His disciples ; whether after the Jewish or the Roman fashion, we need not inquire: when they perhaps, may have eaten the supper properly so called, to which 8. Matthew seems to allude, ch. xxvi, 20-25, and §. Mark, xiv, 17-21. Theophylact thinks, with others, that this supper of the paschal lamb was eaten by our Saviour and His disciples totdpevor, standing ; and that avérece refers to His sitting down to eat His 1 In Matt. xxvi; Hom. lxxxi. * Annal,, iii, p. 405 sq. Of the Institution of the holy Hucharist. 45 own Supper of the Eucharist. It is, however, impos- sible to determine from these statements whether, as some say, our Saviour ate the usual supper before He tasted of the paschal lamb, or made the supper to con- sist of the Passover only. The sop, wwpiov, given to Judas Iscariot would at first sight seem to favour the former opinion. §S. John, xiii, however, shews that the first supper was ended, and that our Saviour had washed the feet of His disciples, and was sat down again, ere He gave the sop to Judas. Yet, as this formed no part of the Eucharist insti- tuted immediately after, the sop must have been dipped into “‘ the dish” placed in the middle of the table on which was laid either the lamb or the supper that was served before it. S. Chrysostom, however, makes to Wopiov a part of the eucharistic Supper, though it be difficult to see how; for this consisted in broken por- tions of the loaf, given to every disciple, but not “ dip- ped” like the sop handed to Judas, no doubt for a particular purpose. BaSai, roan 1) mipwous Tov mpodd- Tou: Kal TOV puoTNplwY pmeTéeyav Ewevey 0 avTos. “Oh, the hardness of heart of the traitor, who, after partaking of the mysteries, yet remained the same!””?_ Whether, however, Judas shared or not in the Eucharist, certain is it that, having sat at meat with the Master of this small brotherhood (¢patpia), when in the garden he was asked by Him on what errand he came, he was © then addressed as éraipe, ‘‘ companion” or “ friend”. IV. Interesting as these details be, and awful as the warning is, that among twelve disciples who were sitting down with the Master at His table, one was a traitor, yet are such details mere incidents in the out- 1 In S. Matt.; Hom. Ixxxii. 46, Of the Institution of the holy Hucharist. ward acting of the mystery that was then being fully wrought out. On that small band of men, humble and despised, who sat at meat in that upper room of a poor dwelling in a crowded city, angels, watchers and archangels waited in worship, unheard and unseen; bid, as they were by their King, to stand aloof, and leave Him alone, until He had wrung out the very dregs of that bitter cup of sorrow He was about to drink for our sakes. This was His last Passover on earth: the next would be in the kingdom of God; where? He had ear- nestly longed to eat this one with His disciples ere He suffered, that, side by side with the emblem of Himself, He might point to the real sacrifice He, the true Paschal Lamb without blemish and without spot, pre- pared even before the foundation of the world, was about to accomplish; poimt to Himself, the victim of propitiation then offered for the sins of men; that He might make His apostles, to whom He gave this earth, pass over at once from the shadows of the Old Testa- ment to the realities of the New; from the bondage of the law He now was obeying to the uttermost, to the freedom of a spiritual worship which is life and peace. V. The lamb was eaten, the supper ended, and the law fulfilled, when ‘‘ 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.””! ““ My time is at hand,” said the Saviour, “and my soul is troubled”. He already felt the long swell of 1 §. Luke, xxii, 19, 20. Of the Institution of the holy Eucharist. 4.7 His coming agony. He saw Himself betrayed, forsaken, and denied by His own disciples; then “brought to the slaughter; and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb”, so He saw Himself also subjected to a mock trial before unrighteous judges. Then led to death ; made to carry His cross, on which He, our Passover, was nailed at noon, and died at even, in throes at which the sun hid his ight, and the earth trembled,— while the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in the outer courts of the Temple,—and ‘ He cried, It is finished !” He knew this, and more than this when He brake the bread and said to His disciples, “This do in remembrance of Me.” He knew the price at which He would receive the martyr’s baptism of His own precious Blood then shed for the remission of sins, when He took the cup, and said, “ This is the cup of the New Testament, in my blood’—of the new cove- nant made sure in the sacrifice then wrought that once, for ever and for all: after which “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,” inasmuch as He then “ put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” Well might S.Chrysostom exclaim : “Opds 60n yéyove s1rové1), date del dvapipynoKer Cat, Ore aTréVavev bTrép Huav; Ei yap mi) améOavev 0 Inaods, Tivos cipBora Ta TeXNovpeva; See how careful He is ever to remind us that He died for us. For if Jesus did not die, then of whom are the symbols we consecrate?! ‘Then was the altar rent asunder,” says 8. Athanasius; “and it now only remained for the last flitting shadows of the law to be for ever scattered abroad, by the Saviour breathing upon His apostles, and saying to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.’ 1 In S. Matt.; Hom. Ixxxii. 2 Festal Ep. i, Syr. ed. A8 ' Of the Institution of the holy Eucharist. VI. But the mind utterly fails to realize what then took place in that upper room at Jerusalem; when, after the traitor had left, the Saviour poured forth His soul to the eleven in words that must have wrung their innermost hearts. They sorrowed, as well they might, with uncertain and gloomy bodings for the time to come ; but He bade them be of good cheer. “ Let not your heart be troubled,” said He to them: “ ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.” “T will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.” And He then prayed His Father for “ that little flock to which it had pleased Him to give the kingdom,’” that He would keep them from all evil while they were yet in the world. That was the closing scene of that mournful feast. Then, 7d watptov EOos éxmdAnpecovtes pet’ evyhs Te Kal buveyv,® wishing to end, according to custom, with prayer and praise, they all rose from supper; “and when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.” Lit. OF THIS SACRAMENT AS REGARDS GURSELVES, AND OF THE BENEFITS WE RECEIVE THEREBY. (a). How to hold intercourse with the Saviour. I. When John the Baptist sent his disciples to say to the Lord: “ Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another??? Jesus answered: Go and shew 1 §, John, xiv, l, 2, 18. 2 §. Luke; xii, 32. 3 Philo De Fest., p. 1190. Our personal Intercourse with Christ. 4.9 John again the things ye do hear and sce; tell him that among other miracles “ the poor have the Gospel preached to them.’’? ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken- hearted; to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of the sight to the blind, to set at hberty them that are bruised; and to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.’’’—Therefore “did the common people hear Him gladly.’’? They understood Him ; they heard with pleasure the glad tidings that He was their friend. So they came to Him to be healed. They touched Him, and a virtue went from Him, accom- panied with the kindest address; ‘“ Daughter, said He to the poor woman, thy faith hath made thee whole ; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.’ The broken-hearted came to Him: ‘‘ Have mercy on me, O Lord thou Son of David,” cried the desponding mother, ‘‘ my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil —Lord help me.” ‘Then He answered and said un- to her ; O woman, great is thy faith ; be 1t unto thee even as thou wilt.’ The blind man cried: “ Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” And Jesus asked him saying: “¢ What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.’’6 The lepers came to Him to be cleansed: “ Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean,” said one of 1 §. Matt. xi, 2 sq. 48. Mark, v, 25 sq. 2 §. Luke, iv, 18 sq. 5 §. Matt. xv, 26 sq. 3 §. Mark, xii, 37. 6 §. Luke, xviii, 35 sq. E 50 ' Our personal Intercourse with Christ. them. ‘And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth His hand and touched him, and saith unto him: I will; be thou clean ;”! and to another, who cried: Master, have mercy on me; He said, “ Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.’”” To the man sick of the palsy, when He saw the faith of them that brought him, He said, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.’ To the poor penitent sinner who came to Him with bruised heart, weeping, He graciously turned round, chid her not, but said: “Thy sins are forgiven: thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.’’# 'o the sorrowing father, who came and worshipped Him, saymg: My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her and she shall live.” Jesus answered, ‘ Be not afraid, only believe ;”” and to the dead child herself He said: ‘‘I say unto thee, Arise. And straightway she arose and walked.’ Il. What, then, was it that caused Him to work all these miracles of mercy on behalf of His poor afflicted creatures? Faith in Him. That, and that alone, brought the living in contact with Him, and Him in con- tact with the dead, to give them life. That faith alone did what neither the rites and ceremonies of the law, nor the hecatombs burnt on the altar of the temple could do. It brought fallen, afflicted, diseased, and sinful man, nay, man even dead, into close fellowship with the human nature of Him who is the Life; who was then, who now is, and who ever shall be, ‘ perfect God and perfect man.” | S. Mark, i, 40 sq. 4S. Luke, vii, 36-50. S. Luke, xvii, 13 sq. 5 §. Matt. ix, 18 sq.; S. Matt. ix,1; S. Mark, iv, 1-12. S. Mark, v, 23-43. 1 2 2 3 Our personal Intercourse with Christ. 51 But since He is the same, “ yesterday, to-day and for ever,” our “ great High Priest who is passed into the heavens,”’? who is touched with the feelings of our infirmities, there is also for us no other means of being cured of these by Him, but to draw near to Him with _ faith, boldly coming through Him “ unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Now, saving faith is a fruit of the spirit, not of the intellect, which deals only with the word of hearing, pnwatucn miotis €& axois.* Therefore “ to the poor,” who are slow of understand- ing, “was the Gospel preached ;” therefore also did He say of Mary, who sat at his feet listening in faith to His words, that “she had chosen the good part,” “the one thing needful,” that should not be taken away from her. III. That is “the one thing needful ;” all the rest, whatever it be, is secondary to this—living faith. In no other way whatever can we place ourselves into fel- lowship with Him who is present with us in spirit only ; and whom truly to worship is to do so in spirit. And this is especially true as regards the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. What do the poor, simple, ignorant but faithful Christians, who probably shall walk into the kingdom of heaven before their more learned teachers, know of “‘ real presence, consubstan- tiation or transubstantiation,”’ for the sake of which some of those teachers fight among themselves, and sit at their Master’s table with more hatred than love one for another ? What indeed ?—Those poor people know little enough, and understand still less; some of them can neither read nor write; they are of the one half of 1 Hieronym. Presb. Hierus. de Baptismo, p. 809, ed. M. 52! Qur personal Intercourse with Christ. mankind, of which the other half, to use Hooker’s words, “ weigheth not how dull, how heavy, and al- most without sense, the greatest part of the common multitude everywhere is.”? It is so among us, as it ~was of old, when that multitude was held accursed by ' the Pharisees “‘ for not knowing the law.” Yet some of those dull, ignorant Christians come to the Holy Communion, take it, and receive through it the same practical and real benefit, neither more nor less, as the priest who administers to them the sacred elements. IV. Seeing then, that the benefit received in this sacrament, as in that of Baptism, is the same for all faithful partakers of it alike, whether they be ignorant or learned, intelligent or dull of understanding, we conclude that there is no esoteric and exoteric reli- gion in the Gospel of Christ, but that, whatever men make it, He, at all events, makes it one and the same for all ; not of the intellect so much as of the spirit. Even as regards the sun over-head, whether a man have weighed it, measured the distance at which it is from us, counted the spots on the disc, and watched their periodical alterations, made up or not his mind as to whether the light of it radiates, undulates, or as Epicurus taught, is darted from the inside through holes on the surface—or only know that “it is the sun’’; the real practical good, which les in the enjoy- ment of the hght, fe, and warmth he receives, is pre- cisely the same in either case. V. If, therefore, so much knowledge, which after all is empirical, about the sun we see and feel, 1s of no real use to those who have it, over those who have it not, how else can it be as regards the Sun of Righte- 1 The Eucharist, E. P., bk. v, ¢. lxviii, 3. Our personal Intercourse with Christ. oo ousness, whoin we see not though He shine on all men alike? The “healing in His wings” is not a matter of intellect, but of feelmg in those whom He quickens into new life. It depends less on education than on the heart opening itself like a flower to His rays through unfeigned faith in Him ; and the process that then takes place is spiritual, in all men alike ; for all men have a spirit, though all men have not intel- lect. For, clearly, of two things one, as regards the Sa- crament of the Lord’s Supper. If the efficacy thereof depends on the knowledge and understanding of that mystery, then few indeed receive any blessing from it, since no man understands “‘ this impenetrable secret ;” “ these enigmas of God’s holy mysteries,” as 5. Atha- nasius calls it. If, however, the virtue thereof depends on faith in the merits of Christ, which all may have if they will, then is the supposed knowledge of those who pretend to explain “ the manner how,” of no use whatever; and faith alone is required, In this, as in everything else that belongs to our spiritual life, faith comes first, and the Spirit follows, or rather comes with it, though second in order, into the heart. The Spirit, ike hght, gives, as it were, form and colour to the spiritual, unseen things of God, which faith beholds. Wherefore is faith to us “ the evidence of things not seen,” says S. Paul; “ the key that opens heaven to us,” says S. Ambrose: dpa ~uyijs, Gepe- Nuov Ewis, ‘the stay of the soul, the foundation of life in us,” says 8. Epiphanius.) And “the eye of the mind,” say both 8. Gregory the Illuminator,’ and Theo- doritus.? Without it, we are blind as regards God, and ° 1 De Nom. Myst., i. 2 Homil. iii. 3 De Fide, p. 809, ed. M. J 54 Our personal Intercourse with Christ. as regards eternal life in Him, without faith we are dead. Far be it from me, therefore, to lay rash hands on so sacred a mystery by attempting to sketch it out, or to settle “what I believe to have been the mind of the Lord’, as others do; for who hath been the counsellor of Him whose thoughts are not as our thoughts ? No man has a right to say of anything, that “it is” or that ‘it is not”; in other words, to affirm 70 ov 7 ov thereof; unless (1) it be alike to all, as e. g., that hght is light ; or if the thing is not known of all alike, that (2) it yet be capable of proof. Beyond this we must reason from analogy only, as in the case of mysteries, which are above the reach of our intellect, and are therefore liable to no categorical proof, but rest entirely on our faith in them. As regards, therefore, the Sacra- ment of the Lord’s Supper, which is, as Bishop Jeremy Taylor says, “‘an undiscernible secret, not fit to be inquired into”, we can only reason from analogy, tak- ing care not to make our conclusions absurd, if we must reason at all. Better, however, would it be to follow the advice of all the most soberminded men who wrote on the subject; which advice is summed up in the words of 8. Isaac the Great, bishop of Nineveh: ‘‘ Faith beckons to thee ; draw near and eat, in silence: and drink ; but ask no questions”! (b.) Of the Words of Institution or Consecration. I. It is very clear, then, that in a matter lke this, of impenetrable mystery to all men alike, which is wholly of faith, and cannot be of the understanding, 1 Ass, B. Or., vol. i, p. 22, and Dissert. de Re Euchar., Syr., p. 24. Of the Form of Institution. 55 we must give heed, not to the opinion of any one man, since no man understands this secret, but to the words of our Lord; resting on them, and on nothing else, according to the proportion of faith of every one of us in particular. Unless, indeed, we had the unanimous voice of the Church in explanation of those words. But where is that voice? For instance, 8. Macarius (A.D. c.c. 350) says of the consecrated elements, that they are a figure, avtiTUTrov Tis capKos avTov Kal ai- patos ;} while Theophylact {a.p. c.c. 1100) says: to cHpd €oTt Kal ovyl avtituToy ;* that the elements are not a figure, but the Body itself. Which of these two shall we believe,—the older or the younger? Not this one, assuredly ; for S. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. c.c. 390) bears out the Egyptian father when he says: “ &v TUT®@ yap apTou SideTai cot TO THpa, Kal év TUTT@ OivoU To aiwa;? the Body is given thee under the figure (‘figura corporis’’)* of bread, and the Blood under that of wine; these elements being sacredly affected by the words of invocation, in the same manner as the offerings to idols are profanely affected by the mvoca- tion of devils upon them’’.® Therefore are we left to understand, as best we may, the words of our Saviour, which He spoke so as to leave us, we see, ample room for difference of opinion; provided it be in the same spirit of faith and love. Tor to Him, our Master, we individually stand or fall, and not to our fellow men. II. As to the words of institution or of consecration, as they are called, the Romish and the Greek Churches differ ; the Romish holding that ‘This is my body”, said by the priest, causes a sudden transformation 1 Homil. xxvii. 2 In S. Matt. xxvi. 3 Cat. Myst. iv. 4 Tertull., lib. iv, ad Mare. c. 40. *% §. Cyril Hier. Cat. Myst.i. 56 Of the Form of Institution. (weratroinows)' of the bread into the material body of Christ, called ‘‘ transubstantiation”’; while the Greek Church teaches that the change, whatever it be, is wrought entirely by the efficacy of the Holy Ghost, who is asked to come down upon the bread and wine. Meanwhile we learn from 8. Gregory that ‘‘ mos apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Do- mimicam oblations hostiam consecrarent, the Apostles consecrated the Hucharist by only saying the Lord’s Prayer”.? While 8. Basil, alluding to the diversity of rites and customs of the Church in his day, such as turning to the east at the Creed, praying standing on the Lord’s day, etc., says: ‘Ta Tis émixdjoews pyyuata érl TH avadeiEer TOU aptov THS Evyapiotias Kal Tov To- Tnpiov THs evroylas Tis TOV aylov éyypaddws july KaTa- NédouTrev; ov yap 67 TovUTOLs apKovpmeOa, @V Oo ’AméaTo- hos 7) TO Evayyéduov éemrepvncOn, adrAa Kal Tpodeyomev Kal émiheyomev ETepa Kk. T.rX.; Which of the saints left us in writing the words of invocation in the offering of the bread and wine of the Eucharist? for we are not satisfied with those left on record by the Apostle, or in the Gospel; but we use many others both before and after’, etc.? This 3 is indeed true, for of the very many nate I have examined, not two are exactly alike; while Jeremy Taylor, than whom we have no greater and better authority on this subject, ‘adds this consideration, that it 1s certain Christ interposed no command in this case, nor the apostles; neither did they, for ought appears, intend the recitation of those words to be the sacra- mental consecration, and operative of the change, be- 1 See Theophyl., 1. ¢. ? L. vii, Ep. 63, Real Pres., p. 553. $ De Sp. Sancto, c. xxvii, col. 188, ed. Migne. Of the Form of Institution. 57 cause themselves recited several forms of institution in 8. Matthew and S. Mark for one, and 8. Luke and S. Paul for the other, in the matter of the chalice espe- cially; and by this difference declared, there is no necessity of one, and therefore no efficacy in any as to this purpose.”! This is only by the way, to shew what httle unanimity there is in the Church‘ Catholic’”’; even in this respect. III. But more of this anon. For the present I will entirely pass by the Romish doctrine called “ transub- stantiation”, as well as by the Lutheran one of ‘‘con- substantiation”, referring the reader to Bishop Jeremy Taylor’s treatise on the Real Presence for a masterly refutation of these doctrines; and I will briefly consider the principal words of institution quoted in the Prayer Book, ov« av@pwtrivots Kal onpepov Keypnuévor copicpa- ow acvpdepov yap: ara Ta ex TOV Deady ypapav jovov UToMivnocKovTes, achad€oTtatov yap, KATA TOV MaKd- pov’ AmooroXov; not with human conceits or sophisms, for they are unprofitable, but making mention of the Holy Scriptures only as by far the safest, according to the blessed Apostle.’ For evidently one man’s imagination can be no rule or guide for another, ‘unless’, as the same Father says, “it be borne out by Scripture”. Ae? yap rept Tov Oeav Kal aylov THs TicTews pusTnpioy, unde TO TuxoV avev TOV Oey Tapadidocbar ypaday ; for as re- gards the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, must not even the least thing be taught without [the authority of] the Holy Scriptures; neither should one be carried about by the plausible ornaments of style: pndé euol TS TadTa cor NEYOVTL ATABS TiaTEVoNS, Eav » 1 Real Pres., p. 553. 2 8. Cyril of Jer., Catech. xvii. 58 “Take; eat THY aTodelEW THY KaTayyEeANoMevaYV GTO Tov OELav [An AaBns ypapav. Neither believe even me on my own authority, unless thou can draw from the-Holy Scrip- tures a proof for what I tell thee. ‘H cwrtnpia yap avTn THs TicTews Nua@V, ovK €E EvpEeciNoyias, GAA eE aTrobeiEews TOV Oevav éoti ypapav. For the very safety of our faith hes, not in wisdom of words, but in proofs drawn from Holy Scripture.”! This Father’s advice being very much needed at the present time must be my apology for giving it at length, and in his own words. IV. Let us now consider our Saviour’s institution. AdBere, Payete, TOUTO pou €oTl TO TOpa TO UTEp HMaOV | KN@LEVOV TOVTO TOLELTE ELS THY EV avaYnTW. “Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’’? (a.) “TAKE, EAT’, Aderte, dayere, etc. “Take, eat’. On these words we need only hear Jeremy Taylor: “If the bread was consecrated when Christ said ‘Take, eat’, then Christ bid them take bread, and eat bread, and they did so; but if it was consecrated by those words [‘ Take, eat’, there being nothing to shew why they should not form part of the institution or consecration], then the words of consecration refer wholly to use, and it is Christ’s body only in the taking and eating; which is the thing we contend for. ‘To which I add this consideration, that all words spoken in the person of another are only declarative and exegetical, not operative and practical ; for in particular, if these words, ‘This is my body’, were 1 §. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. iii, wept ay. M1. 2 1 Cor. xi, 24. “This is my Body’. 59 otherwise, then the priest should turn it into his own, not into the body of Christ.’’! (b.) ‘THIS IS MY BODY’’. V. Todro éott To chad pov. “This is my body’. We have nothing to shew that the apostles then took these words in any other than a figurative sense; the only sense in which they could possibly be taken. «The blessed Sacrament”, says Jeremy Taylor, “is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it ;? but Christ did not really give His natural body in the natural sense, when He ate His last supper; therefore neither does He now. The first proposition is, beyond al] dispute, certain, evident, and confessed. Hoc facite convinces it. ‘This do’; what Christ did, His disciples are todo. I assume Christ did not give His natural body properly in the last supper, therefore neither does He now: the assumption I prove by divers argu- ments. (a.) “ First, if He then gave His natural body, then it was naturally broken, and His blood was actually poured forth before His passion. Now these words were spoken either properly and naturally ; and then they were not true, because His body was yet whole, His blood still in the proper channels: or else it was spoken in a figurative and sacramental sense, and so it was true (as all the words which our blessed Saviour spake); for that which He then ministered was the Sacrament of His passion.” (b.) “If Christ gave His body in the natural sense, at the last supper, then it was either a sacrifice propi- tiatory, or it was not: if it was not, then it is not now,’ 1 Real Pres.,p.556 sq. * See S. Chrys., Hom. xxvii, 4, in 1 Cor xi. 60 “This is my Body’’. and then their dream of the mass is vanished: if it was propitiatory at the last supper, then God was reconciled to all the world, and mankind was redeemed before the passion of our blessed Saviour, which there- fore would have been needless and ineffectual ; so fear- ful are the consequents of this strange doctrine.” (c.) “If Christ gave His body properly in the last supper, and not only figuratively and in sacrament, then it could not be a representment or sacrament of His passion, but a real exhibition of it. In the last supper all this [His passion and death on the cross] was in sacrament, because it was before, and the sub- stance was to follow after.” (d.) ‘If the natural body of Christ was in the last supper, under the accidents of bread, then His body at the same time was visible and invisible in the whole substance ; visible in His person, invisible under the accidents of bread: and then it would be inquired what it was which the apostles received, what benefits they could have by receiving the body naturally ; or whether it be imaginable that the apostles understood it in the literal sense; whether they saw His body stand by, unbroken, alive, integral, hypostatical.” (e.) ‘If Christ’s body were naturally in the Sacra- ment, | demand whether it be as it was in the last supper, or as upon the cross, or as it is now in heaven? (1.) Not as in the last supper; for then it was frangible, but not broken; but typically, by design, in figure and in sacrament, as it is evident in matter of fact. (2.) Not as on the cross; for there the body was frangible and broken too, and the blood spilled ; and if it were so now in the Sacrament, besides that it were to make Christ’s glorified body passible, and to erucify the Lord “This is my Body’’. 61 of life again; 1t also were not the same body which Christ hath now, for His body that He hath now is spiritual and incorruptible, and cannot be otherwise ; much less can it be so and not so at the same time properly, and yet be the same body. (3.) Not as in heaven, where it is neither corruptible nor broken ; for then in the Sacraments there were given to us a glori- fied body; and then neither were the Sacrament a remembrance of Christ’s death, neither were the words of institution verified : ‘This is my body which ts brokew’; besides, in this we have Bellarmine’s confession,! ‘ Ne- que enim ore corporali sumi potest corpus Christi ut est in celo.” But then if it be remembered that Christ hath no other body but that which is in heaven: and that can never be otherwise than it is, and so it cannot be received otherwise properly ; 1t unanswerably fol- lows, that if it be received in any other manner (as it must be, if it be at all), it must be received not natu- rally or corporally, but spiritually and indeed. By a figure, or a sacramental, spiritual sense, all these diffi- culties are easily assoiled, but by the natural never.’’? So says 8. Chrysostom,’ that in “This is my body”’’, our Saviour did not speak to the senses, but only to the mind: ovdév yap aic@ntov—mayvta 6€ vonta. V. Christ and His disciples had just partaken of the body of the paschal lamb, which was a type of Himself. He had just said of the bread which He, as chief of the company, had broken, ‘‘ This is the bread of affliction our fathers ate in Egypt’; and of the lamb, “ This is ' the body of the lamb slain at the Passover”. The shadow was now gone, and the body thereof, which is 1 De Euch., lib. i, c. 18. 2 Real Pres., p. 584-586. 3 Hom. lxxxii in Matt. G25": “This is my Body’’. of Him, was, as it were, thus explained to them: Ye have just eaten the body of the lamb which was a me- morial of the rescue from Hgypt, and a type of Myself brought to the slaughter for you. Now, therefore, is the lamb no longer to be slain as a figure of Me; but bread, of which I have often spoken to you, and this bread in particular, which I have just blessed, is to be to you, instead of it, a figure or symbol of how ye live in Me and by Me, the true Bread come down from heaven to give life to the world. And as if to shew that His words were then to be taken figuratively, when the men of Capernaum took offence at His speaking of eating His flesh and drink- ing His blood, He then said to them: “ It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’’.! As such words must needs be, from the King of the spiritual kingdom which is not of this world; and as they were when, while the vines were being dressed around Jerusalem at this very time, He said to these same disciples: “‘ I am the vine, ye are the branches.” Did they take this literally? Or when He said, ‘‘ I am the true vine”’, did the disciples then think that the vines they saw being pruned were any other trees ?? He then spoke in a figure, as He had often done before, when He said: ‘‘ 1 am the door of the sheep’’; ““T am the way, che truth, and che life’, as regards certain spiritual things only. “Iam the good shep- herd’”’; not that all others were bad, but that He took example or the good ones who, like David, hazarded 1 §. John vi, 63. See the whole of sect. iii on S. John vi, in Real Pres., p. 530-550. 2 See Real Pres., p. 575 sq. “This is my Body’. 63 their lives for the sheep, to shew what He would do for His own flock. Since, then, His words, “ This is my body’, could not possibly be taken in a literal sense by the disciples, these words must have been by them understood, if understood at all, in a figurative sense. That bread was His body, as the lamb just eaten was the one eaten in Heypt; for at the Jewish Passover the words of Ex. xii, 27, were always said: ‘Tt is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel, when He smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses’’; or as the bread then eaten by the Lord and His disciples was ‘‘the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in Keypt’’; words which were said by the head of the family at every Passover celebrated after ‘‘ the Passover of Egypt’’, though they were literally true only on that one occasion, and on no other after it. VI. But it would be useless to multiply examples, or to load these pages with quotations from the early Fathers, who, being satisfied with believing earnestly and loving truly, wrote as they felt at the time; so that it would be no very difficult matter to quote the same Father in apparent contradiction of himself; so much did they feel, and so little did they understand, about what they rightly called “an inscrutable mystery”’’.! They very wisely agreed to differ on the subject, simply because they could not help themselves ; and so there was peace in the Church. And that peace would 1 A remarkable instance of this may be seen in the Antirrheticon prefixed to the third vol. of S. Ephrem’s works in Greek and Latin, where Kohl, a Lutheran editor of some of S. Ephrem’s Homilies, who proved his own Lutheran doctrine from them, is taken to task by the Romish editor, who maintains that S. Ephrem held the ° Romish doctrine of transubstantiation, and no other. 64 “This is my Body’. have continued if Rome had not made ‘‘ the manner an article of faith’, as Jeremy Taylor says, by making transubstantiation, ike the Immaculate conception and other doctrines of men, part of her creed. And so there would now, comparatively, be peace m the Church, if men who call themselves sensible and wise would but “do reason’, and thus be content to see that if an article of faith may be expressed figuratively, as that ‘‘Christ sitteth at the right hand of His Father’, much more may there be figurative expressions in the institution of a mystery, and yet be plain enough. “Tropica loquutio cum fit ubi fieri solet, sine labore sequitur intellectus”’, said S. Augustine! as quoted by Jeremy Taylor,” who adds to the point: ‘ Certain it is the Church understood this well enough for a thousand years together, and yet admitted of figures in the insti- tution ; and since these new men had the handling of it, and excluded the figurative sense, they have made it so hard that themselves cannot understand it, nor tell one another’s meaning.” One would think that excellent Bishop was yet alive, and had written those words for the present time; so well do they suit. But so it has been ever since Rome stirred the quarrel; and so will it be as long as she exists, wherever she is allowed to get a footing. At ali events her doctrine respecting the Eucharist being “acainst Scripture, against sense, wholly without and against reason”, and “ not the doctrine of the Primitive Church’? we have only to consider what we may under- stand by “the Real Presence” of Christ in this Sacra- ment; and this will ! briefly do in the next article, 1 Lib. iii, De Doctr. Chr , c. xxxvii. 2 Real Pres., p. 578. 3 Thid., sect. x, xi, xii., and 8. Chrys., Hom. lxxxii,4, in Matt. xxvi. “Which is broken for yow”. 65 when treating of this Sacrament as wrought in remem- brance of our Saviour’s death and passion. (c.) ‘WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU.” VII. To trrép tar Kropevov, “which is broken for you”. These words are left out in the Romish hturgy because, as Christ’s body was not yet broken when He said them, they interfere with the Romish interpreta- tion of “This is my body”. ‘For the Romanists do what they please’’, says Jeremy Taylor; “ they put in some words which Christ used not, leave out some- thing that He did use, and yet they are all the words of the institution”. The Church of England, however, which cast off the caul of Romish doctrines and prac- tices, of course retains these words as part of the insti- tzuon of the Sacrament, which, being in remembrance of the death of Christ, is intended to remind us not only of the actual death, but also of the sufferings it caused Him. (d.) “Do THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME’’. VIII. Todto rrovetre eis tiv éunv avapvnow. “This do in remembrance of Me”, Among the many doctrines lately brought in by some of the clergy, there is one concerning the words 7tovTo mrovetre, “ do this’’, which, although not quite new, yet is somewhat singular. “T do not,” says one of them, “‘as I might, point out the particular force of the original word which we translate ‘do’ in our version, because it involves a question of Greek scholarship. But to do so would add another explanation in the text, for the Greek word is constantly employed in — 1 Real Pres., p. 681. 2 J . . 66 “Do this in Remembrance of Me”. connexion with the idea of sacrifice or offering ; so that in the original, ‘ Do this’ would involve the thought of ‘ offer this’ or ‘make this’ sacrifice.”! No doubt that this, hike everything else from the same pen, flows from a pious feeling ; yet, as it is best, if possible, to be correct, | would respectfully ask, What Greek scholarship ? We saw above, plain enough, the meaning and value of the terms moveiy TO Tacya, like mowujoae or Troveiv éoptiyv, to keep the Passover, or a feast.? But accord- ing to the usual rules of sound scholarship, that idiom can have nothing in common with tovto crovette in this place. (1.) What other words could our Saviour have used in order to say ‘‘ Do this”, in the sense mm which the Fathers, all the Old and the Authorised versions take it in this place? None. Therefore does the onus pro- bandi rest on those who of their mere will say that here Tovto movetre means “ make”’ or “ offer this’. They will, however, find it difficult to prove. lor— (2.) We must carefully distinguish between the meaning inherent in a word, and idiomatic acceptations of it. When, therefore, Aristotle tells us very truly, TO Tolely ToAAaYas éyeTaL,® that rove is said in various ways, he means that “‘to make” and “ to do”, which are the meanings inherent in 7roveéy, are said of rational and irrational as well as of inanimate beings ; and that zrovety is idiomatically used in many ways, the particular idiom consisting in saying “ to make” or “ to do” in a peculiar way. : The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, by the Rev. T. C. Carter, p- 16, note. 2 §. Matt. xxvi, 18; Acts, xviii, 21. 8 Withee as “Do this in Remenbrance of Me’. 67 Thus, wrovety Ovclav, facere sacrificium, must be ren- dered into English, “‘ to offer a sacrifice’, because ‘ to make a sacrifice’, the literal rendering of the Greek and Latin, though correct, and also idiomatic, has nevertheless a different meaning. In the New Testa- ment alone we are obliged to render zrovety not only by “to make” and “ to do”, but by * to bring forth” (fruit), “to tarry” a season, “to gain” or “to traffic’, “to keep or celebrate” the Passover or a feast, “to shoot or put forth” branches, “to call together’ a council, ‘to commit’? murder, “to have” pity, “to make” a dinner or supper; wherein apiotov trovety differs from the classic apsctorovety or aptotoTrounoat, that means ““to dine” or ‘‘eat the early meal’’.! (3.) So also as regards vrovety. ‘The authority of the LXX. in this case is worth nothing, since it is incor- rect to say that vrovety in the LXX. means “ to sacri- fice” and ‘‘ to offer’’; for vrovetv never means either the one or the other, any more than does WYY, or fucere, though both these terms be so rendered idiomatically. Neither is the use of vrovetv, when said of a sacrifice, pecu- har to the LXX.; for Herodotus speaks of srovetyv—ipa, Tovevpeva TH Oed;” as does Xenophon, e¢ dé Ouciav ras- otto Kal éopTHnv ayo, etc.; only that trovety in the LXX. renders MWY, which of course occurs frequently in this sense in the Old Testament. Yet the use of RWy for 1 The same thing occurs in all languages. Thus, “to make a bed” properly means to put together a bedstead; but it is idiom- atically said of preparing a bed on which to lie. Likewise a thing ** well done” may be either well made, well acted (in the sense of agere), or well cooked. Now to insist on this last idiomatic use of *done”,when the word should be taken in its rela meaning, would make strange sense of many a sentence. 2 Lib. ix, 19; ii, 49. 8 Cyrop., lib. vi, ii, 6. 68 ‘© Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. ‘a sacrifice” is no Hebraism, for it does not occur so often in the books of Moses as “ fetw’’, facito, does in Umbrian, throughout the Iguvinian Tables, said of sacrifices, as, ‘‘Juvie unu erretu fetu—uve fetw’: Jovi unum arietem facito—ovem facito”.! “ Vitlu—facu Juve-patre’; “ Vitulum facere Jovi patri’.? “Iveka tre—fetu Tuse Juvie’; “Juvencas tres—facito Turse Jovie’’,® etc.; when facu, like facere, often governs the dative of the god, and ablative of the victim: e. g., “ Flamen Dialis—agna Jovi facit”’;* and Virgil,° ‘“‘Quum faciam vitula pro frugibus, ipse venito”’. Cicero® also and others use facere (sc. sacrificium) and operart in the same sense.’ (4.) Ilovetv, however,when thus taken, like MWY and facere, always implies a sacrifice wrought with hand ; which consists, as regards victims, in slaying, skinning, “cleaning, burning, etc.; and as regards flour, wine, barley-wine, bread, etc., in mixing, kneading, baking, etc.; as correctly said by Xenophon, érerta In ofd- Eavtes erroinaay (sc. Ovaiayv), “after slaying the victim to the Harth, they prepared and offered it in sacri- fice’”’;8 and ceuidarw ex Tupa@v Troujoes’—cemidadis ev éhaiw toumbyjcetat,”© ete. AdBe—rupols—xat Troinoes dptrous,4 etc. All this was preparatory to “‘ offering’, mpoopépew, which is as distinct from movety as MWY is from api” or as fagiu is from purdiom in api ha- 1 Tab. ii, b, 1. 5 sq. 4 Varro, Lat., lib. vi, 16. 2 Tab. 11,.a,) 1.22. > Kecel., iii, 77. 3 Tab, 1, b..1. 15, 16, 42, ete. 6 Pro Murena. 7 See Stuckii De Sacrific. Gentilibus, p. 11, ed. Leyd. 8 Cyrop., lib. viii, iii, 24. lo Lev. il, 7. 0 x, xxix, 2. M Hz. iv, 9, 15. 2 Lev. ii, 7 and following verses ; vi, 20, 21. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 69 bina purtiius—Tefri Juvi fetu, Ubi agnas porrecerit —Tefro Jovio facito.”? All sacrifices of the kind, wrought with hand, under the law, being fulfilled in that of Christ, “ after which there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins”, we see— (5.) Why zoey Ovociav, said in the LXX. of legal offerings, does not once occur in the New Testament, in which mention is made of trvevpatixat Ovaiat, “ spi- ritual sacrifices” only, to be offered by the holy priest- hood, which as lively stones are built up a spiritual house”’.? These sacrifices are (1), @ucia wictews, sacrifice of faith ;3 (2), @vcia aivéoews, sacrifice of praise ;* (3), evtrotias Kail Kowwvias, of well doing ;? (4), gifts and alms and other acts of charity, as @vciav Sextiy Kai ev- dpectov T® Oew, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing unto God ;° (5), our bodies, as @vciay focayr, a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God.? ‘Opds, says S. Chrysostom, olats Oucias evapectettat 0 Peds, thou seest with what sacrifices God is well pleased: avrn Oucia Karn, ov Seouévn iepéws, AX avTodD Tov Tpocdé- povtos (not trotobvtos) av’Tnv ; “that is a good sacrifice which requires no priest, but him alone who offers it; it is a good sacrifice offered indeed here below, yet at once accomplished in heaven.”? Wherefore the same Father, comparing the kind of sacrifices and oblations under the law with the spiritual sacrifices of the New Testament, says: éxew? mev yetporrointos, avTi Sé ayeu- potrointos ; the first was of sacrifices made with hand, but the second of sacrifices made without hand.° ! Tguv. Tab., a, 1. 27, p. 184, ed. Huschke. 2: 1 Pet. 31; 5. 6 Phil. iv, 18. 3. Phi ie 7 Rom. xii, 1. 4 Heb. xiii, 15. 8 Homil. in Heh. xi. he Ro Uy; ki, J 70 “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. X. From all that, I infer that our Saviour did not use ToUTO Trovetre in a sacrificial sense, but that He simply then told His disciples to do as He then did ; to bless and give thanks, to break the loaf and eat the bread and drink the cup, and to do so in remembrance of Him ; because (1.) Had He used zrosety here as of the sacrifice of His body wrought at that moment in the Eucharist, “‘then’’, as we have just seen, “it was either a sacrifice propitiatory, or it was not; if it was not, then it is not now, and then their dream of the mass is vanished ; if it was propitiatory at the last supper, then God was reconciled to all the world, and mankind was redeemed before the passion of our Blessed Saviour; which, therefore, would have been needless and ineffective, So fearful are the consequences of this strange doc- trine”’.! And (2), because our Saviour, when speaking even of His own sacrifice, so spiritual, so mystical, so myste- rious, so exalted as it is, never would have used zrovety, but avapépev : witness,”"Os od exer xa’ jyépay avary- KNV, OOTEP OL APXLEPELS, TPOTEPOV UTEp TOV idiwv apwap- tiav Oucias avadépesy, érerta TOV TOU aod: TOTO yap eroinoev éedbatrak, éavTov avevéyxas; 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 He did once, when He offered up Himself. Wherein we both have rovdro ézroincev in the plain sense of “ He did this’, and avadépecy in that of “ offering a sacrifice of Himself”; so that the one may not be taken for the other, but avadépew and rovety each in its proper sense. 1 Real Pres., see above, p. 59. 2 Heb. vii, 27, “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. 71 XI. It is, of course, easy for any one to put a con- struction of his own on our Saviour’s words; but un- less such interpretation be supported by the authority of like passages, it is assuredly worth very little. Now the reasoning proposed by some men amounts to this: {lovety occurs some two thousand three hundred times in the Septuagint, and is variously rendered “to make, do, offer, tarry, prepare, work, accomplish, work out, sacrifice,” etc.; therefore Todro trovetre, said by our Saviour, here means “ make,” “ offer,” or “ sacrifice this”—a kind of logic that may be satisfactory to those who use it; but, assuredly, to no one else. It would be needless to show what must result from such a mode of interpretation. Suffice it to say, that if the sense supposed by some to belong to rovety 76 Tacya in $8. Matt. xxvi, 18 were correct, then assuredly must Kal évoinoay ot pabntat (v. 19) be rendered: “and the disciples dressed it,” as they were told to do. And then 1¢ might not be amiss to remind such critics of what §. Clement of Alexandria says: that To pév Tole Kat eT TOV ddoyouv Cowv Tdccer Oat, Kal apiyor.! Whereas the only fair way is to reason by compari- son. Thus, when Justin Martyr makes use of the common expression with him, a@ptov zrovety with regard to the kneading, mixing, and baking of the offering of fine flour, ceuidarews Tpordopd, which, he says, was a type Tod aptov THs evyapiotias, of the Bread of the Eucharist which Jesus rapédwxe qrovety,” the sense of mote here must be determined by parallel passages from the same author; as when he speaks of edyat Kal evyaplotiat, prayers and thanksgivings, being the only sacrifices, ypeoTvavol tapéXaPov trocety,® Christians ° 1 Strom. v, p. 589. ? Dial.c. Tryph., p. 259,296. 3 Ibid., p. 345. J 72 “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. were told to offer or celebrate. For if we interpret aptov vrotety here in its usual sense, it must be ‘to knead and bake bread.” XII. No wonder, then, if neither S. Chrysostom, S. Clement of Al., S. Ambrose, Theophylact, Huthy- mius Zigabenus, Nonnus, nor any of the Fathers—so far, at least, as I know—even allude to the sense which now would be put upon our Saviour’s words “‘routo Trovette”’ in this place; while Jeremy Taylor re- marks, as above: “The blessed Sacrament is the same thing now as it was in the institution of it,—Hoe facite convinces it, this do: what Christ did, His disciples are to do. Christ did not give His natural body in the Last Supper, neither does He now.’’! Likewise do the following great scholars understand it: Wolf, saying of Todro vrovetre, “non posse verti per sacrificate,’ for which he gives his authorities ;? and Bengel: ‘‘crovetre, facite, edite. H'acere non habet hoc loco notionem sacrificialem. Injuria est in unicum sacerdotem N. T’. potestatem et dignitatem sacerdo- talem coram Deo tribuere ministris 8. C.”’ Anyhow, the Greek Church does not here take the words of her own tongue in the sense of “make” or “offer,” but in that of “do.” ‘‘ Oitws, says the Greek priest to the candidate for holy orders, ottws évopobérncev avTos oO Aeorrotns Xpiotos, Kal Kalas éexetvos exapev els Tov Muotixov avtod Actrrvoyv, ovTws eime va Kavomev Kab nets els eduxnv Tov avapynow. Thus did our Master Himself institute it, and as He did at His mystical Supper, so did He say that we also should do in re- 1 Real Pres., p. 584. See above, p. 59. 2 Cure Phil. in S. Luke, c. xxii, 20; and Vorstius, De Hebr. N. T., vol. i, p. 161. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. 73 membrance of Him’’:! words which almost entirely agree with those of Jeremy Taylor, As, indeed, it must be. For the construction of the sentence TodTo Trovette els THY Eunv avayvnow proves it. Passing over the fact that according to this new in- terpretation of zrovety here, neither 8. Matthew nor S. Mark record any consecration of the elements, 8. Luke only that of the Bread, and 8. Paul that of the wine rather doubtfully—(1.) srovety in the supposed sense of “ offering” always governs the dative of the god or person to whom the offering is made; ézoincav V9, Tovevpeva TO Oe@, etc., which is not the case here. (2.) When construed with the accusative of either the victim or the offering, it always implies slaying, skin- ning, mixing, baking, etc., which cannot be said of “rovTo,” supposing it to refer to the bread, nor yet of the wine, as we shall see by and by. So that here Tovetre cannot be taken in a sacrificial sense in con- struction with todro, whether this refer to the bread or to the acts of blessing, breaking, eating, etc. ; neither can vroveity be taken in that sense in construction with éus THY Eunv avadpynow, Which clearly means the object or purpose, and not the thing to which the offering is supposed to be made. So that according to the rules of Greek Grammar, such an expression as Kaspos Troujoas T® Kupi, which occurs in the Greek Liturgy at the offertory, cannot possibly be quoted in illustration of TovTo Trovette, the construction of which is altogether different. Therefore, and to conclude, our Saviour’s. words, taken in their natural and grammatical construction, can mean nothing else than ‘‘ Do this, n remembrance 1 ‘lepa kar. m. TIpook., p. 35. 2 Aidtakiot, fep. A., p. 44. 74 “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. of Me.” Do” to mean “act as I have acted,” and not ‘‘mix, offer, or prepare.”’ To give them this sense is, indeed, to teach a doctrine that commends itself neither for its logic nor for its scholarship. XIII. But, possibly, the meaning of this fanciful plea that our Saviour said rodTo vrovetre in the sense of ‘“make” or “ offer this sacrifice,” is— sacrificium et sacerdotium (ut inquit Sacrosancta Tridentina Syno- dus)! ita Dei ordinatione conjuncta sunt, ut utrumque in omni lege extiterit. Quum igitur in Novo Testa- mento 8. Hucharistiz sacrificium visibile ex Domini institutione Catholica Hcclesia acceperit, fateri etiam — oportet in ea novum esse visibile, et externum sacer- dotium in quod vetus translatum est.” Sacrifice and priesthood (as the Most Holy Synod of Trent says) are by God’s ordination so coupled together as to have always been one under the law. Since then the Catholic Church has received the visible sacrifice of the Holy HKucharist under the New Covenant, as stituted by Christ, we must also admit that she must have a new visible and outward priesthood, into which the old order passed.” So she has; but one purely spiritual. This, how- ever, is not Rome’s meaning, which makes the Eucha- rist an actual and material sacrifice, and priests real sacrificers; and in so doing, begs the question as often- times in other cases. For—(1.) Granting that sacri- fice and a priesthood to offer it “‘ went together under the law,” what can there remain of that ‘‘old covenant, which was decayed, waxen old, and ready to vanish away,”’® when ‘‘ Christ, who is the end of the law for 1 Sess. xxiii, cap. 2. 2 Liturg. Eccles. Univ., vol. ii, p. xlii, Preef. 3 Heb. viii, 13. Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 75 righteousness to every one that believeth,”’! brought in the new covenant in His Blood, made by the sacri- fice of Himself, ‘‘ after which there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins’? Tdavra dvetre da Tovrov, “ He did away with all that by His sacrifice,” says 8. Chryso- stom.” ‘Then said He: lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. For by one offering He hath per- fected for ever them that are sanctified. Now, where there is remission of sins and iniquities, there is no more offering for sin.”> Odxotv adijKxe Tas duaptias, ote THY SiabnKny Edwxe TV dé Svabnenv Sia THs Ovcias Gdwxev. Ei towuv ade tas awaptias dua THs pas Ovalias, ovKéTe xpeta Sevtépas. “He, then, remitted those sins when He gave the testament ; and He gave this testament through the sacrifice of Himself. If, therefore, he remitted those sins by that one sacrifice, there is then no need of a second.”* Ovx« éotuv aA Ovoiat pia Huds éxaBapice. ‘There is no other sacrifice, that one cleansed us ;? &ra& mpoonvéexOn, Kat eis TO del HpKece ; it was offered once, and it sufficed for ever.’ XIV. Whence it is evident that those shadows of the law could no more really form part of the body 1 Rom. x, 4. 4 §. Chrys. in Heb. Homil. xviii. = In Heb. Hom. xviii. 5 Tbid., Homil. xviii. 3 Heb. x, 1-23. 6 Tbid., Homil. xvii. 76 Do this in Remembrance of Me’. which was of Christ, than shadows form part of the bodies that cast them. No priest, therefore, under the law, could be a figure of Him who, “if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing there are priests who offer gifts according to the law;”! neither can a priest represent Him now. He was under the law represented by the High Priest alone by virtue of his office and yearly expiation. Yet so entirely was this a mere shadow, that He who cast it was not to be of the tribe of Levi, nor called after the order of Aaron,” but was to be of the tribe of Judah, and called after a better and truer type, long anterior to the law, after the order of Melchisedek, who was both king of peace and king of righteousness, “having neither beginning of life nor end of days;” who of old met Abraham, His church militant in earth, not with the sacrifices of lambs, though doubtless then offered on the altar of Moriah, but with bread and wine. The figure, in the dim twilight of that early time, of Him to whom the Lord bare witness: “ Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek,’”?—‘“‘ made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.’ ? That eternal priesthood was from everlasting in the counsels of God, when Christ, out of love for His Church, planned to make her a royal priesthood, and her children kings and priests unto His Father. Then came He to offer up Himself ;* and that offering once made, the sacrifice of propitiation once wrought, and the reconciliation of His Father with His Church once accomplished, He having by that one offering of Him- 1 Heb. viii, 4. 3 Heb. vii, 11-22. 2 Heb. vii, 11. 4 Heb. vii, 27. © Do this in Remembrance of Me’. 77 self ended or perfected the sacrificial function of His eternal priesthood, “for ever sat down on the right hand of God”, where “ He now is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens’’.! But, says 8. Chrysostom, pz) tolvuy adrov tepéa axov- cas, del tepacbar vopute. dmrak yap lepacato, Kai douTrov éxaOioev: When thou hearest Him spoken of as High Priest, think not that He is always performing the ministerial functions of that office. He did it once, and after that sat down. And lest thou shouldest imagine that He is now in heaven standing and doing the ser- vice of the priesthood, the Apostle shows that such service is a part of the dispensation. As He became a servant, so also was He made both High Priest and Minister. But in like manner also, as when He became a servant, He did not continue such; so also, when made a minister, did He not continue in that office ; for it is not the part of a minister to sit down, but to stand. Todto otv aivitreras évtadda Tis Ovcias TO peya- Aelov, 1) HpKere pia ovoa, Kal ama& mpoceveyeica : this, then, gives us to understand the greatness and majesty of the sacrifice, which alone, and offered once, yet sufficed to do what all the other sacrifices could not do.? Kal yap cat 81a tobTo dvw Kal KaTw oTpéper Neyor, éva iepéa, play Ovolav iva pon Ts, vowifwv Todas eivat adeas awaptavy: therefore does the holy Apostle state the matter up and down, fully and clearly, saying, There is one High Priest and one sacrifice only ; lest any one should think there are many, and thus err grievously.? XV. Since, then, the sacrifice of Christ’ put an end i Heh; vii; * §. Chrys. in Heb. Hom. xiii 7’, and also xiv a’. 3 Tb. xiii 7’. s 78 “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. to all others, we see (1) why in the New Testament we hear of no other sacrifices than spiritual ones, and of no other priesthood than of “the holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ’”’.! So truly do the sacrifices and the priesthood go together, both being spiritual. Wherefore did the apostles call themselves mpeoSurepor, presbyters,” and not (epets, priests, in the sense of sacrificers; and the Eucharist did they call the Lord’s Supper,® and not Oucia, a sacrifice; in order, we may be sure, to draw all possible contrast between themselves and the Mosaic dispensation.” S. Chrysostom also clearly states the fact (2) that our Saviour’s sacrifice once accomplished on the cross, He ceased from the sacrificial functions of the High Priest, and went into heaven, where He no longer stands as minister, but now sits as Intercessor, Medi- ator, and Advocate, with the Father. As the High Priest, when he went into the most holy place once a year, went in only with the blood of the victim which he left slain in the outer tabernacle, so also did our 1] Pet. ii, 5; Rev.i,6; xx,6. These “spiritual sacrifices and spiritual priesthood” are by some, as by Justin Martyr, explained to refer to the Eucharist as at present offered in every place; and to this they apply the prophecy of Malachi,ck.i,11. S. Augustine, however, is not of that opinion, but refers it to the Church triumph- ant. ‘ Filios autem Levi et Juda et Hierusalem, ipsam Dei Eccle- siam debemus accipere—nec talem qualis nunc est, sed qualis tune erit, per judicium parata novissimum. MHostie porro in plena per- fectaque justicia, cum mundati fuerint, ipsi erunt. Quid enim acceptius Deo tales offerunt, quam se ipsos ?’’—S. Aug. De Civ. Dei, lib. xx, c. 25, 26. Another instance of how little unanimous the **Catholic”’ Church is, not in doctrine only, but even in her inter- pretation of Scripture. aT Peter, 5; +1 Correxi eee “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 79 High Priest, having accomplished the sacrifice of Him- self here on earth, in the holy place or outer tabernacle, then go into heaven, the Most Holy place, there to make intercession for us, But since, on the one hand, He is there now, fulfilling the office of Advocate and Intercessor, ‘‘ for which He ever liveth”; and since, on the other hand, His sacri- fice, which only took place once, might haply be for- gotten, He instituted the Eucharist in remembrance of Himself, that by it we should be reminded of Him, nor As He Is AT PRESENT, BUT AS Hr was THEN, about to be sacrificed, and to die for us; that is, in remembrance of His death and passion, and of nothing else. That is, at least, the plain meaning of the words, Tovto moveite eis THY eunv avayvnow: “Do this in remem- brance of Me’, As with regard to qrovetv, so also with regard to ava- pevnows, have various doubtful opinions lately been set forth. Let us, however, look at the term itself; for the correct understanding of which we must also con- sider wvjun and vropvycts. XVI. The real meaning of dvauvyows is given by Plato, with whose doctrine, as told in his Phedrus, Meno, and Pheedo, of ‘‘ learning being a mere recol- lection of things seen by the soul in a previous exist- ence,” we have at present nothing to do—beyond shewing that advauvnots is the remembrance or recol- lection, not of a thing present, but of a thing that is past. And it differs from d7rouvnows as Ammonius says: avapvynots yap éotw, Stay TIS ENON Els YT UNY TOV TaperOorvtwv: vropvynsis Sé, OTav Up €ETépou Eis TOTO mpoay0y for avauvnols is, when one comes back to the memory of things that are past; while v7rouvnots 80 ° Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. means that those things are brought to our recollec- tion by some one else. Hesychius is said to deny this, and to explain avauvnows by tropvyots ; but so are evOvpnots and évOumia also thus explained, though they widely differ. For, in proof that Ammonius is right and Hesychius is wrong, we have t7opuvnpa,} ‘record, example, commentary”’, as concrete in —ya of the abstract in —ous, vrouvnots ; whereas, there is no “avayvnua,”’ but only the abstract term avapuvnots, to express the simple operation of the mind, which is thus explained by Plato: ’ VA I] qn / / \ yy (a.) “Avaprnow—eév 7H dvavola NapBaveww to Eldos Twos TeOvnxoTos piov—to receive in thought, or in the mind, the image of a departed friend.? S. Chry- sostom, as we shall see, uses it in this sense for the Eucharist. (b.) “Avapunots S éotiv émippor ppovncews amone- / >) / . . . movons. Avapvnots is the rushing in, or flow, of a thought which is ebbing out.’ (c.) Ti catoyny Tov havtacudtoyv puynwny eTovoud- 1 Thus eel obv eoti 7 eapiwh Eopth THs TOD KécMou yevecews bTOuY nA (Philo, De Fest., p.1190); kararepbevrwy adrots brournudtwv To.ovTwer’ ois mapaceiyuaot Xpépevot (Theophr., Char. neg. a’); trduvnga eis tods éreita (Paus. vi, ¢. 21); droduméoOa THs vixijs bréuvnua (ibid., v, 20); TX UTOMVHUaTA avayivwok. Said of the records read before Ahashuerus (Jos.,A.J., lib. xi,¢. vi); Trav BactAéwy brourvjuara, said of the records, or hieroglyphic inscriptions of Egyptian kings in the Labyrinth of Lake Meyris (Diod. Sic., lib. i, 66) ; fepatixd trouvjpata (Plut., Mar- cellus, 5, etc.); Ta trouvhuata (the Epistles, §.Cl. Al., Str. 1, p. 272); whereas trduvnow movhoacba (Thuc.i,72); imduynow exew (Cyrop. 1211, C. lil, 38); aurods broumryjoKete (ib.). The following passage from Pausanias (lib. v,c.8)is also tothe point: Ipfrov 5é rbv ayava avavew- capnévov—Tois avOpmmots ert baApXE TAY apxalwy AHOn, Kal Kat’ dAlyor és iméuvnow Hpxovto av’tav, kal éwdre Tt Gvapvynobeier, Eno.odvTO TE ayavt mpoaOjKny, ‘“Eopt}i—oimdurvyots, kal eis Srduvynow. (Philo, De Fest.,91,92, 93, 96). 2 Pheedo, p. 213 sq., ed. L. 3 5 Legg., p. 145. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 8] fec0auv thv 8 avatoAnow TovTwY avauvnow, we call “‘memory” the retention of ideas or figures by the mind, and the re-turning of them we call it “re- membrance.” Therefore do animals keep in mind (wepvyjcGar), but do not remember; dvayipvnocKxecOar dé ox.) (d.) Todto 8 éotw avaprvnow éxewov, & Tot e€idev Heavy 1 ~Wruyn cvptropevbeica Oe@ Kal Urrepioodca & viv eivai dawev. When we say of anything that it is, we simply thereby express the recollection or remember- ing of things seen by our soul when it once looked upon them in her walk with God.? (e.) ““Avdapvnots, then, is especially said of what one experiences concerning things which td ypovov Kal TOD {1 ETLaKOTFE’Y 40n é7TLNéANoTO, have been for- gotten through length of time and lack of looking them over.’ (f.) Therefore is it avapipyncKcecOar totepov av MpOTEpov ETTLoTHUNVY EtAnoTes rev, at last to remem- ber things of which we had first received a knowledge.* (g.) 20. Lernplav roivyv aicOijcews THY piv Aeywv Oplas av Tis Néyou KaTa ye THY éunv So-av. TIPO. 'Oplas yap otv. LO. Monuns 6& avapvnow ap od duaghepoveay eyowev; TIPO. “lows. “ According to my opinion,” says Socrates, “‘memory is the keeping of our impressions whole. Prot. Quite so. oer. Does not remembrance, then, differ from memory ? Prot. Very likely. Socr. Is it not in this? Prot. In what? ocr. When the soul once received certain im- pressions out of the body, and then when without the body she retakes them in herself, do we not call that 1 Aristotle, 7. uv. x. dvduv. 1, 2, sq., ed. Oxf. 2 Phedr., p. 90. 3 Phedo, p. 213. 4 Ib., p. 222. G J 82 “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. to remember? Prot. No doubt. Socr. And when, after having lost the memory of impressions or of any lore, she “turns it all over again within herself, do we not call all that advauvjces Kal prywas, remembrances and memories ?77! (h.) ‘H vbuyn wéuvntas mev ddnOds TOTE, avamiprncKe- Tat o¢ vov éxeivoy, for the soul had then truly those things present to her memory, but now she remembers them,* (i.) "Yarvov pev TOV Ths uyis vonudtav, AnOnv Kareu Thy dé avdoTacW avToV, avayynow—ylyveTat O€ 7 avapvyoi Kata Bpayd, Etepov é& ETépov Onpevovons THs wuyis—orrolov awéret Trept Tas TOV Sedpo TpayLaTwv dvapyyoes yiyverat—Plato calls the sleep of the thoughts of the soul, “ forgetfulness”; and the resur- rection or awakening of them, “‘ remembrance’’; and “memory” the safe keeping of what reason taught or ordered. Recollection, however, is wrought by degrees, when the soul hunts one thing out of another. The same thing takes place here on earth as regards events that have occurred among us, etc.® (j.) Thus, 9 THs caOnwepuis Gwijs avauvnos medeTy yiveTat THS TOV TpoBERiwp“évwy avaTrOAnTEwWsS Kal THS aavacias hav acvvaicOnows: the recollection of our daily life is carefully to turn over things done in our past life, thus getting an inkling of our immortality.* I have purposely given these few passages in the original, lest my rendering should fail to convey a right impression ; in order to show the real Greek meaning of the term avaprvnots, which, belonging as it does to metaphysics, was only developed by Plato and his 1 Phileb., p. 499. See also Aristotle, 7. uv. x. avaur. 2, sq. 2 Maxim. Tyr., Aoy. «n’, p. 169, ed. St. 3 Ibid., p. 166. 4 Hierocles in Aur. Carm., v, 40-41. Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 83 school, and therefore occurs far less often than the verb avapipynoKker@ar, from which it comes. ’Avdpyno.s, hke most terms of the kind, partly fell from its original and classical meaning, with the falling away of Greek philosophy and of correct style. XVII. Philo, for instance, fancifully allegorizes Mvn- #n, memory, and ‘Avadpuynows, recollection or remem- brance; and has a great deal to say about them when speaking of Ephraim, who is Myjun; and of Manasseh, whom he makes out to be ’Avduvyots. “ God’, says he, ‘planted in man two valuable faculties, pryunv, me- mory ; and avapvyow, recollection : 7) wév yap évavrous éyet Kal evapyeis Tas KaTardipbers—avaprvyncews dé AjOn TAVTOS TponyEeiTat THpov Kal TUProv Tpayya. Memory holds apprehensions fresh and quick, while remem- brance is always preceded by oblivion,—a maimed and blind kind of thing’”.t Vuyj—eis avayvnow tadv Tav- Twy épxetat: the soul by herself, turning over past things one by one, comes into remembrance of them all. ‘O dé Mavaccjs, advapyvjncews ctpBorov éotu oTH yap Kadeitat éx AjOns: Manasseh is a symbol of recol- lection or remembrance, for he got his name from the term “to forget’”.? For to him who comes out of a state of forgetfulness, it then happens, of course, “ to remember”; and remembrance is akin to learning, in- asmuch as he who is learning often, through weakness, forgets the objects of his contemplation when he over- hauls them from the first. Now this loss or ebb is called “ forgetting’’; and the returning or flow thereof is called avauvnots, recollection or remembrance. Oita TO LVNLOVLKOY TOD avamipynTKoMevov TavTayod KpEtTToV. ! De Leg. Alleg., p. 78, ed. Par. 2 Ibid., De Agric., p. 206, and De His Verb. res. N., p. 278. j . . ad S4. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. The faculty of keeping in mind is therefore, on all accounts, preferable to that of having to remember.! And elsewhere, showing the difference between tzro- pvnows, being reminded; and avayuvnows, remember- ing; dvayxn dé Tov vromyyce ypwpmevov éxhabléc Cat mMpoTepovy @v euéeuvyto: he who has to be reminded must have forgotten what he once had in his memory: 7 O€ (uy) TOD avapvyncer ypwpévov EEw AHOns yiverat, 7 Tpw vropyynsOhvas Katéoxnto: but the soul of him who remembers (uses his remembrance) comes out of the forgetfulness by which he was held captive, ere he was reminded.” This enables us fully to understand why, on the one hand, Philo says that the Passover vropuvntixn Ths pe- yioTns amolKias é€oTlv 1 éopT) Kal YapioTHpLOs—KaT eviavTov ExacTov, eis EevyapioTias UTouvyncw, was the feast intended to remind of the great. exodus, with thanksgivines ; celebrated once every year to keep in remembrance the gratitude due to God for His deliver- ance ;> and, on the other hand, why Justin Martyr speaks of the Hucharist, e/g avapvnow tod wdQovs ob érabey Urép Tov Kabalpopévav Tas roxas aTO TaoNS Tovnpias avOp@rwv, “Incods Xpuctos 0 Kupios pov TapedwKey Toeiv, as commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ to be kept, in remembrance of the death He suffered for those whose souls are cleansed from all in- iquity.4 XVIIL. We then see clearly, by the above examples taken from classic and from good Hellenic Greek, that the real meaning of ava-pvy-ots, the operation of the mind when “ looking back” for what it wants, is care- 1 Td., De Nom. Mut., p. 1060. 3 De Fest., p. 1190. : 2 De Cong. Quer., p. 429, 430. 4 Dial. c. Tryph., p. 260. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 85 fully observed. So it is even by later authors who write correctly, as e. g., by Nemesius,’ once a philoso- pher, and afterwards bishop of Emesa, in the fourth or fifth century, avauynow 5é réyeTaL, Gtav. ANON pecora- Bion THY pynunv Ecte yap advapvnots pvipns eEvTHdoV yevomevns avaxtnots. We speak of remembrance when forgetfulness has laid hold on memory, for avapvnots, recollection or remembrance, is the recovery of a me- . mory either faded or altogether gone. "Avapvnots, then, in the sense of pynmocuvor, or pv7)- un (uvnpetov), memorial or monument,—in any other sense, in short, than the metaphysical operation of the mind that recollects things gone by, is infime Greeci- tatis. Very little importance, therefore, if any at all, is to be given to the supposed mystical, if not myste- rious, use of avauvynots in the LXX., if it be considered attentively. XIX. ’Avapvners occurs five times in the LXX., be- sides twice in a way that shows the writers were far from being sure of what they wrote. In Ley. xxiv, 7, eis avayvnow renders the Hebrew asain, said of the shew-bread set on the table as a memorial. The same Hebrew term, which occurs five times more, is always rendered pyvnuocvvoy. Now this shows that e’s avauynow is here meant for “in remem- brance” or “for remembrance”, due regard having been paid by the translators to the Hiphil sense of MIDIN ; more explicitly given in DMP, Ps. xxxvii, |, and Ixx, 1, and there properly rendered eis avayvnow, “to bring to remembrance”, as the Authorised Version gives it correctly. For if here, in Ley. xxiv, 7, ets avayvnow had been intended “for a memorial’, it ° 1 In his treatise, De Nat. Hom., c. xiii. 86 ‘Do this in Remembrance of Me’. ‘would have been eis pynudcuvoy, as the LXX. renders “Spun'!Psexxxy, 15. So is avayvyow correctly said for ‘in remembrance” in Wisd., xvi, 6. There remains Numb. x, 10, where avapynous is put for yt a memorial ; but it is so incorrect a render- ing that we cannot wonder at certain MSS. having eis dvauvnow, that makes it good Greek, and a correct rendering. And as to Ps. vi, 5, where the Hebrew has 3D}, the LXX. gives 0 wvnuovevov; Aquila, wry cov; and Symm., avauvnois cov; which here would be quite correct. If in after time avauryots came to be used for b7ro- vnwa, a memorial or record,—a sense in which I have not yet seen it taken,—it must be self-evident to every accurate scholar that dvaprynows cannot be used for the objects, 60 Oy avdurnots yiverat, through which avapvn- ows is created in us, except in debased style; for it is a barbarism. ‘True, we find in later writers,! and even in §. Chrysostom, the expression, 7roveiy avapvyow ;? but here it is the use of vrotetv, which is of later Greek, not that of dvapvnots. XX. Lastly, avduvynows occurs once more in Heb. x, 3, adr’ év avtais [Ovolais] avapynces [yiverar| apap- Tov Kat éviavTov ; “but in these sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year’. Here avapvnows has precisely the same sense as that given in the passages above quoted from Aristotle, that of mere remembrance of past sins, through the sacrifices enjoined by God in order to remind men of those sins; and as a proof, when offered, that those sins were i Peter, Bishop of Alexd., De Pasch., p. 396, ed. Pet. * Homil. xvii y’ in Heb., and Homil. xxvii 8’ in 1 Cor. xi, “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. 87 remembered by the sinners themselves ; but assuredly not “in order to remind God of them’’,' an expression utterly unintelligible; since the command given to offer those sacrifices for sin was a standing order from God that there was a daily or yearly account to be settled with Him, which He, therefore, never forgot, but which sinners themselves might easily overlook. Here, then, dvapvnows has nothing to do with “a memorial”: the “ memorial” was not in the avapvyots, but in the O@ucias Ov av avadpvyots yivetat, in the sacri- fices appointed to cause the remembrance. This term, avauvnows, therefore, does not in itself “imply something to be done’’,? though it implies “something to be borne in mind” or, more correctly, © something that is to be remembered. S. Chrysostom is conclusive on this passage, for he paraphrases it, not with qvovetobat, as if it were avauvnows TovetTas, but with yivecOa, and says: Ava Todt, mpocérake, dyolv, ael mpocdéperOar Sia TO acbeves: therefore did He command sacrifices to be offered continually, be- cause of their being of no avail, cal date avapyvnow apaptiav yivec@a, and in order that the remembrance of sins should take place [in the minds of those who offered the sacrifices}. What, then, do we not also offer every day? mpoodépopev pév, GAN’ avayvnow Trol- obdmevot TOD Oavatou avTov, Kal pia éotly avTn, Kal ov modvNai. We do, indeed, but by making a remem- brance of His death : for there is only one remembrance of it, and not many. XXI. Thus have we in Greek the three distinct ex- pressions, els pynunv, eis avduvnow, and els vrouvnow, which cannot be taken the one for the other. 1 Doctrine of the Holy Euch., p. 13. 2 Thid. 88 “ Do this in Remembrance of Me’. (1.) Eis ponwnv,that is,e’s catoynv Tov havtac pdtv, or els cwTnpiay Ths aicOjcews, means “in memory’’, or ‘for thought ever present”, and is therefore well said of a token, monument, statue, or picture, which re- minds in general the beholder of some thing or of some one either past or present: thus Polydamas left behind Gadua és wvjunv, a wonderful monument in memory of himself. (2.) Eds vzropvnow, “ for a remembrance’; 7. e., to be reminded by the trropynua. Thus: ézel ody éotw 7 Eaplvn EopTH THS TOU KOT MoV ‘yevéerews UTOuvnwa: there- fore was it instituted kar’ évwavtov éxagtov eis ebya- ploTias UTouvnow, and is thus tropyntiKn THs weyiotns aTrotKkias 2 (3.) Ets avadpvnocy, that means both (1) in remem- brance or recollection of some particular event or cir- cumstance to which the mind alone goes back; and (2) in order to be reminded of that thing. Therefore is there no avauvnma, neither can anything be avayyn- tixov of another. The act is purely mental; and what- ever moral effects result from the avayrnous, remem- brance or recollection, they are wrought wholly in consequence of the mind taking the lead in the avayvn- ows, and through it only. XXII. These remarks will enable us to strip our Saviour’s words of the non-natural sense often put upon them, and to understand them as through fair scholarship and the analogy of faith we may think they should be understood. Not that we need pretend “ to know what the mind of the Lord was’: all we can do is carefully to use our own judgment. But as He made 1 Paus., lib. vi, c. v and ec. 17. 2 Philo, De Fest., p. 1190-91. See above, pp. 35, 36. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. 89 use of plain human words, not only “to preach His Gospel to the poor”, but also to explain to His dis- ciples the strait union there was between Him =e them, and “ the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven” one cannot bring oneself to think that, when at Bis last Supper He gave them a parting token in remem- brance of Himself, it could be in terms which neither they could understand at the time, nor we ever after. On the contrary, we may conclude that, in harmony with the whole tenour of His gentle, compassionate, condescending love for us, and in pity for our weak- ness, His words at that Supper were such as His dis- ciples, who were yet “ slow of heart to understand the Scriptures”, and such as the poor whom His Gospel was to reach, should be able to understand, as He was satisfied they should do; that is, in their plain, obvious, and straightforward, figurative sense. Our Saviour warned us that “strait is the gate that leadeth unto life, and that few go in thereat’’, because they will not. But He also says that ‘‘ He is the door of the sheep’’, in order to make the entrance into His kingdom easier; telling us at the same time that He has left the office of porter to the Holy Ghost, and not to men who, with all “ their doctrines and command- ments”, fain “ would take away the key [not always] of knowledge, not entering in themselves, and hinder- ing others who would enter from coming in’. XXIII. As long, therefore, as Greek words carry any meaning to one’s mind, and the Greek original of the New Testament is our first authority and last refer- ence in this case, our Saviour’s words will seem to have this meaning : The same night that He was betrayed, édaBev aptov, 90 “Do this in Remembrance of Me”. He took a loaf,! cat evyapictjcas, or evroynoas, “and when He had given thanks’’,or blessed it (two expres- sions of practically the same import), whereby He sanctified or set apart that loaf for the particular pur- pose for which He intended it, and which we shall only know fully when He explains it to us in Heaven,— éxrace, “ He brake it’”’, as loaves of that sort were and are yet broken in the countries where they are usually eaten. He then said to His disciples: AdGere, dayere, “take, eat’, every one of you a piece of bread broken from this same loaf. Todrto pou éoti To copa, UTEP UMoV Kr@pevov: This is my body which is broken for you”. This I believe to have been said in the only way pos- sible, that is, figuratively. It could not be the body which was then alive and spoke, and which, moreover, never was broken, not even a bone of it, like the loaf, in pieces; but which, when broken, that is, torn and pierced, was broken for others than the disciples, who here are alone mentioned, u7ep vuwv. I believe that, instead of the body of the paschal lamb of the Old Testament, He now gave them bread to eat from the same loaf, as the fittest emblem of Him, the true, that is, spiritual, bread come down from Heaven to give life unto the world. In like manner as He had just broken a loaf, and given “‘ the old paschal bread of affliction” to His disciples, did He now give the new meaning of peace and reconciliation through His death, to the loaf He took as emblem of His body, which He brake in pieces or members of it, and told His disciples to eat, in token of their and our intimate life in Him; and through Him, one with another. 1 §. Matt. xxvi, 26; S. Mark, xiv, 23; S. Luke, xxii, 19; 1 Cor. xi, 24. © Do this in Remembrance of Me’’, 91 Yet, as “ the flesh profiteth nothing”, and “ His words alone are spirit, and they are life”, and since “if a man have not His Spirit he is none of His’, I shall ever believe that this bread is in itself to us only a symbol of how we live by Him; He in us, and we in Him. As bread is the support of our bodies, so is He the food and support of our souls, always and at all times; but more particularly when, according to His institution, we eat the bread consecrated as especial means to remind us of Him dying and dead for us, do we com- mune with Him in spirit through faith; that is, we feed on Him spiritually. It is to us His body: not that we eat Him, Spirit, with our mouths; but our eat- ing the bread represents to us visibly the spiritual act whereby ‘‘ we feed on Him at the time, in our hearts, by faith with thanksgiving’. There is in it nothing material: our intercourse with Him is wholly spiritual. In no other way can “‘ His body” be so understood by our weak minds, as reasonably to satisfy them, than Him as the spiritual food of our spiritual and immortal being. Even in heaven shall we be individually dis- tinct from Him, He in His body, and every one of us in his own; so that even there our communion and intercourse with Him will be spiritual, through one spirit, one will, one love. Meanwhile our bodies must die, and disappear in the earth, ere they can behold Him as He is. How, then, can our communion with Him at present be other than spiritual, and by faith? Todto rotette eis THY éunv avapyvnow. “Do this in remembrance of Me”. Here our Saviour told His dis- ciples to do what He had just done, and as He did it. First to take the loaf, to give thanks over it, then to break it, and to divide it among themselves: all this 92 “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. in remembrance of Him as He was then, and not as He would afterwards be in heaven. “Avdpvyots, if it mean anything here, clearly implies that the disciples should carry their minds back to the hour at which He instituted the Sacrament, and think of Him as He was then, His heart wrung with grief, His spirit troubled above measure, His body weighed down under the bur- den of our sins, which He was then bearing, and Him- self already, as it were, dying, and soon dead on the cross for their sakes. Had He meant that His disciples should do this in remembrance of Him as He would soon afterwards be, and is now, in glory, He would have said todto zrovette els THY wou wynuny, “do this in memory’’, and not “in remembrance” of Me. But (1) inasmuch as He was soon to sit down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, in token of His having fulfilled the sacrificial functions of His eternal priesthood ; and (2) since His offices of Intercessor, Mediator, and Advocate with the Father, in which He is at present engaged, form no actual part of His sacrifice wrought on the cross, though they be, so to speak, in consequence and by virtue thereof—when saying Todo rroveite els Tv eunv ava- uvnow, He said, This do in remembrance of my death and sacrifice ; and of that only. For He knew “ He would be with us alway, even unto the end”; and as He now is present with his Church, we require no advduvnow to carry our minds back to Him as our Intercessor and Friend; but only pVnUNV, Memory ; KATOYNY TOD avTOU davTdcparos, the holding in our mind of the image of Him as He now is. We have only to look up to the blue heavens to be reminded that He is gone home there, before us, to pre- “ Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 95 pare a place for us. In every time of our need, when we raise our souls to Him, and avail ourselves of the privilege He gave us, of “‘ boldness of access unto the throne of grace, there to find help”, we then think of Him as “ever living to make intercession for us’. Every prayer we offer in public or in private is in His name, and through Him as our Mediator; and when our heart condemns us, and that is often enough, we are thereby reminded that ‘‘ He is our Advocate with the Father”; that “‘ He is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things’. We, therefore, require no special rite to remind us of Him who is present, and who, if we live with Him as we ought, is ‘‘ the Friend who sticketh to us closer than « brother’; not once only, but always. But we do require something to remind us of His death and sacrifice ; some special act, rite, or ceremony to be done eis avauvnow for the purpose of helping our minds and hearts to turn back to that one oblation, which could only be wrought once, and which was then once offered for ever. As regards, then, the in- tention and performance of the holy rite itself, it has regard to that sacrifice only; while the contemplation of the further “ benefits of His passion,” gained for us by it, is left to the thought and consideration of every faithful partaker of that Sacrament; but forms no part of the rite itself. For those ‘‘ benefits”? of intercession, mediation, and friendship were only implied in His sacrifice as after-gifts, but were not then ostensibly wrought out in it. Now the Sacrament was instituted in remembrance of Him as He was at the time of His death and passion only; says 8. Chrysostom. XXIV. Then, having broken bread, He also took 94. Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. the cup after supper; and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying: *‘ DRINK YE ALL OF THIS; FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE New TrEsTaAMENT, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS: Do THIS AS OFT AS YE SHALL DRINK IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF Mz.” As He had, through blessing, consecrated the bread as symbol of His body and of His flesh, so also did He bless or.give thanks, in order to consecrate the wine as symbol of His blood—ro 6€ aia oivos a\dnyopetra’ —that was shed, not only as price paid in propitiation to God—a subject into which we cannot at present enter—but in token of His death and sacrifice. That it was only a symbol, and not real blood, S. Clement of Alexandria remarks that our Saviour, after having consecrated it, still calls it yévynua tis aprrédov, “ the fruit of the vine’; du7redos Oé, and the vine, says S. Chrysostom, oivov, ovy tOwp yevva, produces wine, not water.” As He had before sanctified water to be a symbol of “the washing away of sin and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” so also now did He in this instance consecrate the bread and wine to be symbols of His Body and Blood; under which symbols He conveys or confers a benefit or grace, which is wholly distinct from the visible channel or substance of the symbols them- selves, whether these be water, bread, or wine. XXV. For that they in no wise change their nature in consequence of the blessing pronounced over them, not only does our Saviour Himself testify, but as Jeremy ‘l'aylor says, “‘both sense and reason”’; witness Theodoritus in his dialogue with Hranistus : 1S. Clem. Al., Ped., lib. i, p. 104. 2 Homil. lxxii in Matt. 8B’. See note 2 at the end. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’’. 95 OPO. LEiré trolvuv, Ta wvotika cvpBora Tapa Tov lepwméevwv TO Oecd tpochepomeva, Tivwv éotl cipPora ; Orthodoxus, ‘Tell me, the mystic symbols which are offered by the clergy, whose are they ? EPAN. Tod Acorwtixod cepatés Te Kal aipatos. Hranistus. Of the Body and Blood of our Lord. OPO. Tod dvtws caépatos 1) ovk dvtws; EP, Tod ovtws. Orthod. Of the real Body or of the unreal? Eran. Of the real.” ‘In like manner as the symbols are different before and after the priest’s invocation, so also did our Lord’s Body, after His ascension into heaven become turned into divine essence.” OPO. ‘Edras ais tdnves dpxvow. Ovde yap pera Tov aylacpov TA puaoTLKa GUUPBOrA THs oixelas eEicTaTaL pucews' péver yap éml THs Tpotépas ovcias, Kal Tov TXNMATOS, Kal TOD EldoUS, Kal OpaTa éoTL, Kal ATTA, Ola Kal TpOTEpov Hy" voetTas Oé Arep eyéveTo, Kal TIcTEVETAL, KAb TPOTKUVELTAL, WS Exelva dvTAa amep TIoTEVeTAL. Orr- thod. ‘Thou art caught in thine own toils. For after the consecration the mystic symbols do not change their inherent nature; but they continue as they were before, both as regards form and appearance; they may be seen and touched, as they were before; one only thinks of what they are become, and one believes and worships them as being what one thinks them to be’’.} XXVI. And those who agree with Hooker and Jeremy Taylor, take these symbols as of the death and passion of Christ, and of that only. Eé yap py atréGavev 0 Incots, Tivos atpBora Ta TeANovmeva; “If Christ did not die,” asks §. Chrysostom, “ whose 1 Dialog. ii, Orthod, and Eran., p. 165 sq., ed. M. J 96 “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. are the symbols we offer?’ See how anxious He is, MOTE AEi AVapLpvnoKed Oat, OTL aTréOavey UTEP Huar, that we should always be reminded that He died for us ;! AVALLLVNTKOMEVOL TOD aToOavorTos, being, in the words of Lysias,” ‘reminded of him who died”; and as 8. Chrysostom again says elsewhere: Té Aéyeus ; avayvnow Tov Xpiorov trovets, What then? thou makest mention [remembrance] of Christ, and thou overlookest the poor? “AAN et pev viod 7) adeApovd TeTENEUTNKOTOS ava- pvynow érroies, but if thou wert commemorating the death of a son or of a brother, wouldst thou not then give to the poor ?? For, says the Apostle, as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death until He come. Kal rtovro éxeivo to Setrvov éotev, and this is [the object of] that supper; ets 79v éunv avayynow TOLELTE TOUTO, EDN, TIV ALTLAV EKKAAUVTTOV Hiv THS TOU pvaotnpiov dSécews—xal TavTny eivat éywv apKovcaY nuiv els evNaBeias UTOMeow. ‘This do in remembrance of Me,” said He also at the cup, discovering to us the cause of the mystery [Sacrament], and telling us also that [to do it im remembrance of Him] is a sufficient object for our piety in this respect ; dtav yap évvonans te TémovOev 0 Acaomrétns cov bia oe, hitocopwtepos eon, for by meditating on what thy Master suffered on thy account, thou wilt become wiser.* XXVII. Ipocdépopev wév, dAX avavnow Trovovpevot tov Gavatov avtov, we bring an oblation, then, but making remembrance of His death—«ai pia éortiv aitn, and we have only one [such commemoration]. Ids pia, Kal ov TodAal; erred arrak mpocnvexOn; How one 1 In Matt. Homil. lxxxii, a’, B’. 3 In 1 Cor. xi, Homil. xxvii 3’. ? K, Awyer. p. 472, ed. O. 4 Tbid. “Do this in Remembrance of Me’. 97 only, and not many? Because He was offered only once. “O apytepeds juov éxetvos eat 0 THY Ousiay THY KaQaipovoay as mpoceveycov. Our High Priest is He who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. Todto els avapynow yivetat Tov TOTE yevouevov: and what we now do is done in remembrance of what was done at that time. Todrto yap troveite, hyo, eis THY Eunv ava- pvnow. OvK adrAnv Ovsiav, KaBaTrep 0 apyLepevrs TOTE, GNA THY AUTHV del TrOLODMEV" [LANdOV OE aVauVNCLW Epya- Goue0a Ovoias. For, said he, This do in remembrance of Me. We do not offer a sacrifice always different, hike the high priest of old; but we always offer the same: yea, rather, we ‘‘make remembrance” of that one sacrifice. Since, then, voteiy dvauvnow is said of one dead, tereXevOnxoTos, as of a brother, and in this case, of our Lord’s death, it is very difficult indeed to see how it can logically be inferred from it that we are “to do this in remembrance of Christ’s death, in order to remind God of it, and of the sacrifice of His Son’’.? For (1) not only is that not told in the original, ‘but (2) it implies that God could forget it ! A Greek, like $8. Chrysostom, would not, perhaps, notice a grammatical construction which would sound natural to him; but which to another mind has, never- theless, a peculiar force. Our Saviour’s words are rendered by 8. Luke and 8. Paul, eis tHv eunv avauvy- ow, while eis thy pov dvaduvnow, and with greater emphasis, es THv avapuvnolv pov, would have been quite as good Greek, though not so full of meaning. In Greek, however, the possessive pronouns are never used like this, in an objective form, except when 1 Homil. xvii in Heb., c. x, y’. 2 Doctrine of the Holy Euch., p. 13. H 98 “Do this in Remembrance of Me”. meant to convey a peculiar force of expression. ‘Thus, when Achilles speaks of ENV TOTLOEYLEVOV aiel, AvYpHY ayyeNinv, OT atropOipévov TvOnTAaL,! Or Cidipus, el TL 1) TO L@ TOOw KatepOito.” Or, again, when wounded Pheraules says to Sacas, eTrevyouat Tots Oeois—pn peTapérewy cor THS euys dw- peas,® one feels the peculiar stress laid on the personal pronoun so construed; as also in tiv éunv avaurvynou, the remembrance of Me, your Friend, your Saviour, suffering, afflicted, sorrowful unto death, betrayed, and brought to death for your sakes. It is somewhat singu- lar that those who find a great deal more in avayynows than it ever meant in Greek, overlook this, I may say, earnest and touching expression in our Saviour’s words. XXVIII. I have thus dwelt at some length on the stress the early Fathers lay on the fact that the Hucha- rist 1s a commemoration of our Saviour’s death and passion only, as the Prayer Book teaches, in order to show that, as far at least as I know, they widely differ from such a statement as this: ‘* He consummated this sacrifice on the cross; He then ascended to Heaven to make a perpetual offering of Him- self there, before the eternal throne. As the high priest went up on the day of atonement to offer and sprinkle the blood of the victim in the holiest place before the mercy- seat, so our Lord went up to Heaven to offer Himself before the Father. (Heb. ix, 7.)’’* 1 TA. 7', 336. 2 id. R. 969. 696, etc. 4 Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, p. 15. Of the perpetual Offering of Christ. 99 This, to say the least, would have been news to S. Chrysostom ; for is it not against Scripture ? (1.) As regards this “ perpetual offering of Christ in Heaven’’,—a somewhat new doctrine—we read, on the contrary, that ‘‘ Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many”’;! on which 8.Chrysostom says, 0 Xpuotos anag& mposeveyGeis—irro Tivos mpoceveyeis ; “Th éav- Tov Ondovott.- "EvtadOa ovdé iepéa Seixvusw avtov po- vov, adda Kat Odpa Kal iepefov. Christ was offered once. By whom was He offered? By Himself assu- redly. He thereby showed that He is not only High Priest, but also the offering and the victim for the sacrifice. “Ama£ mpocnvéxOn, Kal eis TO ael Hpxece. He was offered once, and that sufficed for ever.2 For this “ perpetual offering of Christ’’, if it were possible, would imply (1) that His sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient; (2), that He had not then made propitiation for us; (3), that the Father was not recon- ciled to us; and, if we carry our thoughts to the time when the Church will be gathered in Heaven; if that “perpetual offering” of Christ was to go on there,— and we are told that “ possibly in Heaven our eternal life will be fed by means of a similar sacrament” ,’—it would argue that the redemption of His Church through His blood was not complete, that the Father was not reconciled, and therefore that Christ was not “all and in all”. Truly the mind cannot accept this. Whereas, on the contrary, Scripture tells us plaimly that ‘ by God’s will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”, ébawa&. “ For by one offermg He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”.* Such truth needs no comment. 1 Heb. ix, 28. 3 Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, p. 18. 2 Ibid., Homil. xvii, 6’, y’. 4 Heb. x, 10, 14. 100 Of the perpetual Offering of Christ. (2.) As to Christ “offering Himself in Heaven”, Scripture tells us that “ after He had offered one sacri- fice for sms, He for ever sat down at the right hand of God: from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool’. On this 8. Chrysostom says, in addition to the passage quoted above, p. 77, where he tells us we are not to imagine that Christ continues to minister as High Priest, that He sat down in token that His ministering as such was done: xaitot TovdTo vx lepews, GANA TOUTOU © lepacbat éxeivoy vpn: for it is not the part of a priest [to sit down], but rather of him whom that one is to serve’.t “Apa 76 éoravat Tov NeLTOUpYEly EoTL ONpELOVY OvKOUY TO KabRaEaL TOU Nettroupyeto Gar. For as to stand is the sign of minis- tering, so also is to sit down the mark of one who is to be ministered unto.” XXIX. “ He became High Priest of our profession’’, says 8. Athanasius, dre mpocevéyxas éavTov UTrép 7MaV, HYELPEV EK VEKPOV TO TOMA, Kal VUV AUTOS TOUS TpPoTEpyo- Mévous AUTOD TH TicTEL Tpocayel Kal Tpoa Hepes TO TA- tpt: when, after having offered up Himself for us, He raised His own body from the dead ; and now all those who come to Him in faith, He brings and offers to the Father, redeeming them all, and making propitiation for all in things pertaining to God. His pontifical robe was our human nature, which He took of the Virgin Mary, wa éywv 70 mpoodepdpevoy avtos ws ’Apytepeds, €avTov Tpocevéyxyn TO Ilarpi: so that He, having some- what to offer as High Priest, He might offer up Him- self to the Father, and cleanse us all with His blood,— Omep éMwv Trerolnxey 0 LwTHp, and this the Saviour did when He came. He by nature is the only begotten 1 In Heb. vii, Homil. xiv. 2 In Heb. x, Homil. xviii, 3 2 Of the perpetual Offering of Christ. 10] Son; but He got for Himself brethren when He put on our flesh, through which He, offermg up Himself, "Apxvepeds @vouacOn, was called High Priest both mer- ciful and faithful. Merciful, in that having had pity on us, He offered up Himself for us; and faithful, in that the sacrifice He offered endures for ever, and can- not fail. “H 6 tod Lwripos Oucia arrak yevopévn Ttete- NelwKe TO TAY" Kal TLoT) Yyéyove, wévovTa Sia TraVTOS. For the Saviour’s sacrifice once wrought, fulfilled, ac- complished, and perfected every thing; and it became sure, since it abides for ever’’.? Nothing can be clearer than these words which are drawn from Scripture. They tell us of the part our Saviour now fills for us in Heaven, where os apyvepeds THS Omoroylas uaY, evTUyydver TO OeO bTrép Hudv, as High Priest of our profession, says Justin Martyr, He makes intercession for us with God.2 This, however, is not a “ perpetual offering of Himself”, which is a doctrine I have not yet found in Scripture. XXX. But there is in the same treatise another statement which we cannot receive when coupled with the Lord’s Supper as instituted by Christ: “S. John”, says the writer,’ “saw our Lord thus offering Himself as ‘a lamb as it had been slain’, His death-wounds still visible on His body. He saw Him there still pleading His sacrifice once offered on the cross, and thus interced- ing, and applying its merits for the salvation of the world. Our Lord ordained that this same offering, with this same worship, should continue to be celebrated in a sacrament on earth, even as it is visibly within the courts of Heaven.” All this is pure imagination. Pious imagination, no doubt; yet still a mere fancy, and nothing more. 1 Contra Arian. Orat. iii. 2 Quest. R. ad Orthod., ¢c. ev. 3 Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, p. 14. 102 Of the perpetual Offering of Christ. For (1) S. John says not a word of the Lamb plead- ing His sacrifice, etc. (2.) Still less that our Lord ordained that vision to be acted or celebrated in the holy Sacrament; a statement which is wholly visionary, and without any foundation whatever. (3.) The Lamb thus seen by S. John was “‘the same Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world’’, literally or figuratively ? (4.) He was the Lamb whom 8. John the Baptist saw walking, and of whom he said, “ Behold the Lamb of God !” literally or figuratively? (5.) That “Lamb of God”, Jesus, who, when seen by 8. John the Baptist, was then in the same body in which He died, afterwards rose again in that same human body glorified, and after forty days’ intercourse with His disciples went up in that same body into Heaven, where He was afterwards seen by 8. Stephen, by S. Paul, and by 8. John; where He now is, and whence He is to come again in the same body as that in which He went up—if angels’ words are true. Now the Sacrament He ordained was eis advadurnow, in remembrance of Him as He then was in His human body, worn, dying, and dead; on which we shall one day see the print of the nails and the thrust of the spear, if we be found worthy. But it was not im re- membrance of Him as “a Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes’; it was in remembrance of Him in the body, as He was seen by S. John the Baptist, who seeing Him walking, said of Him, “ Behold the Lamb of God !”? as we also call Him; but not in remem- brance of Him as He now is in Heaven. S. Chryso- stom, at least, did not think so; for speaking of the Lord’s Supper he says, Tov voov avarewe pos TO Oetrvoy TO KUPLAKOV, TPOS THY aypuTViay TOV palyTov: when Of the perpetual Offering of Christ. 103 thou comest to the Lord’s Table, reach in thy mind to the Supper of the Lord, to the watchings of the dis- ciples in that hallowed night. More than this is but a confusion of ideas against which the mind rebels ; painful as it is to be made thus rudely to handle mys- tical subjects, which one’s instinct, if nothing else, loves to shroud in silence and mystery; and to have to dwell on so fanciful a paraphrase of Scripture. But the fault, in sooth, is with those who teach the doc- trines, and not with those who decline to receive them. A man may, no doubt, persuade himself almost anything; and a few friends may even agree among themselves to hold certain interpretations or doc- trines all their own; but they cannot press them as “ of the faith’, which, according to 8. Cyril, is not to be received except it be proved from Scripture. Yet neither Scripture nor such of the early Fathers as I have seen, say one word of all this in connexion with the Eucharist. It, therefore, is of no greater authority than another fancy of Romanists, who apply Rev. xu, 1-6, to the Virgin ; not aware, it seems, that they are condemned by the seventy-ninth Canon of the sixth (Hcumenical Council, and by all the Greek commenta- tors thereon, for thus alluding to her.” 1 In 1 Cor. xi; Hom. xxviii, 5. 2 Theotokia Copt. Arab., ix hymn, p. 117. For whereas the wo- man in the Apocalypse “ being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered” (v. 2), that canon declares that ov yap Tinh ye ToUTO TH TMapOevy TH bwep voiv Kal Adyov Tov axwpNTOV TE- kovon Adyov capri, ek TGV Koway TE, Kal Kal judas TA KaTa Tov &ppactov avTis téKov dpifev Kul broypadev—it is paying no respect to the Virgin, who gave birth in the flesh to the Infinite Word, in a manner above both mind and reason to understand, to define or represent her unspeakable travail according to things common among us. Our Saviour’s birth being aAdxeutos, kal avev ddvv7s, Kal 104: Of the holy Eucharist But 8. Hilary seems to have written to the purpose concerning such fanciful and arbitrary constructions put upon Scripture, as regards the Sacraments, when he said: “‘ Apostolus—Scripturarum virtutibus admonens confitendum : ut hee nostra esset in ejus morte intelli- gentia, quee esset in significatione Scripturarum. In- firmas enim cogitationes, et scrupulosas fidei calumnias non reliquens, finem hune tantum secundum Scripturas preedicandzs mortis et resurrectionis adjecit, ne in- anium disputationum vento circumacti infirmaremur : sed in hune se semper religionis suze portum fides illesa revocaret, ut mortem et resurrectionem homi- nis filu et Dei filu Jesu Christi secundum Seriptu- ras crederet et confiteretur.—Mortuus est, sed secun- dum Scripturas resurgens a dextris Domini Dominus assedit, In hujus igitur Sacramenti fide vita est: ca- lumniam confessio ista non recipit.”} XXXIJ. But the drift of such teaching is very evi- dent. Jt is to make the Hucharist a “ sacrifice” in the sense of “immolation”; and to make the priests, lepets, “ sacrificers”’, according to the Tridentine article quoted above, p. 74. Nothing of this, however, is to be found in the New Testament. (1.) As before remarked, the Eucharist is never spoken of there as @vaia ; neither is Ovcia, “sacrifice”, said of any but spiritual sacrifices. In the words of Justin Martyr, which are plain enough, o Qevotatos Aoyos— Kal Ovoper Sunvexds Guciav aivérews, Kal oTrévoopev MS Oecd Senoess etdixpsveis, Kal avtl amdAns yevynoews exrAapBavouerns. So that to represent her as in Rev. xii, after the Romish fancy, is ravrdmacw a&romdétatov, kal cap- Kik@v avOpdrwv épevdpnua, altogether out of place, and an invention of carnal men.—TI7daa., p. 166. 1 §. Hilar. De Trinitate, lib. x, 67. The italics are in the text. as a spiritual Sacrifice. 105 Ovowev evwdiav mpdtewv, ad’tov éEavtois avactpédorTes, avTov avaTvéovTes, avTov Royilopevot, AUTO Tpocave- NOVTES, AUTOV Ev TAT LuVOdVTES, THY paKapiay édrida, Kal yopnyov THs avwTat@ Bacwreias. The Divine Word, to whom we continually sacrifice the sacrifice of praise ; to whom we pour, as unto God, the libations of sin- cere prayers, and sacrifice the sweet smell of our works ; making Him a part of ourselves in daily life, breathmg Him, dwelling upon Him in thought, yearn- ing for Him, praising Him in all things, our blessed hope, and the giver to us of the kingdom of Heaven. ‘And ye say yourselves”, adds Justin Martyr else- where, “ that God did not accept your sacrifices offered at Jerusalem, but that tas evyas avtav Oucias Kane’, He calls “sacrifices” the prayers offered to Him in every place by those of the Dispersion (that are scat- tered abroad) : 6Tu pev odv Kal evyal Kai EevyapLoTiat UTrO TOV aklwy yevomevat, TEELaL OVAL Kal EVaPETTOL Eliot TO Oe@ Ovoiat, cal adTos nue TadTa yap mova Kal ypLoTi- avol mapéXaBov trovetv. Therefore do I say that the prayers and giving of thanks offered by worthy people are the only sacrifices both perfect and acceptable unto God; for these are the only ones Christians have been told to offer.* XXXIT. So also (2) as regards ‘epets, priests in the sense of ‘‘sacrificers’?; nowhere in the New T'estament are they mentioned, except as the “‘royal priesthood,” “the kings and priests whose office is to offer spiri- tual sacrifices acceptable unto God,” that is, those who make up “ the blessed company of all faithful people,” whose Head is Christ, who therefore is called their High Priest. Ov @vowev ecixotws avevdcet TA Oe, ° 1 Justin M. Expos. Fid., p. 390. * Dial. c. Tryph., p. 345. 106 Of the holy Eucharist “‘with good reason,” says S. Clement, ‘do we not sacrifice to God, who is in want of nothing,”’ Tov & t7rép nov LepevOevta do€dfomev opas avdtovs iepevovtes, “ but we glorify Him who was offered for us, by offering up ourselves in sacrifice,’! an expression which, in Greek, bears directly on the (epevs, priest, as “ sacri- ficer.” But nowhere do the Apostles or the Apostolic Fathers use the term tepeds for priest in the Holy Catholic Church, but only mpecBvtepos: and in this case the so-called Apostolic Liturgies are utterly worth- less as an authority.” Hven in the so-called Apostolic Canons priests are never called ‘epets, but mperBurepot. XXXITI. The Holy Eucharist, therefore, is, as the Prayer Book says, and as the name of it implies, “a 1 Strom., lib. vii, p. 707. * The apostolic liturgies of S. Peter, S. Matthew, S. John, etc., and that of S. James in particular, are quoted for the terms iepeds and @vola found there; but no one can place any faith in them, as they have been so interpolated as to leave little of the original writing. In that of S. James, the terms fepevs and @vcia are found, it is true; but so is the ‘Ave Maria” and several prayers to God in commemoration of the Blessed Virgin. Now, according to Bar- salibi, 8S. James received his liturgy from Heaven the third day after the Pentecost, when the Virgin was stillamong them! For according to the Arabic account (Abulfeda, Hist. A. I., p. 63) she brought forth our Saviour at fourteen, and died fifty-three years old, “tate provecta ad multam senectutem”. (Simon Metaphr., Orat. de S. Maria, p. 557.) Epiphanius, who did not know whether or not she had died, thought she might have lived to the age of seventy. Others say that she died at fifty-nine; others, again, at forty-nine (Max. Enger. De Trans. B. M., p. ix); while the Gnostic work in Sahidic, called Pistis Sophia, says that eleven years after Christ’s resurrection He came back to His disciples, and found His mother yet among them. Anyhow she was alive when S. James wrote his liturgy, if the story told be true. So that the insertion of the “Ave Maria” and other like prayers in honour of the Virgin, may be of the same date as that of the terms fepeds and 6ucia. as a spiritual Sacrifice. 107 sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’’; to wit, a holy ‘rite sacred to God in thankful remembrance of the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ, ‘‘ which alone ob- tained eternal redemption for us.””! For it was only Gavatov yevomévou eis atroNuTpwow “after having died for our redemption,’ which was fully wrought and accomplished when He cried: “It is finished!” that He went into the holy place Heaven, not with His own Blood, as if He took it with Him to offer it there, but dua Tov idiov aipatos, by means of, or through the Blood He had before shed on the Cross, and which, so to speak, gave Him right of entrance into Heaven, as the blood of bulls and of goats gave the high priest under the law right to go into the holiest of all. Christ then went in, as it were, to take possession of that which He had won for us, when &a Tod aliwviov tvevpmatos éavtov Tpoonveyxe, by means of, or through the Hternal Spirit He had already offered Himself, and by that one offering TeTeXeiwxev eis TO Sunvenés Tos ayrafomévous, He had “ perfected for ever them that are sanctified”. That is the only right we have to the inherit- ance which He then won for us. Therefore, to talk of “a perpetual offering of Himself,” and thus to turn the Eucharist into “a propitiatory sacrifice’ after the manner of the Romish Mass, is to imply that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient, and that the Father, there- fore, is not yet reconciled; it is to make us little else than Jewish priests; it is a doctrine of men which is unworthy of scriptural Christians, and derogatory from the all-sufficient majesty of Christ’s one sacrifice of Himself offered on the Cross once, and for ever. XXXIV. 8S. Clement of Al. also applies the term ~ 1 Heb. ix, 11, sq. 108 Of the holy Hucharist Ovaia, “ sacrifice,” to private or family prayers: avtixa Ouvoias wéev avT@, evyat Te Kal aivou Kal ai TPO THS éoTL- acews evTeveers TOV ypapov' arwol dé Kai buvos Tapa THY EcTiacW, Tpo TE THS KoiTns.—For the prayers and praises, and the reading of Scripture before meals, with psalms and hymns before going to bed, are sacri- fices unto God.! While as regards the “ sacrifice of the Church,’ He says very plainly: Ovx« drreckétas nmets OL EvDYTS TLUL@mEV TOV Beovr Kal TavTnY THY Ouaiav aploTny Kal ayiwTaTny peTa Stxarootyvys avaTréwTopev TO SiKaloTadT@ Oyo yepaipovtes. Wherefore do we rightly honour God through prayer, offering Him this the best and holiest sacrifice with justice, and honour- ing Him with our words as the justest offering. Our altar, therefore, on earth, To d@powcpa Tay Tats ebyais éemrixerpevov, is the congregation of those who are en- gaged in prayer, with one voice and knowledge. Kal yap 7) Ovcia ths “Exkrnolas, Aoyos amo TOV aylov ruyov avabupi@pevos, éxxAuTTTOMévNS Awa THS Oucias kal Svavotas amdons TO Oecd. For the sacrifice of the Church is—the words which are offered as a sweet smell from holy souls, while the Church thus un- folds at once both her sacrifice and whole mind towards God. Ilds ody Gicw TH Kupiw; How, then, shall I sacrifice to the Lord? a contrite spirit; 4 Ti Oupiacw To Kupio; or what incense shall I offer Him? The perfume He likes is a heart that glorifies Him that made him; TavTa otéhy, Kab Ovoiat, Kal dpopua Kai avOn Tod Oecd. Such are the wreaths, the sacrifices, the perfumes, and the flowers of God.? ‘ Hsse autem in Christo 1 Strom., lib. vii, p. 728. e’Thid., Pawace 3 Ibid., Pedag., lib. iii. as a spiritual Sacrifice. 109 finem legis et sacrificium laudis evangelica confessio est: ita ut hostiarum sanguine et oblatione cessante sacrificium gratiz laudisque prolatum sit,’ says S. Hilary. ‘ Nam hoc non potest esse divinum sacrifi- cium ubi usus est nature. LEdere, bibere, dormire, aliaque etiam ministeria corporis dono sunt tibi collata, non a te relata Deo munera. Quidquid autem sanctum cogitaveris, hoc Dei munus est, Dei inspiratio; Dei eratia.” ‘Quod indicium est, Deum non muneribus oblatis placeri sed offerentis affectu.”? But it is needless to multiply quotations in order to shew that “ Christian sacrifices” are all spiritual ; as prayer and praise, singing psalms and “ giving of » thanks”, the real meaning of THe Hucuarist, which, by S. Cyril is said, like the rest, to be 7vevpatixn @uvcia, A SPIRITUAL SACRIFICE.° WR OF THE INWARD AND SPIRITUAL GRACE WE RECEIVE IN THAT HOLY SACRAMENT. We saw that even while our blessed Saviour was on earth, when He was seen, handled, and heard, none but those who came to Him in faith drew from Him a virtue to heal them of their plagues ; and we therefore naturally concluded that if it was so then, it cannot be otherwise now, that He is, humanly speaking, absent in the Body, but present in the Spirit only. And we further endeavoured to ascertain the meaning of His words, when He instituted the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, in remembrance of His death and passion. 1 Tn Ixix, Ps.26. 2S. Ambrose, De Cain et Abel,lib.i,c.x; ii,c.vi. 3 §. Cyril of Jer., Cat. Mystag., v. 110 Of the Benefit we receive thereby. I, The next question therefore is—What benefit do we receive through this Sacrament ? And the answer, if men would only “ do reason,” is —“ Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort’, for the refreshment and strengthen- ing of your soul in communion with Christ; but as to the rest of it, as to ‘the manner how,’ think as you like ; for neither you nor I can understand that which to the great and holy men of old was “ an undiscernible secret”, ‘“an unsearchable mystery, hidden from all ages, and past all human knowledge”. Yet, as some more explicit answer may perhaps be required, let us see whether, without rashly treading on the forbidden ground of mystery, we may, according to the analogy of faith, obtain some idea of the kind of benefit or grace we receive through the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. (1.) Christ, in His one Person, has two natures, perfect Godhead and perfect manhood, ineffably joined together, yet without mixture or confusion. (2.) His manhood, or human body, like unto our own, “yet without sin” and glorified, is in heaven, “which must receive Him until the restitution of all things.””? As that body can only be in one place at a time, and is in heaven, where it must now remain until His second coming, He is now absent from us in the body, and will continue so, for aught we know, until the end of the world. Because, as He can be our Intercessor and act as our Mediator only in His humanity, wherein He identifies Himself with us, and must therefore, in that capacity of Intercessor and 1 Joh. Maro in Expos. Lit. D. Jac., c. 31. 2 Acts iii, 21. Of the Benefit we receive thereby. eel Mediator, be inferior to the Father as touching His manhood—it is clear that He must remain in Heaven until His Church be gathered unto Him; when neither Intercession nor Mediation will any longer be needed ; _but He shall be All, and in All.! (3.) But His Godhead, Divine nature or Spirit, is, as such, everywhere; since, before His Incarnation, “He made all things,” and even now “by Him all things consist.””” Only that, before He was made man, He wrought as “the Word, the Creator’, etc.; where- as, ever since His Incarnation, His Divine Nature or Spirit, wherever it be, is there as the Spirit of Christ, both God and Man. For—if it be lawful to touch on such impenetrable mysteries—His Godhead is, in one sense, distinct from His manhood; albeit His manhood be inseparable from His Godhead, since His manhood is in Heaven, and his Godhead is everywhere. Never- theless, wherever He is present as God, He is of necessity present there as God Christ, that is, in the Divine Nature of Him who, in His Person, is unto all eternity “ perfect God and perfect Man.” (4.) This imeffable mystery was wrought through _ His great love for us, in order to save us, by (1) bear- ing for us in His human nature the chastisement of eternal death, which we had brought upon ourselves through sin, thus triumphing for us over death; and (2) by giving us eternal life; in other words, by making us partakers of His Divine nature; bringing us in contact with it through His humanity, until we be, as He says, “‘ of His flesh and of His bones.” Such are, in a few words, the inestimable benefits ‘Col. iii, 11, 2 Col. i, 15-18; Heb. i, 2. 112 Of the Benefit we receive thereby. wrought for us by His death and passion. The ques- tion is, therefore—How does He impart them to us individually ? How does He bring every one of us within the quickening influence of the Light and Life that beam forth from Him ? Il. It is self-evident that, since He is absent from us in His human form, but present in His spiritual divine nature only, our intercourse with Him can only be through the spirit, spiritual. We do not, there- fore, like those who companied with Him on earth, see God in the man Jesus, but our ideas of Him, as a man and one of us, such as they be, only come to us through our spiritual intercourse with Him as God. Our human nature, then, is reached, and our inward man is renewed after His image, only through His divine nature or spirit, in contact with our spirit; and not the contrary. But no such spiritual intercourse can exist without faith as the principle of it. Our ideas of Him, therefore, depend on what “‘ evidence of things not seen” our faith is to us; whether this eye of the mind in us be clear, dim, or altogether blind. "Orrep yap 5 éotw dpbadwos ev cHpartt, TodTO apa miatis év dvavoia. Maddov 5€, botep ofGarpos Setrat horos émidexvivtos Ta OpaTa, oUTw 67) av Kal O Vvods deltas Tiatews emiderxvuons Ta Oela, Kal TEepit TOUTWY dofav dvratrovens BeBaiav. For what the eye is to the body, faith is to the mind. Yea, rather, as the eye requires light to enable it to see the things it beholds, so also does the mind require faith to show to it the things of God, and to enable it to hold fast a firm opinion of them. III. It is therefore true, most true, that we walk by 1 Theodorit. De Fide, p. 812, ed. M. Of the Benefit we receive thereby. 115 faith, since we do neither see the land whither we are going, nor Him who is the Lord of it; and it is also true that “the just shall live by faith”; for without it, not a ray of the Spirit, or divine nature of Christ, which is the life of the soul, can be shed abroad in our hearts. But, since faith and the Spirit are inseparable, each being the fruit of the other, Christ, in His love, first brings us within the influence of His divine nature, when we are yet too weak to help ourselves, by making us at Baptism members of His visible Body the Church. In a soul thus planted, faith, if not wilfully left to die, grows up with the child by the Holy Ghost—iotis O€¢, dua Barticpate ayio TaWeveTat mvevpatt.| For faith is less of the intellect than of the Spirit, and both are true; faith as the evidence of spiritual things, and the Spirit as the reality of them. And this is never so true as with regard to the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, if we could but “ do reason” thereon. IV. “The Body of Christ,” says Article XXVIII, “is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.’ Nothing can be plainer; “heavenly” being here taken as 8. Chrysostom does: Tiva Neyer €vTavGa érroupama ; To rvevmatixa: et yap Kal él ys TerelTal, GAN OMas TOV ovpavav éoTw aéta. “What are heavenly things? ‘Things spiritual.’”? Likewise as regards the Sacrament: ‘ When thou seest the Lord slain, and the congregation sprinkled with His blood, and He gives Himself to be handled 1 §. Clem. Al., Pedag., lib. i. 2 In Heb. viii, Homil. xiv, a’. ead Of the Benefit we recewe thereby. Totodat O€ TOUTO TravTes bia TOV ObOadpaV THs TisTEwWs, all this is done through the eyes of faith.’’! “The doctrine of the Church of England,” says Bp. Jeremy Taylor,? “and generally of the Protestants im this article, is—that after the minister of the holy mysteries hath ritely prayed, and blessed or conse-- crated the bread and the wine, the symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ, after a sacramental, that is, a spiritual real manner; so that all that worthily communicate do by faith receive Christ really, effectually, to all the purposes of His passion: the wicked receive not Christ, but the bare symbols only.”,—'The result of which doctrine is this: it is bread and it is Christ’s body: it is bread sub- stance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed as the sym- bois are; each as they can: Christ as Christ can be given; the bread and the wine as they can; and to the same real purposes to which they are designed ; and Christ does as really nourish and sanctify the soul as the elements do the body.” “The body and blood of Christ are verily and in- deed taken and received of the faithful in the Lord’s Supper,” says the Catechism. “ Now,” says Jeremy Taylor, “‘that the spiritual is also a real presence, and that they are hugely consistent, is easily credible to them that believe that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are real graces, and a spirit is a proper substance; and Ta vonta are amongst the Hellenists ta éyvra, intelli- gible things, or things discerned by the mind of man, are more truly and really such, and of a more excellent substance and reality, than things only sensible. And ? De Sacerd., v, 4. 2 Real Pres., sect. i, 4 sq. Of the Benefit we rvecewe thereby. 115 therefore, when things spiritual are signified by mate- rials, the thing under the figure is called true, and the material part is opposed to it, as less true or real.” This too, which is plain enough, is yet made plainer by what follows : “The examples of this are not unfrequent in Scrip- ture ; the tabernacle, into which the high priest entered, was a type or figure of heaven. Heaven itself is called cxnvn adnOwn, the true tabernacle, and yet the other was the material part. And when they are joined together, that is, when a thing is expressed by a figure, adn}, true, is spoken of such things, though they are spoken figuratively: Christ the true Light; the true vine, and vere cibus, truly meat; and panis verus e ceelo, the true bread from heaven ; and spiritual goods are called the true riches: and in the same analogy the spiritual presence of Christ is the most true, real, and effective: the other can be but the image and shadow of it, something in order to this. For if it were in the Sacrament naturally and corporeally, it could be but in order to this spiritual, celestial, and effective _ presence, as appears beyond exception in this,—that the faithful and pious communicants receive the ulti- mate end of His presence, that is, spiritual blessings ; the wicked (who, by the affirmation of the Roman doc- tors, do receive Christ’s body and blood in the natural and corporeal manner) fall short of that for which this is given, that is, of the blessings and benefits.” V. To this there is nothing to add, except by way of explanation. (a.) We believe that a “ riteful consecration” of the elements, whether of water at baptism, or of the bread and wine in the Hucharist, gives them their sacra- 116 Of the riteful Consecration mental efficacy ; that is, fits them for the purpose in- tended by Christ, as outward symbols of inward union and communion with Him. What, then, is this riteful consecration? It is in the Eucharist, the act performed by the priest, rpeoGv- Tepos,! or, as it used to be, rpoectws Tav adeAdar; “ the president of the brethren’’, in place of our Saviour’s “ giving of thanks” and “ blessing”’, together with “ the words of institution” or “consecration’’. Now not only do these words differ in Scripture, “whereby”, says Jeremy Taylor, “it is certain Christ interposed no command in this case; and by this dif- ference declared there is no necessity of one, and there- fore no efficacy in any to this purpose’,? but as we saw, 8. Basil asks “‘ what words of consecration the saints of old left?’ since we use so many others, and the primitive Christians only said the Lord’s Prayer over the bread and wine. Not only, therefore, do all liturgies differ in this respect, but so do also the Eastern and Western Churches between them, and each within herself. The Romish Church holds that the transubstantiation of the elements into the material body of Christ takes place instantaneously at the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood’; while the Greek Church declares that the change, whatever it be, is wrought by the Holy Ghost, who is prayed to come down upon the elements after the words of con- secration have been spoken. But Romanists are not agreed on the subject: “ they have several opinions, Popes Innocent III and IV denying that the consecration was wrought by the words, ‘This is my body’. Scholastics differ from this, 1 Can. Apost. iii. 2 Real Pres., sect. iv, 4. of the Bread and Wine. Lie and Aquinas from Scotus ; so that the many opinions on this respect are not easy to be reckoned. Only Guido Brianson reckons nine, and his own makes the tenth. This I take upon the credit of one of their own archbishops,” says Jeremy Taylor.! Likewise do the Maronite Syrians differ from their Jacobite or Nesto- rian brethren. Witness the unmeasured abuse with which the Maronites assail the rest. And now, in the English Church, those who call themselves * Ritualists” or ‘‘ Catholics” differ, in this respect, from the rest of their brethren, if not in words, assuredly in deed ; for while the more honest take our Saviour’s words in their natural sense, and “do’’ as the Saviour “did’’, the others say “‘ do” while they mean “ offer” or “ make’, and thereby condemn themselves by saying what they do not mean. Where then, in this diversity and confu- sion, is, even in the words of consecration, the “‘ Catho- lic truth” of which they talk? The enemy, indeed, has not been slack in sowing his tares in the field of God’s Church, and they have thriven. (b.) This “ riteful consecration”, therefore, resolves itself into the devout utterance of a certain form of words embodying a portion or the whole of those spoken by our Lord at the Last Supper; the mode of which differs in the several Churches of Christendom, but is unquestionably fullest and best in the English Church. (c.) And those words are said by the men alone, who, by virtue of their ordination, have received power and authority so to do. Nevertheless the efficacy of the consecration of the elements lies wholly in the words themselves, and not in the priest, who is himself 1 Real Pres., sect. iv, 8. 118 Of the riteful Consecration nothing but a servant of his people for Christ’s sake; yea, taking his pattern from the apostles, he only is a minister, duaxovos pvotnpiov I. Xpuotod, 4} éxxdnolas cod vrepérns :! brepérns Xprotod Kal olkovopos pvoTn- piav ®eod: he is but ‘‘a minister of Christ,and steward or dispenser of the mysteries of God”; which he does not “make” assuredly, but only dispenses to others. And this treasure he has in an earthen vessel, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of him, who is not allowed either to lord it over God’s heritage, or to have dominion over the faith of His people.? No supernatural virtue comes from his hands as vir- tues of healing came from the Apostles; for he has nothing in himself, but his authority hes wholly in his office. Therefore may he not alter the words of con- secration at his pleasure, for they alone consecrate : Kal 0 pTos Kal TO EXaLov ayialerar TH Suvamet TOD ove- patos. ‘ Both the bread and the oil,” says S. Clement of Alexandria,® ‘‘are sanctified by the power [or vir- tue] of the Name that is called upon them”; thus plac- ing the riteful consecration of the bread, oil, and water on the same footing, namely that of the émé«Anous, or invocation alone. ‘‘ Nostra enim servitia’”’, ours is the service, says 8. Ambrose, ‘‘ sed tua sunt Sacramenta; neque humane opis est divina conferre; tuum Domine munus est.”’ But thine, O Lord, are the Sacraments : it is not for man to bestow divine gifts; that belongs to Thee alone.* ‘‘ Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit ? Domini Jesu.’® 1 §. Ignat. ad Trall., ii. 3 Theodoti Epitome, p. 800. * 2 Cor.iv, 7; i, 24; 1 Pet.v,3. 4 De Spir. Sancto, lib. i, Pref. 5 Tbid., De Sacr., lib. iv, c. 4. of the Bread and Wine. 119 (d.) What effect, then, have these words on the elements of bread and wine? None whatever on the material substance of them, for they remain in form, nature, and matter, the same after the consecration as they were before; but by virtue of the words of institution ritefully said over the elements, according to our Saviour’s holy institution, these elements are - set apart and consecrated as especial symbols of His death and passion. Ov Ta avta d6vta Kata TO dhawo- fevov ola EXnhOn, Gra Suvamer eis SvVAMW TVEVpATL- Knv petaBéBrnta. “ They, therefore, being sanctified by the invocation, are not the same wm condition as they were when taken; but they, by virtue of that invocation, are changed into a spiritual efficacy, says S. Clement of Alexandria”’.' They are thus made singu- lar means of remembrance of that death, and so also of spiritual feeding thereon, to all such as partake of them with devout faith in the merits of Christ’s obla- tion and sacrifice once offered on the cross. In the words of the Catechism, “ their souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ,—thus verily and indeed taken spiritually,—as their bodies are by the bread and wine”. (e.) But the feast is wholly spiritual; and if so, it is through faith,and through that alone. Naught of Christ abides materially in the substance eaten and drunk. “That the proposition, ‘ This is my body’, is tropical and figurative, is the thing; and that Christ’s natural body is now in Heaven definitively, and nowhere else; and that He is in the Sacrament, as He can be in a Sacrament, in the hearts of faithful receivers, as He has promised to be there; that is, in the Sacrament — } In Theod. Epit., p. 800. See Cave, H. Lit., i, p. 87, 90. 120 Of our Saviour’s Discourse mystically, operatively, as in a moral and divine instru- ment in the hearts of receivers by faith and blessing ; this is the truth and the faith” we hold, says Jeremy Taylor.t. And elsewhere: “The food that Christ said He would give is His flesh, which He would give for the life of the world, viz. to be crucified and killed; and so giving it, it became meat. The receiving this gift was a receiving of life, for it was given for the life of the world.” The manner of receiving it is by faith, and hearing the Word of God, submitting our understand- ing. The digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ, conforming to His doctrine and example; and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this man- ducation, so they come under this discourse, and no otherwise”’.? (f.) This is plain to any one who can read ; for if so be that, as some assume against the opinion of Huse- bius, S. Basil, 8. Jerome, 8. Bernard, 8. Clement of Alexandria, and others, our Saviour, in the sixth chap- ter of S. John, alludes to the Holy Sacrament, it is impossible to conceive how He could mean it otherwise than spiritually. When, for instance, He says: “I am the bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst’’;* or, “‘ This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die’; these words are not true naturally: neither are they true of the Eucharist, since those who partake of it die as well as those who do not. But that His words were throughout to be taken in a purely spiritual sense, is proved not only by ! Real Pres., sect. vi, 1. 3 Thid., sect. iii, 17. 2 8. John, vi. *)V585, 5 YV. 50. at Capernaum, S. John vi. 121 His saying that it is “‘ the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing’, but that ‘‘ the words He spake were spirit and were life’’;' and also that “he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever’’, which cannot possibly be understood literally and naturally of the bread, but spiritually of the life. Fer as the life so is the bread; both were spiritually meant, and are to be spiritually understood. VI. Therefore to explain literally, as in the treatise already mentioned, the terms “flesh and blood” in S. John vi, and to say that the flesh profiteth nothing without the quickening spirit, which is there called ** Christ’s divine nature’’,? is unwittingly to gainsay : (1.) S. Athanasius, who quotes this very passage as said of the Holy Ghost, and not of Christ’s divine nature properly so called: wep tod mvevpatos dnou” TO Teva ett TO CwoTroLody: ) TapE ovK wheel ovdEv,> as contrasted with “ flesh” when applied to our human, sinful nature, and not to Christ’s body. (2.) S. Basil, who says: ypdupa reyes TOV voLor, Tvedpma O€ THY TOD Kupiov dvdacKaniav, avTod Tod Kupiou e’mrovtos, “Ta pyuatd jou Tredud €oTt, Kal Con Eotw.” The apostle speaks of the law as of the letter, and of the doctrine of the Lord as of the spirit: witness the Lord Himself, who says, “ My words, they are spint and they are life’’.4 (3.) S. Hilary: “ Ipse autem Dominus hujus nativi- tatis suze mysterium pandens sic locutus est, Hgo sum panis vivus, etc., se panem dicens; ipse eum sui cor- poris origo est.”” “ Non autem hic manducatio corpo- 1 V.. 63. 2 Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, p. 34. 3 De Comm. Ess. P. F. et Sp. S., vol. i, p. 209. 4 §. Basil de Bapt., lib. i, 19. 122 Of our Saviour’s Discourse ralis est ; quia neque id quod manducandum est corpo- rale sit. Sed habemus hic cibum spiritualem, animam nostram in vitam alentem, bona scilicet spero—eoque in vita hac corporali anima nostra alenda est, per cibum horum laborum obtinentes panem vivum, panem cceles- tem ab eo qui dixit: Hgo sum panis vivus’’, etc.! (4.) S. Chrysostom: “Aptov dé HTot Ta Soypata Neyer évTav0a TA cwTHpla, Kal THY TicTW THY Els AVTOV, 1 TO capa TO Eavtod. “Apudhotepa yap veupot Thy buynv. By bread here he means either the saving doctrines, and the faith that is in Him, or His body, for both nerve the soul. And on ‘it is the spirit that quickeneth’’, etc.,"O O€ reyes TovwodTov éote Tlvevpatixds, Sel Ta TEpl EWOV AKOvELY 0 Yap TAPKLKAS aKovoas, OVOEY aTTO- Vato, oUTE ypnoToV 7) amréXavoe. ‘‘ What He means is this: You must understand spiritually the things which concern Me; for he who understands them according to the flesh, neither profits at all nor benefits thereby. It was carnal to doubt that He was come down from Heaven, and also that He could give His flesh to eat. All these things were according to the flesh, which they ought to have understood mystically’’. ““ How, then, could they be made to understand what it is to eat His flesh? Was it not time that He should say: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life? Tovréott, Peta kai rvevpatixa éoTw, ovdev éyovTa capKiKoy, ovde aKodovOiay vaiKiy, & Kal ATHANAKTAL TANS MEV TOLAVTNS AVAYKNS, Kal VTTépKELTAL Kal TOV vowov Tov évTad0a KEeipévwv: Erepov Oé Eyer vodV éEnNayévov—that is, My words are divine and spiri- tual, having nothing carnal; neither are they to be construed literally [according to nature], for they are 1 §. Hilarii de Trin., x, 18, in Psalm exxviii, 6. at Capernaum, S. John vi. 128 free from any such necessity. They rise far above all laws that govern the things of the earth, and they have quite another meaning. Xp dé pu ovTw xKpivew Tots Op@méevols, d\rNa TATA TA puaTHpLA Tots EvdoV OpOadpots KatorrTevewv [7 dé TiaTis TOD VOU OdUarpmos éott. Theo- dorit.]| Tovdto yap éote mvevpatinas. We must not thus judge by the objects of sense, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes of the mind [faith]; that is, to judge spiritually”’.? (5.) S. Cyril of Jerusalem, who says: zrept d€ Tis Karns diackanrias avTos 0 KUpLOS Aéyer’ TA PjpwaTta a éyw AerAGANKA Upiv, Tveduad eott, Kal Con éoTW avTi TOD mvevpatixa €ott. Alluding to good doctrine, the Lord Himself says: “ The words which I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’, instead of “they are spiritual’. For the Holy Ghost does not speak with a tongue, but is living, and teaches how to speak wisely, that which Himself explains.” And else- where, speaking of the symbols of bread and wine in the Eucharist, he says: @o7ep 0 dptos cwpmaTs KaTaAN- Nos oUTw Kal O AOYos TH WuyH appwodvos—el yap Kal 1 acOnols cot TOUTO UTOBadXEL, AdAA 1) TridTIs TE BERat- OUTM, [1) ATO THS yeUoEwWS KpivyS TO TPAywa, ANN a7ro THs Tistews TANpOpopod avevOoidaTws, TWmaATOS Kai ai- patos Xpiotod KxatakiwOeis. As, therefore, bread is suited to the body, so is the word agreeable to the soul. If thy senses suggest to thee it is only bread and wine, let thy faith confirm thee: judge not of it by thy taste, but with full faith ; doubt not thou art made worthy of the body of Christ’’.® (6.) S. Clement of Alexandria, who, while explaining 1 §. Chrys. in Joh. Homil. xlvi, a’, xlvii, 6’. * Catech. xvi, p. 181. 3 Catech. Myst. v. 124 Of our Saviow’s Discourse that the Word of God is sometimes a light food, like milk, or more solid, like meat, says, Bp@ua Oé, 4 Tictus eis Gewédtov ex KaTnxynoews TUVerTpaupevn. This food is faith, which being gathered from teaching, is laid as foundation. As faith is more solid than mere hearing, Bpepate arendberar, év aith cwpatoroiupévn TH apuyn tiv Totavde TpopHy: it is compared to food which assimilates such nourishment with the soul. But else- where in the Gospel according to 8. John does our Lord also present it otherwise, da cvupPoror, through symbols or figures, DayeoOé pou Tas sapxas, eiTr@v, Kat mlecOé wou TO aipa: évapyés THS TioTEwWS Kal THs éTayye- las TO TOTLMOV aGdAANyopaY: saying, Hat ye my flesh, and drink ye my blood, in evident allegory of the tak- ing in by faith of the promise, whereby the Church which, like man, consists of many members, is watered and increases, and of both is made up and fitly jomed together, in a body through faith, and in soul by hope.” “ For as the Lord is body and soul, Té yap dvte aia THs TicTews 1 édals: ef 4 cuvéyeTat, KADdTrEp VITO Wu- xs, 1) wiaTLs : so also is hope the blood of faith, wherein it is contained [as the soul is said to be in the blood], as faith is also held by the soul. And if any will con- tend that by milk is understood only the first prin- ciples, and by food the spiritual considerations through which they acquire knowledge for themselves, ictwoav @s dpa otepeav Tpopyy TO Bp@ua AéyovTeEs Kal capKa Kal aipa tod Incod, let them know that when they call food solid nourishment, and the flesh and blood of Jesus, Urodépovtar TH chav avTav peyadaty codia, ert THY aTAOTHTA THY adnOH, they are, by their boasted wisdom, brought back to true simplicity. For the blood. that makes flesh is but milk in another form : at Capernaum, S. John vi. 125 mavTn dé €oLKe TOUTO TH TVEUpATLKH TPOdH yYAUKEla [LEV dua THY ydpw Urdpyovea, Tpodipos Se, @S Sw Neve bé as iuépa Xpiorod: cal 70 aiwa Tov Noyou Tepavepwrat @s yada. But spiritual food is in all respects like milk: it is sweet by reason of the grace it possesses, and nourishing like life. It is white, like the day of Christ ; and the blood of the Word thus appears to us hike milk”? VII. It would be of little use to multiply examples in order to shew that in this sixth chapter of 8S. John “the Word of God, Christ’s doctrine, is the flesh He speaks of; and the receiving it and practising it are the eating His flesh; for this sense is the literal and proper”, as Jeremy Taylor says.* For even one of the later divines, who wrote after the peace of the Church had been disturbed respecting the Hucharisi, says regarding our Saviour’s words {v. 63), émudépes ovv, OTL TA pHrywata & eyo AANO Tved Ua EoTL, TOUTETTL TMVEVMATLKA EoTL, Kal Fw éoTiv, ovdéy EyovTa capKtxor, Kat Conv mpokevorvta aiwviov, He adds, “ the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life’; that is, they are spiritual; and they are life, having nothing of the flesh, but procuring for you life eternal. Kal yap t)v pev capKa éobiler Tis, dtav Sia THs Tpaxte- Kns Babdify, for one eats the flesh of Christ when he walks through daily practice in His ways: 70 6é aipa mivet @$ oivoy evppaivovta Kapdiay, 0 Oewpntixéds: and he who contemplates Him, drinks His blood like wine that rejoices the heart of man’’.? XXXYV. This is assuredly enough to shew that those 1 Pedag., lib. i, p. 100. 2 Real Pres., sect. iii, 19, on S. John, vi. 8 Theophylact. in 8. John. vi, p. 654 sq. 126 Of the Hffects of the Consecration. “‘ godly doctors” of old did not, like younger ones, take the words “ flesh” and “ spirit”’, in this sixth chapter of S. John, to mean the human and the divine natures of Christ, even when they admitted that a portion of this chapter might possibly refer to the Hucharist. But this abides, that whether the “ riteful consecra- tion” -be, as S. Ambrose says, “ verbis et sermonibus Domini Jesu; nam reliqua omnia que dicuntur, laus Deo defertur”;! or érixAnois tod Lvetpatos ayiov in the invocation of the Holy Ghost, according to 8. Cyril of Jerusalem ;? or érikAnots Kal érihoitnats Tod ayiou IIy. in the invocation and descent of the Holy Ghost, as J. Damascenus writes,’—certain it is, as far as we can understand “these enigmas of divine mysteries’, according to the analogy of faith, that the symbols of bread and wine are then fitted, by virtue of Christ’s institution, to be special means of making the soul travel back to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, ets avapyynow, in remembrance of it; or more correctly, ‘‘ for remembrance of it”, TodTO els puny ayovTes,* In order to bring it present to the memory, and on it to dwell, and spiritually to feed by faith. Thus do these symbols become pledges of His love towards us, by reminding us of the love He then shewed for us. VIII. Yet are they to us no pledges of that love except we take them for such. Now, “the love of God,’ both His towards us, and ours towards Him, is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to them that believe,? wherewith “they are sealed unto the day of redemption’’® in token that 1 De Sacr., lib. iv, ¢. 4. 4 §.Chrys., Hom. xxvii in 1 Cor. 2 Catech. Mystag., iii, iv. 5 Rom. v, 5. 3 De Orthod. Fid., lib. iv, p.315. © Eph. i, 18. Of the Effects of the Consecration. 127 their faith is true; even “‘the spirit of adoption where- by we cry Abba Father,’”! as being reconciled to Him and He to them through the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and through nothing else. Where that faith exists, the Spirit shed upon it bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. All this is real; and when seen by faith it becomes evident. Christ is there really present to the mind as the victim of propitiation, the High Priest and the Mediator; God is there as Father, loving and recon- ciled ; and the Holy Ghost comes down, and settles in the heart that has this faith, as an earnest of the in- heritance promised by the Father, won by Christ and secured by the Spirit. And when we come to the Holy Sacrament in such a frame of mind, we find Christ really present at it; Jess in the bread we eat than in the spirit we breathe, in the thoughts of Him we cherish,’ in the views we get thrqugh the eyes of faith of ‘the innumerable benefits His precious blood-shedding hath obtained to us’; while we thus dwell by faith and meditate in our innermost soul on all that He did for us—évepyov Thy Tiotw Sua Ths aydamrns Temonméevot, Shewing the efficacy of our faith by our love.* For im order to be “rooted and grounded in love must Christ dwell by faith in our hearts”,* which alone can feel His presence. IX. The offence some people take at the words “Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament,’’? comes from mistaking them. Both Papists and Anglicans use the term ‘‘ Real Presence”; the Papists—whether some of the Ritualists, who seem to make a distinction 1 Rom. viii. 2 See Justin Martyr, quoted above, p. 105. 3S. Clem. Al., Strom., i, p. 271. 4 Eph. iii, 17. 128 Of the Effects of the Consecration. without a difference, differ much from them, I cannot tell—mean by ‘ Real Presence” that Christ is mate- rially present in the Bread and Wine, or rather that these symbols are changed into His natural Flesh and Blood; so that they materially and mechanically eat and drink Him: a doctrine so gross, and so forbid- ding, that the mind turns away with disgust from it, as also from the details into which those who hold it are obliged to enter. Whereas Anglicans, such as Jeremy Taylor, Hooker, and other like sober-minded men, understand by Real Presence in the Sacrament, not that Christ forms part of the elements, which after the consecration remain in every respect unchanged, in form, nature, and sub- stance, as Theodoritus says, but that Christ is then especially present in a spiritual or sacramental manner, and that He thus verily communicates Himself m His whole Person, as Emmanvzt, God with us, to every faithful partaker of the Lord’s Supper; “ the, mean,” says Art. XXVIII, “whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper being—faith.”’ He then is really present, as He also is really pre- sent where two or three meet together in His name; and everywhere and at all times with those who love His company; in prayer, in thought, in contempla- tion, in the study of His life, and of His doctrine; in trouble, in sorrow, in joy, in danger, or m fear—were it not for His Real Presence with us, life would often be too heavy to bear. But His Presence goes withusand gives us rest. We love to dwell on it, and to feel the Friend at hand “ who sticketh closer than a brother.” So that it can only be from a misunderstanding that His Real Presence in the same way should be denied Of the Effects of the Consecration. 129 at the commemoration of His death, of the very act on His part that won for us the boon we would sooner die than lose, namely, His being one of our own- selves, to pity, to protect, to love, to cherish, and to save us. “‘As Christ,” says Jeremy Taylor, “is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament [namely, by the practice of His commandments], so is He also in the Sacra- ment: as He is real and spiritual meat to the worthy hearer [of His Word], so is He to the worthy com- municant: as Christ’s flesh is to all who obey Him, so to all that obediently remember Him; so Christ’s flesh is meat indeed, however it be taken, if it be taken spiritually, but not however if it be taken car- nally: He is nutritive in all the ways of spiritual man- ducation, but not in all the ways of natural eating, by their [the Papists’] confession, nor in any by ours.’”! X. If it were true, however, that Christ forms an integral part of the symbols of bread and wine, inde- pendently of the faith of the recipient, then must it of course follow (1) that the benefit would be the same in certain possible cases in which faith would not come in contact with the elements. Thus, a man who ate a bit of consecrated bread unawares, not knowing it to be consecrated, would receive as great a benefit by the virtue inherent in that bread as he who partook of it knowing it to be consecrated. But who would hold this? Yet it is what actually takes place at Baptism, wherein the child is outwardly made member of the visible Church by having the words of institution rite- fully said over him, though unknown to him ;? shew- 1 Real Pres., sect. iii, 20. 2 Namos yap dv ré7e, od7 avreirov ote KaTeVEunv: for being at that , time a young child, I neither objected nor consented to my bap- tism.—Hieron. Presbyter Hier. De Bapt. K 130 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse ing that the question of grace inherent in the Sacra- ments, apart from the faith of the recipient, is clearly in fayour of Baptism. This is so evident, that those who contend for what they mean by Real Presence in the Eucharist, apart from faith in him who partakes of it, do it at the ex- pense of Baptism, by, at least, apparently lowering the dignity of that Sacrament, in order higher to extol the Kucharist. Thus are we told that the water “is only blessed, but not consecrated,” contrary to the opinion of the Fathers; and further, ‘‘that in the holy Hucha- rist an operation of the Holy Ghost takes place towards the elements themselves, making them the instruments of conveying Christ, while in Baptism the spiritual effect takes place in the baptised person alone.’’! Yet what proof have we that this spiritual energy takes place anywhere but in the recipient? For whether, in one sacrament it be said “ This is my Body,” or in the other “ Use water” with certain words, which, in the opinion of ‘the whole early Church, had such power as to make the baptised person or child TEPWT LT LEVOV amo TOU T™pwTou Pwros, Xpiotov, en- lightened from the first Light, Christ,” and made free,? does not, I think, make any great difference ; especially as in both Sacraments the consecration is by means of Christ’s own words. This proves that, according to Hooker, Jeremy Taylor, etc., the spiritual effect of the Eucharist is in the recipient alone, and that it is through faith. 7 Then again (2) in the possible case of a communi- cant both deaf and blind, who could neither read, see 1 Doctrine of H. Eucharist, p. 23. * §. Greg. Naz. Orat. xl, and 8. Clem. Al. Pedag. lib. i, p. 95, etc. 8 Coptic Apost. Const., p. 51. with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 151 the priest, nor hear him consecrate the elements, would not the benefit he received by virtue of his faith be practically as great as that received by a more favoured communicant? That which makes the wicked who partake of the Sacrament do it to their own hurt is that they, knowing it to be consecrated in remem- brance of the Death of Christ, come to it without faith in the merits of that Death. They knowingly and wilfully make an ungodly use of what they know to be sacred. But if they partook of it ignorantly, they would not be wicked for that. Whence it is clear that the intention, “ offerentis affectus’” as S. Ambrose says, which in us depends entirely on faith, is necessary to the due receiving of the Eucharist; so that, in fact, it is no sacrament, no communion with Christ, but to the faithful. XI. On this. all the Fathers are at one. And they all have some comparison for it; but not every one the same. For instance, 8. Ephrem! compares it to the live coal taken from the altar by the seraph; while S. Basil does not allude to the Eucharist, but explains that vision differently. §. Ephrem also compares it to a pearl, and calls it “the pearl of great price’; S. Macarius,” however, says that “the pearl of great price” is the inward renewing by the Holy Ghost ; while S. Nilus says the Eucharist, before the consecra- tion, is like a bit of blank papyrus, and that after, it is written with the Lord’s writing.’ If, therefore, I may be allowed to use a comparison for so mysterious and mystical a subject, | should say that, while Christ is, according to His promise, present at the service, He is also present in the consecrated ~ 1 In Is. vi. 2 Homil., xxiii. 8 Epist. xliv, lib. 1. 152 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse symbols, as the spark is in the flint; not until the steel of faith come in contact with them (cuvady rijs wuyins) does the spark appear; and this depends on the temper of the faith that makes the spark, and how it is applied. ‘By the real spiritual presence of Christ,’ says Jeremy Taylor, “we do understand Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the faithful, by blessing and grace; and this is all which we mean, besides the tropical or figurative pre- sence.”’! XII. Those, therefore, who quarrel with the Anglican Church concerning the Sacraments, and who call them only “aids to faith,’ do not see that they un- wittingly admit the ‘‘ Real Presence” of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and that of the Holy Ghost in Baptism. For (1), on their own shewing, How can Baptism be an “aid to faith,’ except it place the child in a position favourable to the aftergrowth of faith in him ? (2) How can the Lord’s Supper be an “aid to faith,” except by bringing the mind and soul in contact with Christ through the remembrance of His Sacrifice; and can this possibly take place any how in the heart of man without Christ being there, as centre of all the thoughts of the communicant? So that Calvin, also, it appears, taught that “in the Supper Christ Jesus, viz., His body and blood, is truly given under the signs of bread and wine.”’* And that is but what 8. Cyril of Jerusalem says: év TUT@ yap apTov, didoTai gor TO CHa: Kal ev TUT@ olvov, didoTtai cor To aipa. ‘The body is given thee 1 Real Pres., sect. i, 8. * Quoted in Real Pres., sect. i, 5, and in Abp. Laud’s Relat. of Conjer., p. 191, 193. with Christ in the holy Hucharist. 133 under the figure of bread, and the blood under the figure of wine.” Or 8. Clement of Alexandria: M7 8) odv tis Eenrfécba, NeyovT@v nuav addnyopeicbat yada TO aiwa tov Kupiou: 7) yap Kat ovK oivos a\Xnyo- petra ; “ Think it not strange that we should speak in a figure of the Blood of the Lord as of milk; is it not said in allegory to be wine? Ovtas 7rod\Xayais addNYO- petrat o Aoyos, kal Bpawa, cal cape, Kat tpodi, Kat dptos, Kal aiwa, Kal yadda; a&ravta o Kupuos eis amo- Aavow HuUdY TOV els aUTOV TeTLaTEVKOTWY. So also is the Word spoken of in an allegory as meat, flesh, food, bread, biood, and milk. The Lord is everything. for the enjoyment of us who have believed in Him.’’? Likewise Tertullian: “ Acceptum panem, et distri- butum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei.’?? “Christus enim panis noster est, quia vita Christus; et vita panis—Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit de celis. Tum quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur.” “Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima Deo saginetur’’* [Our souls are strengthened and re- freshed by the Body and Blood of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine.” Catech.], and other passages in the same Father, of which I will not take advantage at present. And 8.Chrysostom: ovyi To 6u- TLATTHPLOV ETOUPAVLOV ; TAS; OVSEV EXEL TAPKLKOV" TaVTA TMVEVMATLKA ylveTal TA TpoKkeiweva. Is not the altar a spiritual one? How? There is nothing carnal (or material) on it; all the offerimgs there are spiritual’’;® aro THS TpaTré—ns TAUTNS avELoL THY), TOTAaMOUS ad.ciaa 1 Catech. Mystag., iv. 8 Lib. iv, Ad Marc., c. 40. 2 Pedag.,i,p.105. ‘4 Ib., De Orat. Dom.,c.vi; De Resur.,c.8. 5 Ad Hebr. Homil. xiv, p’. 154 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse mveupatixous ; from that Table rises a spring, whence flow spiritual streams”.! And in this sense is S. Chrysostom’s teaching in that chapter to be taken; as noticed above.’ So also 8. Athanasius, 7rvetua Cworrowody 4 capé éore tov Kupiov, the flesh of Christ is a quickening spirit ;3 and §. Hilary, ‘‘ Vere homo Christus est nosque vere et sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus.’’* Like- wise S. Macarius, év 7H éxkAynola mpoodépetar aptos Kal oivos AYTITUTOV THS TAPKOS AUVTOV Kal TOU aipaTos Kat ol meTadauPavovTes éx TOV hawomevou apTov, TvevpaATL- KOS THY capKa TOU Kupiov écOiovcr: the bread and wine are offered in the Church as a figure of the flesh and blood of Christ; and those who partake of the visible (or apparent) bread, spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord.? 1 In John vi, Homil. xlvii, 8. 2 Nothing is so unfair as to judge of those great men of old from isolated passages from their works. Their meaning and intention throughout should first be ascertained. For instance, while S. Chry- sostom teaches that Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament, and says everything in it is of faith, in the next passage he writes thus : “ Not only does Christ in his love allow Himself to be looked at, but He gives Himself to be handled, nal eumjta: robs o&dvras TH capri, kal cunTAaKhval, Kal Tov wéOoyv euTATOA TayTa, ‘Qs Agovtes Tolvury TUp TVEOVYTES, OUTWS ATS THS TpamEe>ns avavaxwpauev Exeivns: to dig our teeth into His flesh, to embrace Him, and to satisfy our whole desire. Like lions breathing fire, let us retire from the table, be- come dreadful to the Devil,” etc.,—a kind of rhetoric which is, to say the least, very offensive. 3 De Hum. Nat., vol. i, p. 607. 4 De Trin., lib. viii, 13. 5 Homil. xxvii, Interr. xvii. This expression,7d évt{rumov (aytirura Tav adniivav, Heb. ix, 24), said of the bread and wine of the holy Eucharist, seems to have prevailed in the Egyptian Church. Thus in the Apostolic Constitutions in Coptic, p. 69, we read, “ Let the deacon bring the oblation to the bishop, who shall give thanks over the bread because it is p-smot, the figure [1d avzfrumov, simi- with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 135 XIII. But I will not multiply examples to show that while the “ riteful consecration” of the symbols of bread and wine imparts to them a sacramental character by virtue of the words of institution, no sacrament exists until those symbols be received by faith. So that the faith of the recipient 1s, in one sense, yet more import- ant than even the words of institution which have varied from a mere blessing to the Lord’s Prayer, and to the various forms afterwards adopted. Practically the “‘ real presence” is in the heart of him in which it is felt through faith ; so that it is very fruitless to fight about the rest, seeing this is the one thing without which the Sacrament becomes a vain ora hurtful thing, because it does not accomplish that for which it is in- tended, namely the refreshing and strengthening of the soul in union with Christ,—a result which depends on faith only. ‘‘ This is the bread of Heaven, the flesh of Christ given for us”, says the Coptic Church, “ that those who believe in it should thereby be fed like children’’.? This paramount importance of individual faith, how- ever, as necessary to the due reception and completion of the Sacrament, takes, of course, from the absolute objective Presence of Christ in the symbols; for the more faith is required, the less is the other needed. litude] of the flesh of Christ ; and over the cup, for it is the blood of Christ.” Likewise we read in the miracles of S. Coluthus, p. 57, of “one who was mighty in deeds, but simple in the faith, and who said, ‘ the bread we take in hand is not in nature the body of Christ, but p-smot, the figure of it only. Upon which some of his brethren prayed for him, and at the next celebration of the holy Eucharist a child appeared upon the holy table, whom an angel ° slew, and shed his blood in the cup,’” ete.—P. 64 sq. 1 Apostol. Constit. Copt., p. 61. 136 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse Therefore are certain men at great pains to pare down the Articles which they subscribed, that speak very positively as to the necessity of faith versus the Ob- jective Presence as they hold it, in order to make the symbols themselves ostensible objects of worship; ex- plainmg away certain things, and taking others in a non-natural sense, in a way which does not commend itself to simple, straightforward, and honest minds. XIV. Thus the plam and true statement in the Catechism, that “the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper’, is thus rendered : “Does not this term, it may be argued, shew that the presence of our Lord’s body and blood is apprehended only by the soul of the true believer ? Is it not a presence for the worthy only, and not the unworthy; and therefore not objective, nor independent of the faith of the individual communicant ? The answer to this objection is, that the term ‘faithful’ does not, as supposed, mean the true be- liever. Its meaning in the Catechism is not its meaning in the ordinary use of the present day; but as we use it when we speak of Abraham as the Father of the Faithful, 7. e., believers as distinct from heathen’, etc.! Let us now see what honest and true Anglicans hold regarding this. (1.) Alluding to the term “ faithful’ in this passage from the Catechism, Bishop Nicholson wrote in 1660: “ Christ’s death in the Sacrament is offered to all, but it is effectual only to believers. ‘As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in His name’. (John, i, 12.) Were the oral or outward manducation only 1 Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, p. 25. with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 137 necessary, then no question the presenting of ourselves at His table, the taking and eating were sufficient ; but when it is a spiritual banquet and sacramental nourishment that we are to receive there, if ever we intend to make it food of life, it must be digested by faith. The reason is, because whatsoever Christ hath done already, or hath promised hereafter to do for us, are to us as never done, as never to be done, till we believe them. That which gives them a being, and makes them present and existent to us, is our faith.” He then reasons on 8. John vi, shewing that “ the Spirit that quickeneth” is the spiritual sense of our Saviour’s words, as all other orthodox divines do, and is not ‘our Saviour’s divine nature’’; then on the insti- tution of the Sacrament, “‘as of an eternal memorial of His good will. To all of which faith alone can give life and interest. Out of which it is as clear as the sun that this Sacrament is received by, and only by, the faithful.’?! (2.) So also Dean Nowell (1590) on the same passage : * “(Q. An ergo soli fideles corpore et sanguine Christi pascuntur ? ‘A. Soli omnino; cum quibus enim corpus suum, cum iisdem et vitam eternam, ut dixi communicant.’”” (3.) So also Bishop Jeremy Taylor, as we have already seen. So, again, when speaking of Christ’s spiritual presence, he says: ‘‘ By spiritually they [the Papists] mean present after the manner of a spirit’. By spiritually we mean “ present to our spirits only’; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or spiritual susception’”’.® Then, again, ! Expos. of the Ch. Catechism, 1686, p. 185, ed. 1844. 2 Nowelli Catech., p. 175, ed. 1844. 3 Real Pres., sect. i, 8. 138 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse elsewhere: “‘ He that receives unworthily receives no benefit ; therefore he that receives benefit to his body receives 1t by his worthy communicating ; therefore the benefit reaching to the body by the holy Hucharist comes to it by the soul; therefore by the action of the soul, not the action of the body; therefore by faith, and not by the mouth.’ (4.) And the brave Jewell: “ Panem et vinum dici- mus esse sacra et ccelestia mysteria corporis et san- guinis Christi; et ilis Christum ipsum, verum panem eeterne vite, sic nobis preesentem exhiberi, ut ejus corpus sanguinemque per fidem vere sumamus. Nec tamen cum ista dicimus, extenuamus Coenam Domini, aut eam frigidam tantum ceremoniam esse docemus, et in ea nihil fieri; quod multi nos docere calumniantur. Christum enim asserimus, vere sese presentem exhi- bere in Sacramentis suis: in Baptismo, ut eum in- duamus ; in Coena, ut eum fide et spiritu comedamus, et de ejus cruce ac sanguine habeamus vitam ezternam : idque dicimus non perfunctorie et frigide, sed re ipsa et vere fieri. Ht si enim Christi corpus dentibus et faucibus non attingimus, eum tamen fide, mente, spiritu, tenemus et premimus.”’? (5.) Then the wise Hooker sums up his masterly treatise on the Eucharist in these words: ‘ The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament. « And with this the very order of our Saviour’s words agreeth, first, ‘take and eat’; then ‘this is my Body which was broken for yow’: first, ‘drink ye all of this’; then followeth ‘this is my Blood of the New 1 Real Pres., sect. viii, 8. 2 Apolog. Eccl. Angl., p. 19, 20. with Christ in the holy Hucharist. 139 Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins? I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ when and where the bread is his body or the cup his blood but only in the heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow. “Tf on all sides it be confessed that the grace of Baptism is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it although it be neither seated in the water nor the water changed into it, what should in- duce men to think that the grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Eucharist before it can be in us that receive it ?’?! Lastly, the Homily “ of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament,” ‘‘ which although it seem of small virtue to some, yet being rightly done by the faithful, it doth not only help their weakness—but strengtheneth and comforteth their inward man with peace and gladness’’, also says: “‘ Now it followeth to have with this know- ledge [of the object of the Sacrament] a sure and constant faith, not only that the death of Christ is available for the redemption of all the world, for the re- mission of sins, and reconciliation with God the Father ; but also that He hath made upon His Cross a full and sufficient sacrifice for thee, a perfect cleans- ing of thy sins, so that thou acknowledgest no other Saviour, Redeemer, Mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, | but Christ only; and that thou mayest say with the 1H. P., bk. -v, lxvii, 6. 140 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse Apostle, that He loved thee, and gave Himself for thee.” “ For this is to stick fast to Christ’s promise made in His institution; to make Christ thine own, and apply His merits unto thyself. Herein thou needest no other man’s help, no other sacrifice or oblation, no sacrificing priest, no mass, no means established by man’s invention.” “'T'ake then this lesson, O thou that art desirous of this table—look up with faith upon the holy body and blood of thy God; then marvel with reverence; then touch it with thy mind; then re- ceive it with the hand of thy heart; and then take it fully with thy inward man.” ‘For the unbelevers and faithless cannot feed upon that precious body. Whereas the faithful have their life, their abiding in Him, their union, and as it were their incorporation with Him.”’! Whence it clearly appears from these few passages taken from the writings of those fine old Anglicans-— would God the race of them had not died out!—that they did not take the term “ faithful’? in connection with the Sacrament in any other sense than what it here means—“ full of faith.’ They had not yet come to non-natural interpretations in order to favour pecu- har views. They were honest, loyal men; and their speech “bewrayeth them” as solid, learned, and earnest. We never, now-a-days, see such lore as theirs. XIV. Although this might suffice to show that ‘faithful’? as used here in the Catechism does mean “‘true believer,” one or two passages from the Fathers may not come amiss. (1.) Justin Martyr, in his most interesting description 1 Homil. xxvii, Part i. with Christ in the holy Huchavrist. 14] of the Eucharist as celebrated by the primitive Church,! that may serve as text to some of the representations of it from the Apostolic times,’ says ‘ that the bread, with a cup of mixed wine and water, were brought, Ta TpoesTMTL TOV adeAgpar, to the president of the brethren, who sent up praises to the Father, in the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, cat evyapictiav virep Tob Katnevaaba. TovTwy Tap avTod emi ToAv ToLetTaL ov GUVTEACTAVTOS Tas EVYAS Kal THY evyaploTiav, TAS O Tapov aos eTeupNMEL NEyoV, auiVv'—evyaplaTnaaVTOS dé ToD TpoecT@Tos Kal érrevpnuncavTos TavTos TOU aod, ol KaXovpEvoL Trap npiv SidKovot, Siddocw EKacT@ TOV TAPOVTMY meTAdaPBELV ATO TOU EvYapLaTNOEVTOS apTOU Kal olvouv Kal voaTos, Kal Tots of Tapovow atrodhépovct. Kal 1) Tpody avTNn KadeiTaL Tap uly evyapioTia. 7s ovdevt GAXM peTacyely eLov eoTW, 1) TO TioTEVvoVTt OdnOH civar Ta Sedidaypeva UP Huadv, Kal NovTAapéve@ TO vmép apécews apapTiav Kal els avayévynow RovTpor, Kat oUT@s BLobvTL @s 0 Xpictos Tapédmxev. Then He gives abundant thanks for being deemed worthy of these gifts ; after which prayers and giving of thanks, the whole people present say, Amen. When the President has given thanks and the people have said Amen, then those who among ourselves are called deacons give to every one present of the bread, wine, and water over which thanksgivings were offered; and they carry to those who are absent. This food [or meal] is by us called Hucharist [or, giving of thanks], whereof no one is allowed to partake, but he alone who believes that the things we teach are true; who was 1 Pro Christo Apol., ii, p. 97. 2 A print of it in J. Ludolti Hist. Zth., lib. iii, 6, is taken from a sarcophagus dug out of the Via Salaria. 142 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse washed with the washing for the remission of sins and newness of life, and who so lives as Christ told us to do.” So also (2) a much later Father, J. Damascenus, speaking of the consecration of the bread and wine, Says: el O€ Tov Tpomrov émilynTEls THOS YyivEeTAL, ApKEl ToL axovoat, OTe dia Tov Ilvevpmatos ayiov—Kal Tréov ovdEV ywwerkowev—o O€ Tpomos aveEepevyntos. If thou in- quire of “ the manner how,” let it suffice thee to know that it is wrought by the Holy Ghost—we know no more—the manner how it is done is unsearchable.”— Merarrovettar— ev Kat TO adTo yliveras Tolvuy Tots TicTeL akiws petarapSavovow, the elements are thus trans- formed and are made one with Christ’s Body and Blood unto those who through faith do worthily par- take of them; 610 weta advaTaxtou TicTews TpoTéAOwpeD. Wherefore let us draw near with faith without waver- ing. | (3.) S. Clement Al. also says that the blood of Christ is twofold, that of His body which was shed for our redemption, 70 6€ mvevpatixov, TovTécTW @ Keyplopela: Kal TOUT éoTe TrLelv TO aia Tod Inood, THs KuplaKhs petaraBeiv abGapoias: and the other which is spiritual, the one with which we have been, so to speak anointed ; for this is to drink the Blood of Christ, to become partakers of the Lord’s incorruptibility; 4s [evyapiotias| of Kata Tictw peTarapPavortes, aryid- Covrar Kat c@pa Kal uynv ; and those who faithfully partake of the Eucharist are sanctified both in body and soul.? Inasmuch as toivuy cvvéyovoa THY Exkdy- clav apeT, 7 TWiaTtis éott Ob As cwovTat ot éxdEKTOL, the virtue or power that holds together the Church is 1 De Orthod. Fid., lib. iv, c. 14. 2 Pedag., lib. ii, p. 151. with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 143 Faith, through which the elect are saved.!' To yap aOpoicpa Tov éxrdexTOv "Exkdnolavy Kado: for I call “ Church” the gathering of the elect.? The same to which, I trow, the holy Apostle alludes in—‘‘ Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith ot €x tiotews, the same are the children of Abra- ham’’*—“the father of us all who believe,” Tod matpos nuoVv Tov Tictav.s “Kor we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”> ‘And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs accord- ing to the promise.”® Abraham, therefore, is not ‘the father of the faithful,” 7. e. ‘‘ believers as distinct from heathen,” but he is the father of all who are of faith, who therefore are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. (4.) And S. Ambrose: “Ii magis Abrahe filii qui ex fide; preestant enim fidei quam generationis heeredes.”’7 “Verum quia credentes sunt filii Abrahe, qui si Abra- ham ex fide justificatus est primus, quotquot post hune credunt, filii ejus sunt, sive ex Judeis, sive e Gentibus.”® Kai otv t6 “ABpaap thy ayiav Kdypo- VOMNTOMEY YRV Els TOV ATEPAVTOV aL@va THY KANpoVOMiaV AnYomevot Téxva Tod “ABpaaw Ova THY Opolav TicTw évtes ; therefore shall we inherit the holy land with Abraham, and receive it as our eternal inheritance, being his children by reason of the same faith.? (5.) "Ovnéte yap Kata capKa nov TavTwY éoTt TaTHp, aXN 0 TUTos THs éxelvou TloTews, TaVTAS Huds viods movet ToU APpadw ; For he is not the father of us all according to the flesh ; but it is the pattern of his faith 1 Pedag., lib. ii, p. 151; Strom., lib. ii, p. 384. 2 Ibid.; Strom., lib. vii, p.715. | 3 Gal. vi, 7. 4 Rom. iv, 16. 5 §. Chrysost. in Gal. com. iii. 6 Gal. iii, 9, 26, 29. 7 §. Ambros., lib. ix, Ep. Ixxiv. 8 Ib. ad Galat., c. iii. ® Justin M., Dial. c. T., p. 347, 229. i) 144 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse that makes us all children of Abraham.! Tiers yoov 0 “APpaap, Ott TO NaXdOdVTL TemictevKe Bed. And Abraham was faithful “because he believed God speak- ing to him.’? “Wherefore,” says 8. Clement of Alexandria, when | speaking of Abraham’s justification by faith, “ does the Apostle exhort us—iva 4 miotis yuav pi ev copia avOpwarrwy Tav meiWew érayyeddopmévav, ad év duvaper Ocod, TH wovn Kal avev THY aTrodelEewy, Ova WIAs THS mictews cotew duvapévy, that our faith be not in the wisdom of men who pretend to persuade us, but in the power of God, which is able to save us without their demonstrations, and through bare faith alone’*; «ai n tists Stvapis Tis TOV Oé€ov, iayvs ovca THS adn- Geias, for faith is a certain power of God, to wit, the strength of the Truth.* §. Paul, therefore, makes it very plain 67s ia KafodKy THs avOpwToTHTos cwTHpia » tiorts, that faith is the one Catholic [universal] salvation [or safety] of the human nature [or of man- kind], and that it is one and the same equal com- munion of the just and benevolent God with all men alike.’?® So that we may twist 1t which way we will; certain it is, however, from Scripture and from fact, that— seeing Christ’s union with us in His entire Person is in itself mysterious and mystical, and therefore spiri- | tual as regards ourselves, in whatever detail of His conversation with us it be, whether in the sacraments or out of them—‘‘ He dwells in us by faith.’’® The fruits of this faith, or of the Spirit with which 1 §. Cyril Hier., Cat. v. ' 4 §. Clem. AL, Strom. ii, p. 381. 2 §. Athanas. contra Ar. Or., ii. 5° Ibid., Pedag., lib.i, p. 95, 3 Strom., lib. v, p. 549. 6 Eph. iii, 17. with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 145 it is woven, are, as 8S. Peter and S. Clement Al. say, avopifomevn, éyxpatera: Erretat O€ adtais aTrNOTNS, eTLTTH- MN, akakla, oemvorTns, ayaTn TacaL O€ avTaL TlaTEWs erat Guyatépes, Kal Tad Tponyeltat pev, Tiotis: faith acting with manliness, which is continence; then fol- low simplicity, science, innocence, honesty, and charity. All these are the daughters of faith, which, in all cases, takes the lead.” Being to us “the evidence of things not seen” and “ the eye of the mind,” 7 wept TO dv aTaols THS Wuyis, the settling of the soul con- cerning that which is,” faith is both toyvs, the strength, and 6 Geuéduos THs ddnOelas and “ the foundation of the Truth.”® Yet for that it is not the whole building ; for 1) TeXelwows TOD TLaTOU Ov ayaTns eis avdpa TédeELOD, els METPOV 7AALKLaS TrPOTBaivovea adixvetrat, “the per- fecting of the believer through love, growing day by day in stature, reaches unto the perfect man.’’+ XVI. So, then, having gone round this Mystery, alike impenetrable on all sides, we come back to whence we started: ‘‘ Draw near with faith and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort’’; the rest is a profound mystery, which we shall only understand in Heaven, where neither faith nor Sacraments will any longer be needed; for there “ we shall see Him as He is.” “All things therefore considered,” says Hooker, “‘and compared with that success which truth hath hitherto had by so bitter conflicts with errors in this point, shall I wish that men would more give themselves to meditate with silence what we have by the Sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how? _If any man suppose that this were too great stupidity 1 Strom., lib. ii, p. 384. 2S. Clem. Al., Strom., lib. iv, p. 531. 3 Ib., ib. vi, p. 691. 4 Ib., lib. vii, p. 750. L j 146 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse and dulness, let us see whether the Apostles of our Lord themselves have not done the like. How cometh it to pass that so few words of so high a mystery being uttered, they receive with gladness the gift of Christ, and make no show of doubt or scruple? The reason hereof is not dark to them which have anything at all observed how the powers of the mind are wont to stir when that which we infinitely long for presenteth itself above and besides expectation. Curious and in- tricate speculations do hinder, they abate, they quench such inflamed notions of delight and joy as divine graces use to raise when extraordinarily they are pre- sent. The mind, therefore, feeling present joy, is marvellous unwilling to admit any other cogitation, and in that case casteth off those disputes whereunto the intellectual part at other time easily draweth.” “A manifest effect whereof may be noted if we compare with our Lord’s disciples in the twentieth of John the people that are said in the sixth of John to have gone after him to Capernaum. The one sort only beheld that in Christ which they knew was more than natural—the other when they looked on Christ were not ignorant that they saw the wellspring of their own everlasting felicity; the one because they enjoyed not disputed, the other disputed not because they enjoyed.” “Tf, then, the presence of Christ with them did so much more, judge what their thoughts and affections were at the time of this new presentation of Christ, not before their eyes but within their souls—when they saw their Lord and Master with hands and eyes lifted up to heaven first bless and consecrate for the endless good of all generations till the world’s end the with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 147 chosen elements of bread and wine, which elements made for ever the instruments of life by virtue of His divine benediction, they being the first that were commanded to receive from him. They had at that time a sea of comfort and joy to wade in, and we by what they did are taught that this heavenly food is given for the satisfying of our empty souls, and not for the exercising of our curious and subtle wits.’’! “The fruit, then, of the Hucharist is the participa- tion of the body and blood of Christ. There is no sentence of Holy Scripture which saith that we cannot by this Sacrament be made partakers of His body and blood except they be first contamed in the Sacrament converted into them. ‘This is my body,’ and ‘this is my blood,’ being words of promise, sith we all agree that by the Sacrament Christ doth really and truly in us perform His promise, why do we vainly trouble our- selves with so fierce contentions whether by consubstan- tiation, or else by transubstantiation the sacrament it- self be first possessed with Christ,orno? A thing which no way can either further or hinder us howsoever it stand, because our participation of Christ in this Sacra- ment dependeth on the co-operation of His omnipotent power which maketh it his body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the ele- ment such as they imagine we need not greatly to care nor inquire.’?? Sound wisdom and sterling sense can go no further; for there is nothing between that and the actual eat- ing of Christ’s material body ; a doctrine I must leave to those whose minds are so constituted as not to shrink from the very thought of it. If the best ° 1 E. P., bk. v, lxvii, 3, 4. 2 [bid., lvii, 6. i 148 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse Fathers, Hooker, Jeremy Taylor, and other such worthies, cannot teach men “‘to do reason” on the subject, nothing will. “ Let it therefore be sufficient for me’’, as it was for Hooker,! “ presenting myself at the Lord’s table, to know what there I receive from Him, without search- ing or inquiring of the manner how Christ performeth His promise; let disputes and questions, enemies to piety, abatements of true devotion, and hitherto in this cause but over patiently heard, let them take their rest; let curious and sharp-witted men beat their heads about what questions themselves will, the very letter of the word of Christ giveth plain security that these mysteries do as nails fasten us to His very Cross.” More, assuredly, we cannot want. And if only men would be content to abide every one by his own way of thmking about a mystery which is as dark and as unsearchable for one man as it is for another, instead of striving to make “‘the manner how’ an article of faith for themselves and for others, whom they wantonly offend by a fanciful worship said to be symbolical of mysteries which they do not and cannot know—we should have comparative peace. But no. Our love feast 1s turned into a council of war; and every day we ought to spend in looking for Him, only reminds us that His Church is militant, though not more, perhaps, with the world than within herself; and that peace is only to be looked for in “ the rest that remaineth for the people of God.” XVII. But yet, as the grace we receive in the Sacrament is spiritual, and therefore purely of the province of faith, all that the Apostle requires of us t EP, lev, 12. with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 149 ere we partake of it is that we should “ examine our- selves.” Not that others should do so for us, for no one but God has the power and right so to do; but that we should do it, every one of us for himself, examining whether we be in the faith, and thus prove our own selves; know we not our own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in us—and “ He dwells in us by faith’?! —except we be reprobates ?? S. Chrysostom is plain on this point, connecting as he does those two calls of the Apostle to self- examination. ‘“‘ Hxamine your own selves,” says he ;? “not as we are in the habit of doing now, xaip@ TMpoctovTes padrov, oTrovdn yvouns having regard rather to the occasion, than to the earnest wish of knowing what is in us. For we do not so much aim at coming cleansed of our inward filthiness, and in deep contrition of heart, as at coming when others do, on solemn festivals. "AAN ody odTws 0 LLadNos éxéXevoer, aN Eva KaLpOV oid€ TPOToboU Kal KOLV@VLAS, TOD TUVELOOTOS THhv Kafapornta. S. Paul, however, knew of only one occasion for coming to the Communion, namely, con- sciousness of purity within. So, then, must we come to it with a conscience purified, and not by constraint on a given feast day. “Eopt1 yap épywv ayabav éotw émrldevéus, Kal uyns evraBeva, Kal TrodLTElas axKpiPeva: KaV TOUTO éyns, SvaTravTos EopTatew Suvnch, Kal SvatravTos mpocvevat. For the setting forth of good works is a feast ; likewise piety of the soul and a correct conduct are also a feast; if thou have these, thou canst always keep the feast, and at all times draw near to the Lord’s Table. 1 1 Cor. xi, 28; 2 Cor. xiii, 5. Ephes. iii, 17. 3 Homil. xxviii in 1 Cor. a’. 150 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse “ Wherefore”, saith he, “let a man examine himself,” and thencome. Kai ovy érepov érép@ xerever Soxipdoas, aN’ avtov éavTov, adnuoclevTov TroLov TO SiKaTTHpLOV, apaptupov Tov éheyxov. And the Apostle does not en- join that one man should be examined by another, but that every man should examine himself: thus settling that the judgment be not public, and the proof given without witnesses.”! Words which those who wish to introduce compulsory confession, as being ‘‘ Catholic,” would do well to consider. @ewéduos b€ adths [Tis evyaptoTias| BéPasos, 6pGds Bios, dma palnoer TH KaOn- xovoyn “* But the firm foundation for the Kucharist,” says 8. Clement, ‘is in an upright life, with convenient teaching, tore érecOat érépots Soxiuacbeiow On Kat xabaplwxocw, dpiotov pos Te THS adAnOelas THY VON. Then, to follow the example of persons already proved and correct in their life, is also an excellent way to understand the truth, and the practice of the com- mandments. Let a man, therefore, examine himself, and then let him come.’?? XVIII. For so entirely is the Holy Eucharist a matter that les between the faithful communicant and Christ, to be judged of no man, that a more or less frequent Communion cannot be regulated by any one man for another; but every one must im this respect be guided by his own spiritual wants. For as to pre- cedents from the primitive Church, we may choose from a daily Eucharist, as we learn from 8. Basil and S. Chrysostom, to one celebrated once a year or even once in two years, as it often was the case among the Fathers of the desert. On this is 8. Chrysostom also very plain: ‘ While 1 Homil, xxviii in 1 Cor. a’. 2 §. Clem. Al., Strom. i, p. 271. with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 151 alluding,” says he, “to the advapvnows Ovcias, comme- moration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist, I wish to say a few words to you who have been admitted to the Holy Mysteries (we~unpévot) ; words few in number, but withal weighty and very profitable, for they are not my own, but of the Holy Ghost. Ti ody éotu; TfoArot tis Ovclas tavrns draké petadapBdvover Tod TAVTOS EvLAVTOV, AXot 5é Sis, Gro Sé ToAAAKLS. II pds ody ATraYTAS Hiv O NOYos eoTiv, ov Tpos Tovs évTadGa Se fovov, GXXA Kal Tpos Tors ev TH epnuw KabeCopévous: €xeivot yap amak& Tod éviavTov peTéyouat, TOANAKIS OE kat dia dvo érav. I address you all therefore—not only you of this place, who communicate once or twice a year, or oftener still—but those also who live in the desert ; for these communicate only once a year, and sometimes even only once in two years. What then? Which of them will be most approved of us? those who communicate once? or those who do so often? or those, again, who doit seldom? OvUze Tovs amrak&, oUTE TOUS TOANAKLS, OUTE TOUS GALYAKIS, GANA TOUS peta Kalapod cuvedoTos, Tovs peta Kalapas Kapdias, Tous peta Biov adyrTov. Oi ToLovToL del TpoTiTwoar: ol O€ £n ToLtovToL poe aATra&. Neither those who com- municate once, nor those who communicate often, nor yet those who seldom do so, but those who come to the Lord’s Table with a pure heart, and with a life un- rebukable. Let such men always draw near; others, not even once.””? XTX. Let every one, then, consult his own spiritual need in this matter; inasmuch as no man may pre- scribe for his brother, as to daily, weekly, or monthly Communions; since for some there might be danger’ 1 §. Chrys. Homil. xvii in Heb. x, 8. 152 Of Faith as the Mean of Intercourse lest the Holy Sacrament, if taken too frequently, might become too common, and thus lose in its awful solemnity. But this, again, depends entirely on a man’s own feelings; for S. Chrysostom, we see, tells us that it matters little one way or the other. For we must bear in mind that the two Sacraments, but especially the Holy Eucharist, are, independently of the spiritual benefit they confer, pledges of our Savi- our’s love towards us. Now, the stronger the love, the less are pledges thereof needed ; but in proportion with misgivings in that love are pledges thereof more sought after. If our faith were what it ought to be, so as to cause the Spirit of adoption to reign in our hearts, and ‘‘ Jesus Christ thus dwelt in us by faith,” we should exist in His love for us and in ours for Him; it would be, so to speak, the spiritual breath of our soul. Pledges of that love would then, of course, be most welcome and precious; and the Hucharist would then be for us a real refreshment and strengthen- ing by the way; but not our common daily food. For as the love of Christ would then be our natural and habitual existence, we should not look for such pledges in order to assure us of that love, but only to confirm us therein; a very different thing indeed. ‘ Ubi enim vera est fides, ibi veri luminis gratia est—ibi et tu Christo mentis tuz epulas exhibebis, et in divitiis ejus etiam ipse pasceris.”! ‘‘Nam bonus cibus omnium Christus est, bonus cibus fides.”? Not so, however, when faith is weak and sickly ; when, instead of resting wholly on the Rock, Christ, it looks to outward objects and to man for support. It then catches at every straw, makes doctrines for it- 1 §. Ambrose in Ps. exviii. 2 Sbhid. Hp, xx; lb. vy with Christ in the holy Eucharist. 153 self, and visible symbols of them, which, after all, are but commandments of men; it takes fancies and opinions for realities, and calls in to its aid things which never were intended to help it. It tries to touch and to see, because it feels no confidence in itself. Ed tofvun édeyyos €oTw ov PreTTOMévwv, Ti 6) PovNece avTa idety ; “if, then, faith,” says S. Chrysostom, ‘is the evidence of things not seen, why do you wish to see them? is it that by so doing, ye may fall from faith and from being accounted just, seeing ‘the just shall live by faith?’ ‘Tyets dé e¢ BovrNeobe adta idetv, ovKETE éotée Tigtot. If, therefore, ye wish to see those things, ye are no longer faithful.”’ Such faith, not being in itself strong enough to be reckoned for righteousness, looks for justification in something besides Christ, or in Christ after its own fashion, and not as He is, and it thus brings to the soul no peace with God. It halts and faints; and like a lame man, it wants a stick, or like a cripple, crutches. No wonder, then, if Faith, which, according to the Rector of Clewer, “has no power to bring Christ near the soul, but only to apprehend Him when near’?—a singular statement, in direct contradiction (1) of Scripture, which says that “ Christ,” His whole self, God-man, “who is with us,” ‘ dwells in us by faith”; and (2) of S$. Ambrose, who declares that “‘faith is the keys given to 8. Peter, ‘per quam ccelos aperuit,’ which opens the very heavens’’;? and (3) of S. Hilary, “Nam magnum est fidei meritum, et perfecta creden- tibus Deo beatitudo, for the merit of faith is great, and perfect is the happiness of those who believe God’* 1 In Heb. xi, Homil. xxi. 3 §. Ambros. Serm. xxxvii. 2 Doctr. of H. Euch., p. 27. 4 S.Hilar. Fragm, i, vol. ii, p. 484. 154 Conclusion. —should require a “‘histrionic’” worship to help it. Then, of course, do the senses supply the lack of faith, and emotions that of “‘the evidence of things not seen.” And, as “all men have not faith,” but all men have senses of some sort, therefore is it so much easier to go through certain forms and exciting functions than, without them, to worship in spirit and in truth. The stronger, however, the more real is faith in the heart, the less does it lean on outward objects of sense; for the senses are fed at the expense of faith. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, at least, thought so. Od7e Kal) TwloTls ev TH uy év OEvTaTH poTH Ta meyLoTA KaTopOot mept Ocod pev yap ghavraverar, Kal Oeov KkatomTever. ‘Faith in the soul,” says that Father, ‘‘works the greatest things at the swiftest glance; for it brings God, as it were, present, and descries Him. The soul, therefore, which enjoys the light of faith, surveys the uttermost parts of the earth, and, before the end of the world, already sees the day of judgment, and receives the promises.” | "Eye Toivuy Tv Tapa ceavTod TicTiWW TiV Els avTOV, iva Nas Kal Tap exeivou THY UTrEp AvVOpwrrov EvEpYETLKND. “Therefore have faith in Him—from thee Him-wards, [ fiducia simplex] that from Him thou mayest receive the faith that will work in thee with more than human strength.’ XX. The sum, then, is, we see from the few pass- ages given, which might easily be multiplied, (1), that the Fathers are far from being unanimous on the sub- ject of the Eucharist, simply because it was to them, as it is to us,a mystery. They all agree in calling it the Sacrament or Mystery of the Body and Blood of 1 §. Cyril. Hier. Catech., v. Conclusion. 155 Christ, and sodo we. But as to “the manner how,” not only are the same Fathers claimed as authorities alike by opposite sections in the Church, but we also find those venerable divines at variance one with another; as when 8. Ambrose says with regard to the symbols of the Eucharist that ‘‘benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur,’! which Theodoritus denies, OUOE Yap META TOY aylacuoV TA pvaTLKA GUpBors TIS oixelas é€ictatas ducews.” And in many other in- stances, as we saw at p. 05, and might again see else- where; so little did they understand the mystery, how- ever much they felt about it. So that, unless we re- sign all personal responsibility to God, and are weak enough to place our conscience in the hands of others, we cannot altogether follow the voice of any one teacher, but must look into the matter and judge of it, every one of us for himself, according to the pro- portion of his faith ; answerable as we are for it to God and not to man. (2) Setting aside the Lutheran and Romish doc- trines of con- and tran-substantiation, we come to those (1) of the Objective Presence, or Spiritual Pre- sence of Christ in the symbols of the Eucharist abso- lutely; and (2) of the Subjective Presence, or Spiritual Presence of Christ in the heart of the faithful commu- nicant alone—about which the English Church is now unhappily divided. (3) As to the Objective Presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine, after the consecration, not only is it, as Bp. Jeremy Taylor says, ‘‘an undiscernible secret, not fit to be inquired into,” one, therefore, which none 1 De Myster., c. ix. 2 Dial. Orth. et Eran. See above, p. 95. 156 Conclusion. of those who hold it can either prove or demonstrate, but it 1s a behef which, like the Lutheran and Romish doctrines, rests more or less on conclusions drawn from men’s opinions and commandments, about which it is far easier to strive than to agree; seeing that in this strife neither side can possibly understand and therefore explain the subject in dispute. Yet those who hold the Objective Presence absolutely are, of course, obliged to admit that it is of no avail, unless it be met by faith in the heart of the communicant; with- out which faith there can be no communion with Christ, and therefore, no Sacrament. So that, on their own showing, faith in the heart, that is, Christ’s Pre- sence there, 1s yet,in any case, the main thing as re- gards the communicant himself. (4) At the same time, it is difficult to see fe ereat use of the Hucharist for those who hold the Subjective Presence only, and who, therefore, granting little or no efficacy to the words of consecration, think far more meanly than they ought to think of the symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. For, albeit Christ com- mune with us otherwise than in the Eucharist, as, for instance, in prayer as our Advocate and Intercessor, in meditation on Him as our Friend, and in sickness of heart as our Physician, yet, unless we receive through the Eucharist the special benefit it is im- tended to confer, which is—our being refreshed and strengthened in our souls by spiritually feeding on Christ’s atonement and death for us, thereby growing in grace and in union with Him—we cannot be sure of receiving it equally in another way at any other time. (5) The truth then, assuredly, seems to lie in the mean, at the point common to both these opposite ex- Conclusion. 157 tremes, namely, in Christ’s Presence in the heart of the faithful communicant, as the only Presence in the Sacra- ment so far capable of proof, as to satisfy the mind, and therefore also to claim the character of being real as regards ourselves. Jor it rests (1) on the testimony of Scripture, and (2) on our own experience; Scripture telling us that “Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith”; and our own experience also teach- ing us that the Spirit of adoption, when shed abroad in our hearts, bears witness with our Spirit that we are children, “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ?” —through His sacrifice, death, and merits alone; than which, Heaven and Harth know, there is nothing more real. XXi. Therefore would it, imdeed, seem best, in order to avoid needless strife, contention, and schism in the Body of Christ, as also safest with regard to ourselves as members of it, with the wise Hooker, to hold that “ the Real Presence of Christ’s most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacra- ment, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.’ In other words, as regards the Holy Eucharist, to be satisfied with looking in our hearts for the Real Pre- sence of Christ, wrought there and then by Him through the worthy partaking of the symbols of His Body and Blood, ritefully consecrated in His own words and according to His institution, without which there is no Sacrament on His part—for the special purpose of bringing Him present to our mind and soul, as having made peace and reconciliation through His atoning sacrifice on the Cross, offered there once 1 Eph. iii, 17. 2 Rom. viii, 16, 17. 3 i. P., bk. -v,-ciswuy Gc. 158 Conclusion. and for ever; without which faith in us there is also no Sacrament on our part. But how this is wrought —how we thereby dwell in Christ and He in us; how far ‘‘ His Body” is to be understood of Him alone; of His flesh, of life in Him, of immortality through it, of the communion of Saints in it, or of all these together —He will tell us when we no longer need such symbols, but end our faith in sight, and behold Him even as He is. Meanwhile, let it suffice us to approve our- selves to Him in the way we understand His words ; so that we do not offend others by so doing. For to Him our Master, and to Him alone, do we stand or fall. “Esrel 0 Xoyos Gyat, TodTo éots TO THud pov, Kal meOopcla kal tictevwper, “ since the Word”, says S. Chrysostom, “tells us ‘This is my Body,’ let us be persuaded and believe it, cat vontois avTo PET @pev opGarmots, and see it with the eyes of our mind. Ovdev yap aicOntov Tapédwxev iv 0 Xpiotos: adr ev aic@ntois pev mpaypact, mavta dé vontd. For Christ did not deliver unto us in it anything for the senses ; but in outward and sensible acts [such as seeing, eating, handling] everything is yet intended for the mind and belongs to it.”! “Nam hoc non potest esse divinum sacrificium ubi usus est nature.”® Corpus enim Dei, corpus est spiritale. Corpus Christi, corpus est divin Spiritus, quia spiritus est Christus, ut legimus.’’? Thus, while Objectivists, like Romanists whom these words of 8. Chrysostom and of 8. Ambrose do not favour much, require ‘‘a histrionic service’’, gorgeous churches, scenic furniture, and gaudy vestments, for 1 Homil. in Matt. Ixxxii. 2 §. Ambrose de Cain. et Ab., lib. i, c. x. 8 Ibid., De Myst., c. ix. Conclusion. 159 their worship of objects ;! and, on the other hand, Sub- jectivists sometimes think dilapidated churches and undue familiarity with God better suited to their feel- ings; Realists, who hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be there only where it can be proved and is known to exist, that is, in the faithful heart in communion, through it, with Christ,—eschew alike either extreme of idolatrous worship of what 1 Things at Pelusium, some fourteen hundred years ago, were, it seems, very much as they are at present in England, judging from a letter of S. Isidorus (Oceodeclw emor., lib. ii, Ep. 247) to the Ritualists of his day,in which he rebukes Eusebius, chief pastor of Pelusium, for not knowing the difference between “ the Church” and “a church”,’Or: 5€ rodTo ph yiwdoKnwv éxeivos, Thy wev bvTwS exKAT- alav KoPapel cxavdartCwv mordcdts: Tb F exkAnoiacthpiov oikodomel, Kal THY Bev Grockouel TOds aTrovdaious ekootpaklfwy. Not knowing that, he, on the one hand, destroys “the Church” by offending many; while, on the other hand, he rears ‘‘a church’’, or ecclesiastical building, and yet strips her of her ornaments, by driving away from her her best members, though he spare no expense for costly marbles. Ei d€ yvoin axpiBas, dtt %AAO eotly exkAnoia, Kal AAO, exKAnoracthpiov, If, however, he knew well that “the Church” and “a church” are two things very different, he would then cease from so destroying the Church”, while he adorns his own building more than is meet ; for the King of Heaven comes thither, not for the sake of the walls, but for that of the souls. And if he does not think so, let him learn ér: ém) wey tév ’AmootdéArwy, OTe 7 exkAnola éxdua pev xa- piouuor mvevpatikots, EBpve Se moditela AauTpa, exKANoLaTTHpla ovK Fy, that in the days of the Apostles, when the Church abounded in spiritual graces, and flourished in bright life, there were then no churches. For my part, were I able to choose, I would rather have lived in those days when churches were not so much adorned, but the Church was crowned with many spiritual gifts, than at present, when churches are beautified with marbles of all cclours, but the Church is stripped and bare of the spiritual gifts she then enjoyed.” This letter from a disciple of 8. Chrysostom, might be read with profit by those who would make us believe that medieval Roman- ism and the primitive Catholic and Apostolic Church are one and the same. But even they know better. J 160 Conclusion. they know not, or of careless indifference towards Him whom they fear, and will worship in spirit and in truth, with the spiritual sacrifices acceptable to Him. Tov pev vrep avtay lepevOévta do€dlovtes opas avods, iepevovTes: giving glory to Him who was offered for them, by offering themselves a living sacrifice to Him ; Bopov b€ adnGas ayiov, THY SiKkaiay Wuynv Kat TO aT avTis Ovpiawa tiv ociay evynv ré€yovTes, on the truly sacred altar of a soul justified, whence arise unto Him the sweet-smelling savour of hallowed and earnest prayer.””! Such worshippers, then, neither bedizen their churches with trappings and crowded ornaments, nor strip them of all beauty and grace; but they aim at everything in God’s House being done decently and in order, with reverence and godly fear. And as regards the Lord’s Supper in particular, they neither light candles at noonday, nor forbid them at night; neither do they adore the Host, nor think little of the conse- crated symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. But they ‘‘draw near with faith, devoutly take His holy Sacrament to their comfort, and feed on Him in their heart by faith with thanksgiving.” 1 §. Clem. Al., Strom., lib. vii, pp. 707, 717, etc. NOTES THE BREAD AND WINE FOR THE HOLY COMMUNION. NOTE I, Referred to at p. 37, ON THE BREAD USED AT THE HOLY EUCHARIST. I. “Great have been [and great are yet] the feuds between the Eastern and Western Churches’, says Card. Bona, “on the subject of the eucharistic bread ; for the Hastern Church uses leavened bread as alone lawful ; whereas the Western Church adopts unleavened bread, without, however, condemning those who follow the Hastern custom. ‘This controversy first began in the fourth century after the sixth Gicumenic council (cc. A.D. 1050); for there is no doubt that at first the use of leavened bread was general in the Western Church.”’! II. While the Romish Church uses unleavened wa- fers, the manifold (some hundred and thirty) patterns of which may be seen in A. Novarini’s work (pp. 207- 209), with every imaginable detail (for which, however, there is not the slightest authority, since the Last Supper was assuredly not celebrated with such things), the Greek Church asserts that, as our Saviour antici- pated the legal Passover by one day, He ate leavened 1 Rer. Lit., lib. i, c. xxiii. See also Aloys. Novarini Agnus Eucha- risticus, a folio volume of 500 pp. on that one subject only. M 162 Notes on the Bread bread with it. Thus argue, as already stated (p. 42, note), Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Apolinarius, whose treatises are given not only by Petavius in his Uranologia, but also by A. Halma in his edition of Ptolemy’s Astronomy. And to this leavened bread the Greek Church holds with wonderful tenacity. “ From this” (the seventieth Canon of the Apostles), says that Church, “it is plain how greatly the Latins are to blame for their innovations (xawoTopHnoaytes) In the holy. Eucharist, by introducing their Jewish unlea- vened bread ; for, from the time of our Lord until the year 1053, dv’ évGvmou aptou édevtovpye 7 THY AuTiKov éexxrnoia, the Western Church celebrated the Eucha- rist with leavened bread. About that time Leo IX mpatos eEeupeTns TOV alvjwv éyévero, was the first to invent unleavened bread. What, therefore, the Latins pretend by saying that our Saviour ate the Passover with unleavened bread, is wrevoectaror, a barefaced falsehood ; 0 Iwavyns yap ‘Lepocohvpon, Kal Tap avToU VoOTEpoV THY aopuny AaBov o ) Todupabiis Everpatvos— amédevEe OTL O Kupwos ovK Eparye voptKov TAXA, €v @ mapeo00n ypova, Kat akodovdas, ovdé Se’ abipmwv Tov Reena detrrvov érérxeoev. For John of Jerusalem, and after him the learned Eustratius, wrote clearly to prove that our Lord did not eat the legal Passover when He was betrayed, and that consequently He celebrated the Mystic Supper with leavened bread.’?! 1 TIndaa. eis Tov 0, kav. T, ay. An., p. 34. Evidently Agapius and Cardinal Bona do not agree. But there is yet another proof, says the Greek priest, to shew that our Saviour used leavened bread at the Last Supper. Nicholas Hydrantus relates, in his work on un- leavened bread, that when the Franks took Constantinople, they found in the royal treasury 74 tiwa EvAa, Thy dxavOiwov otépavoy, Ta caviddia TOD SwrHpos, kat Eva xappl ebpov be Kal &v tii cKever XpvT@~ AOomapyapitoKoAANT@ prov aro Toy bmotoy ESwKev 6 Kipios Tois AmwooTd- Aas. °O kal émvypadiy TowatT ay elxe’ evOdde Keira 6 Betos &ptos, ov 6 Xpiotds Tots podnTats ev 7H Spa Tov Selmvov dSireveiper, eim@v* AdBerte, oddyere—the precious wood of the cross, the crown of thorns, the sandals worn by our Lord, and one nail. They also found, inside a certain golden vessel set in jewels, some of the bread of which our Saviour gave to His disciples. Around it was this inscription: « Herein is contained the divine bread which Christ distributed to used at the holy Hucharist. 163 III. On the other hand, the Armenians use unlea- vened bread, for which they are roundly abused by a fictitious character of Romish origin, ‘‘ Sanctus Pater noster Isaacus Armeniz Catholicus,” in his two Invec- tives against Armenians.! This ‘‘ holy father’, who is supposed to be an Arme- nian convert to Rome,—in whom, however, Cardinal Bona does not believe,” who is not found in the lists of the Catholicos of Armenia, and whom Mich. Tcham- itch, in his standard work on the subject, declares never to have existed,—calls the Armenians dppata dayovwv, and other opprobrious epithets, for “ intro- ducing the Jewish unleavened bread at the Eucharist, thereby proclaiming only the one nature in Christ, which is represented by the absence of leaven”:’ the very thing he, a Romanist, was in the habit of doing, and for which he is, in his turn, reviled by the Greeks. But let this pass. So it has been, and so it is, in the Church ‘ Catholic’”’; and such is the state to which men have brought it. IV. The Monophysite and Nestorian Syrians, how- ever, seem to think differently of the unleavened bread; for while holding only one nature, or a confusion of two natures, in Christ, they nevertheless make their vatha, or bread for the Eucharist, of the best wheaten flour, chosen and sifted within the church by priests or deacons ; together with pure water, olive oil, salt, and leaven. When baked, it may not be used until the priest have taken some of it for the Eucharist ; and this, according to the twenty-seventh canon of the Aposties, in Syriac,* must be on the same day the bread is baked; when the rest of it may then be sold, His disciples at the time of the Supper, saying, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ As it was leavened, the Frank bishop wished to hide it; but he could not, thank God !—Gregory of Corcyra tells this as a true story.”” Truly no further proof is needed. ' First printed by Combefis, vol. i, p. 318 sqq., and again by Migne, vol. exxxii. 2 Rer. Lit., lib. i, ¢. xxiii. 3 Invectiva, i, c. vii, p. 345, ed. Comb. ‘4 Anc. Syr. Doc., p. 30. J 164 Notes on the Bread if not wanted. The Maronite Syrians,! whom Roman- ists call orthodox, however, use unleavened bread ; while the Jacobites of Syria and those of Egypt quarrel among themselves as to the quantity of oil or salt to be used in making the eucharistic bread. V. Then, again, the Abyssinian Church uses leavened wheaten bread in small, flat loaves, marked with a cross, very much like those we see on the table of the Eucharist of early Christians, sculptured on the sarco- phagus. of Priscilla, found im the Via Salaria.? On Holy Thursday, however, they use unleavened bread in remembrance of our Saviour eating unleavened bread at the Passover ;? and in this respect they wholly differ from the Greeks. VI. Where, in all this, is the “ Catholic” use? and which of these manifold ways and customs shall we adopt m order to be more “ Catholic’ than we are ? Does not this diversity at once condemn the frivolous claims of those who talk of being ‘‘ Catholics”? because they use unleavened wafers of a particular make? The Church of England, therefore, is right in cutting short all such fanciful questions, and in prescribing that— ‘“‘In order to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition which any person hath or might have concern- ing the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten.’ Although this be the wisest and best decision on the subject, of any branch of Christ’s Catholic Church, yet in the present usual way. of administering the holy Communion do even Anglicans all but lose sight of the chief idea of “ communion with Christ, the Head; and in Him, one with another, as members of the same Body”. ' Joh. Maro Exp. Miss. D. Jacobi in Dissert. de Re Euchar. Syr., p. 2385 sq. 2 Given in Job. Ludolf’s H. Eth., lib. iii, ¢. vi, n. 73. 3 Gotfr. Hrtel Theol. Ath. De Cena D., p. 137 sq. * Rubric at the end of the Comm. Service. ah used at the holy Hucharist. 165 VII. This idea lies in our Saviour taking “a loaf” and breaking it in pieces, every one of which then be- comes a bit of “ bread”, and as such is both our food and sustenance; while, at the same time, every piece bears to the loaf the relation of a member to the body. Therefore did our Saviour say, “ This is my body”’, of the loaf He brake, and not of every piece of bread He gave to His disciples; therefore also did He make a distinction between His body and His flesh, which He would give to eat for the life of the world. When, therefore, He took the loaf, and said of it, “ This is my body which is broken for you”, He implied, as Bishop Jeremy Taylor says, the “ contesseration”’ of His whole self as the Head of His Body, the Church, every mem- ber of which is one with Him; and, through Him, also one with the other members of His Body. This beautiful idea disappears at the sight of a slice of bread-crumb on the paten; for that bread-crumb represents His flesh, but not His body. A very great improvement, therefore, and one which might be intro- duced by authority without offence, would be the use at the holy Communion of a small, round, flat loaf, like sundry cakes in common use, with a very thin crust, that would then literally be broken in pieces; and thus come much nearer to that which actually did take place at the Lord’s Supper, than the present custom of administering it. Hvery communicant would then, like the disciples, receive, not a consecrated “bit of bread” only, but ‘‘a piece of bread broken from the consecrated loaf”’. 166 NOTE II, Referred to at pp. 38 and 94, ON THE WINE USED AT THE HOLY EUCHARIST. As with the bread, so also with the wine for the Hucha- rist, is there no “ Catholic” use; for, albeit the Greek and Romish Churches, with others of the Hast, use the mixed chalice, they yet quarrel among themselves, as do the Greek and the Romish, about the quantity and the temperature of water to be mixed with the wine: whether a few or many drops, hot, warm, or cold; while the Armenian Church and the Jacobite Syrians use pure wine of the best sort to be had; and the Abyssinian and Coptic Churches use wine often made of raisins, and in straitened times even water only. I. The origin of the mixed chalice is twofold :— (1), from the old, prevailing custom of mixing water with wine at meals; and (2), from the water and blood that flowed from our Saviour’s side after His death on the cross. This, however, is only an after-thought grafted upon the common use of wine mixed with water; but for which there is, I believe, no authority in the very early Church. First, then, as to mixing water with wine at meals, it is now, as it was then, a custom prevalent in all countries that grow generous wines: the mixture of water, for which we find special rules in Greek and in Latin writers, being intended only to enable men to drink more freely than they could of pure wine. The custom was then first to have wine least tempered with water, and when men had freely drunk, then wine more diluted! And as the Lord’s Supper, in the early Church, partook much of the form of an ordinary meal, the wine used then must have been such as those who met together were in the habit of drinking,—more or 1 §, John, ii; Athen. Deipnos., lib. x, c. v, vi. Notes on the Wine, ete. 167 less tempered with water, according to their circum- stances. So writes Justin Martyr, who, in his descrip- tion of the Eucharist in his day, mentions, zroT/puov vdaTos Kal Kpapatos, a cup of water and of wine; «pa- va being here used by mistake for oivov, wine, owing to the custom of drinking wine with water, which was so prevalent that xepdw, “to mix”, came to mean simply ‘‘to pour drink into a cup”, and was thus said of pure wine, as Kexepacpévoy axpatov év troTnpiw,' and Ilavrovoos 6é wedighpova oivov éxipva.® Hence was Kpapa, “ mixture”’, said oF “common drink’; and Kparip, of “a drinking-cup”. That Justin Martyr means otvos by kpaua in this place, i is | proved by his mentioning the cup a little after as oivov Kai vdatos.® II. That this custom among the Jews was not of mere choice on their part, is clearly proved (1) by the fact that wine thus tempered was in itself considered adulterated, and an inferior article; e. g., “thy silver is become dross, and thy wine mixed with water’’;* and that (2) consequently the custom was neither general nor compuisory, as we saw when speaking of the Jewish Passover ; but it was entirely optional, and left to every host to determine as he would. Ill. The wine when mixed only with water, was, as by Isaiah, said to be byes NSD, “wine (merum) cut or killed”, as we find it also described in parallel pass- ages from Arabic writers, in order to distinguish it from ‘FR 3%, “living [or pure] wine”. ‘This adultera- tion of wine with water is remarkably illustrated by this very passage (Is. 1; 22) 1 in the LXX., that renders the Hebrew by o: kdnrot cou pisyouct op oivoy boat, *“ thy tavern-keepers mix thy wine with water’; where- fore S. Paul, wishing to explain to the Greeks of Corinth that the Gospel he preached was not adulterated, but pure, says: ov ydp éopev, @s ot TroNAXol, KATNNEVOVTES 1 Rev. xiv, 10. 3 Pro Chr., Apol. ii, p. 97. 2 Od. 7’, 182, etc. 2 isi, 22: 168 Notes on the Wine Tov Noyov Tov Meod: ** We are not as many which cor- rupt [or adulterate] the Word of God’. Therefore also did the Church believe and teach that Melchisedec brought to Abraham pure wine, and not wine and water ;” and therefore also was pure wine alone ordered for the service of the Tabernacle and of the Temple: for whether Hast or West, water was always held to mar the wine. It was called cvyxpacis vyndavtixy avoTnpov voaTos, and was said to be injurious to the health: thus Diphilus, "Eyyeov od 61 treety. Ev Gwpotepov—ro yap ‘Toapés Grav Todt éotl TH uyH Kaxov3 The object of this mixture being only to favour drink- ing in greater quantity. Wine mixed with water, however, was not allowed in libations to the gods; for when thus mixed it was called spurcwm, filthy or defiled; but all libations of wine were axpartot, of pure wine, as frequently said in Homer ; in order to shew, says EKustathius, to tis yvo- ens apuyes Yrevder, Kat adorov: “id est, mentis sinceri- tatem expertem fraude atque doli.”* So that when Homer says 1 2 Cora 7, 2 °O Meaxicedéx TH ’ABpadu—énédwxev mothpiov &kparov—kal Tovtov Tov TpdTrov, BuoLa0n TE vig TOU Ocov—xal TUTos eyéveTo THs Hylas Mpoaho- pas.—Melchisedec gave to Abraham pure wine, whereby he was made like unto the Son of God; and that became the figure of the holy oblation. (S. Athan., Hist. Melch., vol. ii, pp. 9, 10.) ‘O meéev MeAxicedex avtl Bdatos olvov mpocdepeTw, Kal woriféTw kal axpaTiCerw yuxas.—Let Melchisedec, then, bring wine instead of water, and give souls to drink of pure wine, etc. (Philo, De Leg., all lib. ii, p. 76.) Tére 6 MeAxuoede etjveynev &ptov Kal olvov, eis avdmavow Tots avacTpepovow amd Tov moAguov. Ottw kal 6 Xpiorbs, Tots Ex TOV voepod ToAE€uOU Tpds avToYv avacTpEepovat Sldwow Uptov Kal olvoy 7jryiacmevov, Aé= yov. AdBere, pdyere e& a’tod maytes.—Then Melchisedec brought out bread and wine to refresh those who were returning from the war. So also does Christ give sanctified bread and wine to those who return to Him from their spiritual fight, saying, “‘ Take, eat ye all of this.” (Marci Eremitz op. in Melchised., viii.) ‘Athen. Deipn., i, c. 4 « Sic contra, vino aqua mixto doli atque superstitiones in sacris adumbrabantur.”—* Pythagoreorum quoque symbolum fuit, ne used at the holy Hucharist. 169 —xpnTipe dé oivor pioryon,} the mixture was not wine and water, but of two differ- ent sorts of wine; Thasiwm infundere. Mercury was the only god to whom a libation was offered of wine mixed with water, as in Aristophanes, EP. Odors d€ KtruKos tcov iow Kexpapévns.? Where the Scholiast says that the mixture was olvou Kal ddaros, of wine and water; adding Sw porepov yap TO ToLOUTOV Kpama. Traiver 5é Tpds Tots Karrp dow * such a mixture being, of course, far more pure”; said by the comic in derision of tavern-keepers. Why was such an offering made to Mercury alone? We answer, says the Scholiast, because he rules over the quick and the dead, and receives homage from both.’ IV. But wine mixed with spices and other drugs was called St or "Dg,* and as such was always distin- guished from }%%, otvos.2 Alluding to this kind ‘of mixture, S. Clement of Alexandria says: But cadpove OULTOTN, oivos eis, Evos yewpytov Geod: for the tempe- rate man there is only one kind of wine,—the produce of God’s husbandry ;° that yields wine, and not water, says 8. Chrysostom. Since our Saviour, then, did not sit at meat with His disciples for good cheer, and since pure wine only was allowed at the Jewish sacrifices, although the Passover partook more of the character of a feast than of a sacrifice, it is obviously more likely that the wine He blessed and drank was pure, than that it was mixed ‘ diis libarent ex amputatis vitibus. Hine spurcwm vinum diceba- tur, quod sacris adhiberi non poterat, ut ait [Festus et] Labeo Anstitius lib. 10, Commentarii juris Pontificii, cui aqua admixta esset.”” (Stuckii Sacror. et Sacrific. Gentil. Descr., p. 200 sq., et Antiq. Conviv., p. 532 sq.; Athen., lib. x, et Gerh. Vossii Theol. Gen- til.; lib. v; ¢. 16.) 1 Tl. y’, 270. 2 Plut., 1132. 8 Schol. in Arist. ad 1. p. 358, ed Bek. 4 Cant. vii, 3; Prov. ix, 2, 5. 5 As in Ps. lxxv, 9; Prov. xxiii, 30. § Pedag., lib. ii, p. 157. cae Notes on the Wine with water. Otherwise the Evangelist would not have called it otvos, wine; but xpdmwa, mixture. Neither would our Saviour have called it, whether in Hebrew, Syriac, or Greek, 76 yévynuwa THs aprrédov, the fruit or produce of the vine, if it had been mixed with water or anything else. ‘‘ Yor know ye well”, says S. Clement Al., “that our Saviour partook of wine, for He also was a man; and He blessed it, saying, ‘Take and drink’: Todr6 pod éote 76 aipa, aiwa THS aprrédov : this is my blood, the blood of the vine. “Orv 6€ oivos Hv To evroynbév, but to shew that what He blessed was wine, He plainly told His disciples, ‘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.’ ””? “ But why”, asks S. Chrysostom, “ did our Saviour drink wine, and not water, after His resurrection? In order entirely to root out a certain heresy ; for there are certain men who use only water [Hy dr oparastate | 7 for the holy Mysteries, OELKVUS OTL KAL NVIKA TA LUCTH- pla Tapédwxev, oivoy Tapédwxe: shewing that when He delivered the Mysteries, He delivered wine ; and that when, after His resurrection, He sat down to His usual meal, He then drank wine, and not water.’ V. We then see that nothing whatever may with certainty be inferred from the Last Supper in favour of the mixed chalice; and that the assertion by Ritualists that ‘it began in the upper chamber in the year 33” is puerile ; for (1) the use of xpaua, “ mixed wine and water,’ was common long before that date; and (2) we have nothing to shew that our Saviour blessed and drank such a mixture; but, on the contrary, every thing tends to make us believe that at His Last Sup- per He blessed and drank pure wine. And when allud- ing to it, they further add that “ the true Catholic can find room in his heart for every usage on which the sanction of the Church has set her seal, from the mixed chalice to the Commination Service, which was invented 1 §. Matt. xxvi, 29; S. Clem. AL, ibid., p. 158. 2 In S. Matt. Homil. lxxxii. used at the holy Hucharist. 171 A.D. 1549; or the fraction of the Host prior to conse- cration, which began in 1662”’,—ought they, in all fair- ness, to tell us what they understand by “ Church”, and what also by “‘ Catholic’. VI. The use of the mixed chalice, then, most pro- bably originated with the prevalent custom of mixing water with wine at meals, especially among the poor, of whom were most of the early Christians. In the course of time, however, that mixture was said to repre- sent the two streams of Water and of Blood which flowed from our Saviour’s side, or His two natures, etc. But this creates such a confusion of ideas, that we can- not wonder at the thought never having occurred to the early Fathers. Justin Martyr, we see, mentions the ddwp Kal xpaya or Udwp Kal oivos of the cup as a matter of course, and in common use, without alluding .o the two Sacra- meuts ; while 8. Clement of Alexandria treats at length of xpaua and xpaots in a way which shews that not only the idea of “the water and blood” never occurred to him, but that he, drawing comparison from the com- mon use of mixing water with wine at meals, mentions the water as the common drink, or the human element, and wine as the divine, and says: Todt’ éoti mrety TO aipa TOU ‘Inood, TiS KUpLAKS peraraPeiv aplapsias iayvs O€ TOD Aoyou TO TvEUpa, @S aipa TapKos. "Ava- Aoyos TolvUp Kipvarat, 0 pev oivos TO VOATU TO b¢ avOpa- TO, TO mvebpa Kal TO MeV, ets TLOTW evaxel TO Kpama TO oe, els ap@apotav odnyet, TO TVEvpA. 1) O€ appotv avis Kpaows, ToTov Te Kal Aoyou, Kvyapiotia KéxdyTAl, K. T. rA This is to drink the blood of Jesus, to become partaker of our Lord’s incorruptibility. But the Spirit is the strength of the Word, as blood is of the flesh. After the same analogy is wine mixed with water, and the spirit with man. And in this case, while drinking the wine and water, on the one kana: induces us to believe [in the truth of this], the Spirit, on the other hand, leads us to incorruptibility. And this mixture 1 Padag., lib. ii, ¢. 2 172 Notes on the Wine of the two, the drink [water] and the Word [wine], is called the Kucharist.”’ VII. Likewise 8. Irenzus, who ascribes the mixture of the chalice to our Saviour Himself: “ Dominus— temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit’’;} adding, “‘ Hec enim et Dominus docuit mixtionem calicis novam in regno ccelorum cum discipulis habitu- rum se pollicitus’’,? calling it To Kexpapévoy troTnpLov?»— olv@ Kexpayéevoyv*—yet says nothing of the reason of the mixture ; but by dating the practice from the Last Supper, evidently looks upon the prevalent custom of drinking wine and water mixed as the origin of it. For no one, I trow, would venture to affirm that our Saviour, if He did mix it, did so by anticipaticn of the water and blood that flowed from His side. S. Hilary does not, that I know, allude to the mixed chalice ; but 8S. Cyprian® writes at length about it, against those who, like the Ebionites and other heretics, used only water for the Kucharist. He therefore urges that wine should be in sufficient quantity in the cup, saying that Melchisedec brought pure wine to Abra- ham ; and that whereas wine, in the Old Testament, is an emblem of the Eucharist, even in the case of Noah, water is invariably meant of baptism. So that, allud- ing to the water made wine at Cana, He says: “ Quam vero perversum est, quamque contrarium, ut eum Do- minus in nuptiis de aqua vinum fecerit, nos de vino aquam faciamus: cum sacramentum quoque rei illius admonere et instituere nos debeat, ut in sacrificis Dominicis vinum potius offeramus.” But 8. Cyprian, while ascribing the mixed chalice to the Saviour Him- self, who “ calicem vero docuerit exemplo magisteril sui, vini et aquee conjunctione misceri”’, yet says nothing of the water in it being meant for that of baptism, but, on the contrary, he specifies that water as quite dis- tinct, saying that the water in the chalice represents 1 Adv. Her., lib. iv, c. 57. 8 Lib. v, ¢. 2. 2 Lib. v, c. 36. 4 Lib. i, c. 9. ® Cecilio Frat. Ep. lxiii. - used at the holy Hucharist. 173 the people, “nam quia nos omnes portabat Christus, qui et peccata nostra portabat ; videmus in aqua pops lum intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi.” It is, however, self-evident that there can be no com- parison between water which by this Father’s direction is to be in so small a quantity as to be lost in the wine, and ‘‘the people or church”, which is the Body of Christ. I regret that I have no copy of 8S. Cyril of Alexan- dria at hand to consult; but S. Cyril of Jerusalem, though giving various explanations for the water and blood which issued from our Saviour’s side,! neither mentions them as figures of the two Sacraments of Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper, nor even alludes to the mixed chalice ; but speaks of it only as otvos, wine, which, he says, represents the Spirit or divine essence, as aipo THS vonThns auménrov, as blood of the spiritual vine.” VIII. 8. Ambrose, on the other hand, explains why, whereas Melchisedec brought pure wine to Abraham, water 1s nevertheless poured into the cup: “ In cali- cem, inquit, mittitur vinum. Ht quid aliud? Aqua. Sed tu mihi dicis : Quomodo ergo Melchisedech panem et vinum obtulit? Quid sibi vult admixtio aqua ?— Christus, petra que undam maximam fudit—quz popu- lum sequebatur. Ht tu bibe, ut te Christus sequatur.” “De latere ejus aqua fluxit et sanguis. Quare aqua? Quare sanguis? Aqua ut emundaret, sanguis ut redi- meret.”? A very different opinion, indeed, from that of S.Clement of Alexandria, who says that in the mixed chalice water represents Tas capkixas ériOupias,* “ the lusts of the flesh”; wherein he also differs from Theo- phylact, who says ot the same water, “that it is an emblem of the divine or supernatural element’’.° IX. From these few examples, and from others which I might also quote, we find that (1) the mixed chalice 1 Catech. xiii. 3 De Sacram., lib. v, ¢. 1. 2 Catech. xvii. 4 Pedag., lib. i, p. 104. 5 In S. John, xix. 174 Notes on the Wine originated in the use of wine and water, cpaua, which was the common drink of the people even before the days of our Saviour; but also (2) that as there is no proof that He used it at the Last Supper, the Fathers who refer the institution of it to Him, all differ in their interpretation of the purpose for which the water was then mixed with the wine: a proof, it would seem, to most minds, that He certainly did not consecrate xpa- pa, wine and water, but otvos, pure wine; otherwise He would have explained the intention of the water mixed with it. X. For, those who mix the chalice in memory of “the water and blood’, which doubtless meant the two Sacraments, do not seem aware of the confusion they unwittingly make. (1.) The two streams of blood and of water must have been distinct from each other, otherwise S. John could not have seen them both. But in the cup they are mixed: nay, the water, in a few drops only, must ‘‘ become wine”, as the Fathers say. (2.) The Blood that flowed from our Saviour’s side might be taken to represent the Blood of the Sacra- ment, or covenant in His blood, the Blood meant in the Eucharist; but it could not be the type or figure jtself of that Blood. The Blood that redeemed us, the Blood of the covenant, that is, the blood of the sacri- fice, was the warm, living, arterial blood fetched by the nails driven through His hands and feet before His death ; whereas the Blood that flowed from His side after death,—that is, after the sacrifice was accom- plished,—was, so to speak, dead blood ; that flowed, not to cause death lke the other, but as a proof that death had already taken place. XI. The mind, therefore, cannot easily admit that our Saviour (1) would have said ‘‘ This is my blood of the New Testament”, or ‘this is the New Testament in my blood’, the precious Blood of the covenant with sacrifice—of wine which His prophet said in His own tongue was ‘cut or killed’”’; a mixture which even used at the holy Eucharist. 175 heathens considered “ foul’, and unfit for the worship of their gods; one also which the Vulgate of His day declared to be the trick of tavern-keepers; but rather that He could only say what He did of pure, unadulterated wine, such as He was to drink again in His Father’s kingdom. And (2) that He would assu- redly not mix the cup, and make of it only one draught, in token of the two streams which were to flow distinct from His side; since in this case “‘the sign” would not have been “ like the thing signified”. For those two streams were, as far at least as we can understand such mysteries, a figure or token of the ‘“two Sacraments”, but “in His death”; and therefore were they assuredly not intended, as such, to be mixed together into one Sacrament only. We might as well mix wine with the water of Baptism, as water with the wine of the Eucharist, if we seek to do so na mystical sense; and not merely to keep an old custom which is common, but not Catholic. For the Armenian Church, which is as much a branch of Christ’s Church as that of England, Rome, or Greece, is the most consistent of all in this respect. It uses pure wine for the Hucha- rist; but at Baptism it twists together two threads, one red, the other white, which are then placed upon the head of the baptised child, in memory of the two- fold stream of Water and Blood that came out of our Saviour’s side. So also when, according to their custom, Armenians dip pieces of the consecrated Host into the chalice of pure wine, do they seem to bear in mind the words of S. Clement of Alexandria, which others who dip the Host into a mixed chalice seem to have overlooked, namely, that adptos eis xpaya xataOpuPeis Tov oivov aptrager, TO dé VdaTabes aTroNei7rec—bread thus broken, and soaked in wine and water, absorbs only the wine, and leaves out the water”’.! To what purpose, then, is the mixture made ? XII. The authority of the early Liturgies is of very 1 Pedag., lib. i, p. 104. 176 _ Notes on the Wine little value in this respect, owing to their notorious interpolations. For imstance, while the Greek Church resting for this mixed chalice on the thirty-second canon of the sixth Gicumenic Council, says onpeimoar a0 TOU TAPOVTOS KaVOVOS, OTL elvar SexTn 1) TOD’ AdeXho- Géov evroupyia, that it appears from that canon that the Liturgy of 8S. James was received in the Church, others, like Balsamon, of the same Church say: éuas év Th a& épwtnce Madpxov ’AreEavopeias bre Sey civas dextn. “lows dia Ti eis pwepixa daiveras va eivar vevobev- uévn: nevertheless, that it was not received; most likely because it 1s interpolated in sundry places.! Both S. Chrysostom and §S. Basil, however, prescribe the mixed chalice in their respective liturgies. XIII. As the Greek Church, so also that of Rome uses the mixed chalice; but the two disagree as to the temperature or quantity of water to be mixed. Bal- samon and Germauus of Constantimople direct that the water should be poured boilmg and bubbling up into the wine, but neither cold nor lukewarm. Where- fore does Nicephorus, in his thirteenth Canon, say that the Latins, who use cold water, neither offer the living Godhead in warm and young blood, nor the divine, and through it, quickening side of the Saviour, etc.” XIV. On the other hand, the Jacobite Syrians use pure wine for the Eucharist, after the manner of the Armenians, who on this account are railed at by “Sanctus Pater Noster Isaacus Catholicus,” already mentioned, who accuses them “ of denying the two- 1 TIndad. Tis ay. ExAno., p. 142; also p. 3 in the commentary on the third canon of the Apostles. The Greek liturgy of 8. James is often quoted as an authority for the mixed chalice; but it is a sinecular fact that the Syriac version of that liturgy (see Renaud. Tit. Orient., vol. ii, p. 127 sq.) makes no mention of it. In the prayer of consecration of the same liturgy, but from another ori- ginal, mention is not there made of oivos, but of cpaua, that shews how true is the character those liturgies have for having been altered at many times. 2 TIndaa. kav. AB’ rhs s' ox. S., and Card. Bona, Rer. Lit., lib. ii, Cc. Vill. used at the holy Hucharist. Tee fold nature of Christ, because they mix no water with the wine of the Eucharist’??—and then, in character- istic style, rods wupidxis avabewaticbevtas, TH SiaBorw Tapadiowoi—as a last effort of his charity. On the other hand, another Father of the same sort takes them to task for ‘‘ using pure wine, after the Jewish custom and the tradition of the Mosaic service.”! So that, while the Mosaic ritual is by some men thought a good authority for vestments, incense, and lights, by others it is thought a bad one for unleavened bread and pure wine. Truly, is “authority” made a very convenient term. | XV. The Copts, as already stated, like the Abys- sinians, often have been obliged to use date-wine and water, or wine made of raisins with water, instead of the genuine fruit of the vine; as, for instance, under the patriarchate of Cosmas, against whom the Caliph Motawakkel raised a bitter persecution, and in his zeal for his own religion, forbade the use of wine in Heypt.? The Copts, however, use the mixed chalice with different words, according to whether they adopt the liturgy of S. Mark, or those of 8. Chrysostom, 8. Basil, 8. Gregory, or 8S. Cyril; and call it either “wine,” ‘“the fruit of the vine,” or honestly, ‘‘ mixture.” Yet the Apostolic Constitutions in Coptic make no mention of water with wine, but simply of pt-aphot an-erp, of “the cup of wine which is the Blood of Christ unto every one who has faith in it”. To this is added ‘‘milk and honey mixed, as emblems of the good land flowing with milk and honey promised to the fathers.””? So say the Apostles, according to the Coptic Church ; according to the Greek, however, the same Apostles say just the reverse, and condemn themselves, by their third Canon: Hitis émricxorros, 7) 1 Patrolog., vol. cxxxi, p. 1258, ed. M. 2 Renaud. Hist. Patr. Alez., p. 295 sq., and Lit. Or., vol. i, p. 192, sq. The same thing occurred under the caliphate of Hakem-Biamr- Ilah, a told by Makrisi, p. 56 of his history, in De Sacy’s Chrest. Ar., vol. i. 3 Apost. Const. Copt., p. 61 sq. ys 178 Notes on the Wine m peo BUTEPOS—T POT EvEYKOL H} [LEAL,7) YaNa—Kaacpets Oo ; if a bishop or a presbyter offer on the altar milk or honey, let him be deposed.”! Another instance of that unanimity or unity of the “ Catholic” Church, of which we hear so much from men whose interest is, it seems, either to ignore facts or to hide them, until ** Catholic” means ‘‘ Romish” instead of “ Universal’, and “Church” answers to something very different from the Church founded by Christ and taught by His Apostles. XVI. But enough, in sooth, of such “Catholicism,” which gradually disappears as one looks deeper into it, and one.removes the rubbish heaped by the ignorance or interest of men upon the Catholic foundation laid by Christ Himself: ‘‘ Go, and teach all nations, bap- tizing them in the name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you.” Upon this foundation sundry wise master-builders of old reared their edifices of gold, silver, and precious stones, that will stand the test of fire at the last day ; but many more also, less wise than they, have, after them, raised their fabrics of wood, hay, and stubble, that will then perish,—to lay bare the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and the Rock on which they rest, our Lord and Master, Christ. Meanwhile, let Anglicans thank God their Church is on that Rock; not only better built and adorned with goodlier stones, but a Church which holds more truth, and also less error; which is thus more “ Apostolic,” and therefore also more ‘‘ Catholic” than all others, however they may boast of the contrary. God only grant in His mercy that her children be faithful to her, and for their own sakes, turn a deaf ear to the wheedlings of the foe, if they value “the faith once delivered to the saints’’ above “doctrines and commandments of men,’’and the weal of the land above intrigue and factious designs. XVII. As regards the mixed chalice, then, the men most earnest about 1t must see even from these few 1 Tindad. kav. y' Tov ay. Am., p. 3. used at the holy Eucharist. 179 examples, that the utmost they can reasonably claim for it 1s :— (1). That it is a very ancient custom, both heathen and civil, anterior to the days of Our Saviour, who, for obvious reasons, was not likely to adopt it at His last Supper. (2). That it has continued in the Church, wherein it is widely spread, but is not “catholic”; that is, not ‘* universal.” (3). That as regards the supposed mysticism of the mixture of wine and water, not only is it variously explained by different Fathers, some of whom even contradict the others, but the several branches of the Church that use the mixed chalice, quarrel among themselves as to the quantity and the temperature of the water to be used. (4). That consequently, “the admixture of water,” as Romanists themselves admit,! “ admixtionem aque non esse de necessitate vel integritate sacramenti,” ‘forms no necessary or integral part of the sacrament.” Whence it follows— (5). That it is of no importance whatever ; that it need not be disputed about with those whose Church is in the habit of using the mixed chalice. But also, that it is both unwise, ill-judged, and factious, to make it a source of contention, by trying, for obvious pur- poses, to foist it, as if it were a “ catholic’ rite, upon a Church whose ritual does not adopt it. As in the matter of bread, then, so also in that of the wine, has the Church of England acted wisely, “in taking away all cause of dissension and superstition,” by using that which Our Saviour Himself, at His own Supper, called “the fruit of the vine.” 1 Aquinas, Part 3, quest. 74, artic. 7, et quest. 83, art. 6 ad 4. Bonaventura in 4 Sentent. distinct. 11, Part 2, quest. 3, quoted in S. Cyprian. Ep., p. 151, note, ed. Oxf. : HRRATA. P. 25,1. 7, for avayxh read avayan. » 27,1. 14, for SiaBdors read d:aBacrs. » 40, 1. 6, for réAew read Treretv. , 80.1. 8, note, for ‘“‘ Meeris” read ‘‘ Mceris’’. » 92, 1. 27, for * his” read “ His”. », 90, 1.5, for Aceorwrixod read Aeomortikov. » 97,1. 14, for rererevOnndtos read TeTgAcuTHKITOS. ,, 103, 1. 5, note, for judas read nuas. » 108, 1. 29, for apdéua read apduara, », 112, 1. 22, for cémart read odmart. », 133, 1. 21, for dpuddios read apuddios. » — L. 22, for &c@nors read atc@nors. », 159, 1. 8, note, for dreckoye? read atoxoope:, T, RICHARDS, 87 GREAT QUEEN STREET, W.C. a o t ri hss EY) vt Pe A, hy - oy Tr ity i ‘Ay F fi “ on r To i ; i" ‘* a | _ - | = Ve = ‘ ow i yy ey i te Me Ay Ket of iatreandastey B Pe Ct Matai " ely Me fee \ B fe K eat ‘ ey y Aik ates a) yeeb uray ‘ny & Pre f cM GH ie rk ’ pa minal bbb the 4 ff al > FrrERs sage Wit “Ain Ati f ” Hele { i , q ' afie Ry Urry alls ROU A a Hala itinds ye van? ee i yeh i Es MART runt Mi Aya