^,%l..i<' ^'K liJ 'IWi.l.V /^ PASTORAL LETTER CLERGY OF HIS DIOCESE, BEFORE HIS TEIENNIAL VISITATION IN APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE, 1854, BY HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER. LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1854. London : Printed by William Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street, and Charing Cross. A PASTORAL LETTER, &c. &c. Reverend Brethren, In adhering to the course, which I first adopted three years ago, of addressing you by letter, rather than by a spoken Charge, I venture to think you will not deem any explanation necessary. It will enable us to enjoy, what every Bishop meeting his Clergy must wish to enjoy, the comfort and blessing of partaking together of the holy Eucharist. In another particular, I do not follow the precedent of my last Visitation. I do not invite you to follow it with a Diocesan Synod. My reason is a personal one — consideration of my own physical inability to encounter the fatigue of such a meeting. Permitted to reach the advanced age of seventy-six, I must not only be thankful for the measure of strength still vouchsafed to me, but I must also be cautious not to overtask it. Certainly nothing in the experience of our last Synod could have made me less anxious to repeat, what can be no longer called an experiment, but a great success. Even discouragement from the strange opposition, which the measure then en- countered, could not now be apprehended. The B 2 ( 4 ) more reasonable part of our opponents on that occa- sion have probably long been satisfied of their error — and would on no account be likely to repeat it. In one distinguished instance, we have a practical testimony of the reality of this change of opinion . In 1851, the agitators of two combined parishes in this diocese had addressed the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the assumption of His Grace's having the power to prevent the proceeding which I had announced. They received (certainly to my surprise) an answer expressive of warm sympathy in " their objections against the measure proposed by their Diocesan of holding a Diocesan Synod." " I am by no means blind," His Grace was pleased to tell them, "to the probability of the evils which you anticipate as likely to arise from such a measure, and I greatly regret that such a measure should have been devised ; but if it is not a transgression of the law of the land, it cannot be successfully resisted ; and if it does violate the law, I have no doubt that the Officers of the Civwn will interfere by means more effectual that I have authority to employ." His Grace was, indeed, as he justly apprehended, utterly powerless in such a case ; and the Officers of the Crown, thus invoked by him, and subsequently by the friends of Civil and Religious Liberty in Parlia- ment, were compelled by truth to report, that a Diocesan Synod was a measure known to the Law, and protected by it. I have recurred to this remarkable incident merely to do justice to the very full and clear retraction of his former opinion, which His Grace has recently made. In a Charge delivered to his Clergy in the it % ( ^ > last year, and since published for the benefit of the whole Church, His Grace, arguing against the pro- priety of the revived action of Convocation — says of " our Church " that it " has been long formed and made part of the constitution of the land, and, like every other part of our Constitution, mai/ admit of changes, and of fresh regulations," whenever Parlia- ment shall think fit — (a statement which may excite some surprise,' considering the quarter from which it issued) — and further that it could do nothing effectual without the sanction of Parliament. — He then immediately proceeds to recommend the prac- ticable, legitimate, and satisfactory expedient of holding Diocesan Synods. These are his words : '' As has been said already " (His Grace is referring to a citation made by him from " the unanswerable Charge " of Archdeacon Garbett), " nothing prevents any number of Clergy, or any Society of Clergy, or tlie Clergy of any Diocese, from assembling together, and consulting for the common good." I rejoice to receive so full an acknowledgment of the fitness of our having adhered to our Synod, three years ago, in spite of the not very wise, nor seemly, nor churchmanlike, resistance which it then expe- rienced. Under the encouragement thus given to us, I should have rejoiced to renew the proceeding now, were I not prevented by the reason which I have already stated. Nor is this the only encouraging anticipation which we may derive from His Grace's candid admission of a change of mind. To one, who is so honourably open to conviction, I look forwards as not unlikely ( 6 ) to be hereafter an advocate for the practical revival of Convocation ; for, he rests his objection to it mainly on its action being really worthless by reason of the controlling power of Parliament; and his Brother Metropolitan, the Archbishop of York, has ventured still further in the same direction. He is pleased to say (Charge in 1853, p. 31), — " I have referred to a point which is itself hardly more now than one of curious inquiry, to show the incorrectness of a very common statement, that Con- vocation is a necessary attendant upon, or, as it is sometimes even said to be, a constitutional part of our Parliament; or that its object was, to act in connexion with the Houses of Lords and Commons. The purpose of Convocation, so far as concerned the intentions of the Sovereign who summoned it, was, for at least several centuries, to obtain subsidies from the Clergy." Now, we cannot doubt, that the two highest rulers in our Church, when they are convinced of their error on this important point of Constitutional law, will be anxious to correct it. They will, therefore, learn with pleasure, that if the authors of the Bill of Rights — if the Parliament which enacted that great Law — knew anything of the Constitution of England — then their own disparaging view of the consti- tutional liberties of the Church is altogether an illusion. That very Parliament, a few weeks after the passing of that Bill, came to an unanimous reso- lution, directly contradicting the principle on which their Graces' judgment is founded. They will permit me to remind them of the very remarkable facts of this case. King William, him- ( 7 ) self an alien to our Church, was probably neither an enemy nor a friend to it ; and his Protestantism* seems to have been of a very peculiar kind, not *^' that he loved the Gospel more, but that he hated Rome less," than he did James and Louis, This Prince, under the influence of Bishop Burnet and other latitudinarian ecclesiastics, at the time when the sound party in our Episcopate was weakened by the loss of no fewer than seven most conscientious Bishops, who refused to renounce their sworn allegiance to King James, and by the reluctance of many others to incur the hostility of the new Court, — this Prince, I say, having been persuaded, under these circumstances, to direct that two Bills should be laid before Parlia- ment for the benefit of dissenters, including matters of purely ecclesiastical cognizance, at a time when Convocation was not sitting, the friends of the Church, being also the truest friends of the Con- stitution, brought the affair before Parliament, where- upon the unanimous vote of both Houses adopted a joint Address to the Crown, the conclusion of which * William III. supported Popery against the Gallican liberties. " It was at this time (1691) that King William and his Dutch friends joined with the Imperial, Spanish, and Italian Plenipotentiaries, in a declaration wherein they solemnly protest hefore God [such was William's Pro- testantism] never to give peace to Louis XIV. till he make reparation to the Holy See for what he has acted against it, and till he annul and make void all his infamous proceedings against the Holy Father, Innocent XI. " We are told Louis had contended with this Pope about the right of disposing of vacant benefices, which he claimed as inherent in his Crown, and Innocent peremptorily condemned by a Papal brief in 1681. But the Parliament of Paris stood up for the King's prerogative ; and in 1682 an assembly of the French clergy, consisting of six archbishops, thirty- two bishops, and a number of delegates, determined for the King, and boldly asserted their privileges against the Pope by a formal decree in four famous Articles, called ' The Liberties of the Gallican Church.'" — Note, Skinner's Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, j). 584, ( 8 ) I here subjoin, from the Lords' Journal of April 16, 1689:— " We likewise humbly pray, that, according to the ancient practice and usage of the kingdom, in time of Parliament, your Majesty will be pleased to issue your writs, as soon as conveniently may be, for calling a Convocation of the Clergy of this kingdom, to he advised with in Ecclesiastical matters, assuring your Majesty, that it is our intention forthwith to proceed to the consideration of giving ease to Pro- testant Dissenters." The result was immediate. Convocation was sum- moned : but meanwhile a Commission to revise the Prayer Book, in order to make it more palatable to Dissenters, issued — and proved abortive. Its Report was not even shown to Convocation — but was quietly consigned to the secret custody of the Library at Lambeth — from which a recent vote of the House of Commons has resolved to disinter it, for the benefit of the friends of Church Reform, in that House — composed, as it now is, of every denomination of self-called Christians, with the prospect of being speedily recruited with a supply of Jews ! So much for the danger to the Constitution from the sitting of Convocation, and the superior advan- tage to the Church of leaving its doctrine, its worship, its existence, as a National Church, to the paternal solicitude of Parliament ! I have dwelt on this matter longer than I intended. Let me only add, that as Her Majesty's present Go- vernment have not thought fit to act on the sug- gestions of Right Honourable and Noble inquirers in both Houses of Parliament — or to prefer their ( ^J ) authority on Constitutional Law to that of the Not- tinghams, the Halifaxes, the Clarendons — the Somers's, the Jekylls, the Trebys, the Seymours, of 1689 — Convocation has been — cautiously, indeed, and tentatively, as became wise statesmen — per- mitted to act : and the first proof of its fitness to be thus trusted with the discharge of its own special functions, has been the appointment of a Committee to " consider whether any, and, if any, what reforms in the Constitution of Convocation are expedient, to enable it to treat with the full confidence of the Church, such matters, as Her Majesty may be pleased to submit to its deliberation." It would be manifestly unseemly to give any state- ment of that Committee's deliberations before it shall have made its Report. But I betray no confi- dence, and violate no principle even of decorum, when I venture to assure you, that those deliberations, conducted, as they have been, in a spirit of the utmost harmony and order, will be found to have attended to the existing disproportion between the number of Capitular Members, and that of the Representatives of the Parochial Clergy — as well as to the reasonable claims of all who are included under the description " totus Clerus,'' the Clergy, " one of the great Estates of the realm," so denomi- nated in the Statute of Queen Elizabeth. I turn to other matters. We have lately been compelled to hear some very startling statements on that great Article of the Faith, in which we were baptized, " The Holy Catholic Church " — the " one Catholic and Apostolic Church " of the Nicene Creed. Yet, startling as they ( 10 ) are, I should not think it necessary to remark on them, if they had proceeded from an ordinary quarter : but put forth from the highest place, they acquire an importance, which might not otherwise belong to them. It is necessary, therefore, to deal with them according to their measure of agreement with the Word of God. The Church is one. All agree so far ; but when we ask, what makes it one ? what is the formal cause of its unity ? a very wide difference immediately shows itself. The writer to whose statements I am re- ferring, gives us a chapter, entitled specially, On the Unity of the Church.* In it we read, "m the strict sense of unity it was impossible that it should exist amongst Christians, when the Gospel was extended even beyond the city of Jerusalem. The exact idea of unity is that of a family dwelling together, as was the case wben the Apostles were collected in the ' upper chamber,' or in a porch of the temple." Now, what right has any of us thus peremptorily to prescribe "the strict sense of unity," unless he choose to employ his leisure in a dissertation on the TO eV? We may so amuse ourselves, if we think proper; but, in that case, we must be content to be laughed at, if we venture to say that " the exact idea of unity is that of a family living together." But even this " exact idea " is very soon disposed of as quite inapplicable to the matter in hand. There is, we are told, "another sense in which the members of a family may be one, though separated and scat- tered far and wide. They may be united in affection ; Charge of Lord Arclibishop of Canterbury, 1853. App. p. 59. ( 11 ) they may have a common interest; they may be actuated by the same motives ; they may be seeking the same objects." And this is the unity intended by him, when he speaks of the unity of the Church : such an unity as dispenses with Sacraments and everything else that is not merely subjective — every- thing, in a word, but the feelings of particular Christians. Accordingly, we read, at p. 52, the sum of his whole statement : " In short, we look in vain through Scripture for reason to believe that union with Christ can be effected through any other medium than that o{ iiidividual faith,— hith that leads to Baptism, and is confirmed by Baptism." When first I read these words, I hoped that we might understand from them that it is the office of Faith to " lead to Baptism," in and by which we are united to Christ. But it is not so. No internal grace is ascribed to Baptism ; nothing beside the confirmation of Faith. This statement is, indeed, quite consistent with what had been just before said of both the Sacraments, in a passage where the interests of the argument required that as much dignity and efficacy as possible should be ascribed to them ; — for the writer is condemning the Church of Rome for reckoning Absolution in the same category — Sacrament — with "the solemn institution which dedicates the Christian to his Saviour, or which commemorates his Cross and Passion," p. 44. Such and such only, he teaches, are our two Sacraments, and for such teaching he is very far from being without authority. All the Halls and Platforms of ultraprotestant agitation ring with this precious dogma. Nor is it without graver authority still. A ( 12 ) no less distinguished and trustworthy guide than Socinus* himself, has put forth the same statement in terms not identical, indeed, but, at least, equally re- spectful to the subjects of which he treats. Baptism is described by him as "a shadowing forth of the remission of sins in the name of Christ, and the open profession of that name, and a certain in- itiation .into Chrisfs religion." This may well be understood as going much further than simply "dedicating the Christian to his Saviour," for it seems to imply some mystical character in the reli- gion into which Baptism is an " initiation." In like manner, Socinus's account of the Lord's Supper goes further than our author's, for it recognizes that " rite " not only as " commemorating and setting forth our Lord's death," but also as having an Eucharistic character, as " publicly giving thanks for it." In short, it is far from being any disparagement to the statements we are considering to say that they sym- bolize with those of Socinus. Now, I most fully admit that they are not neces- sarily false, because they are the statements of Socinus. But I will say, that if they are true, " Baptism and the Supper of the Lord" — give to * De Baptismo (in Literis de Ecclesiu) Soc. O'p. I. 350. — Cum aqua3 Baptismus, in J. X" videlicet nomine ministratus, nihil aliud sit, qiiani adumbratio remissionis peccatorum in nomine Christi, ejusque nominis aperta professio, atque in ipsius religionem initiatio qucedam., id est, per emn nihil revera detur ; sed tantummodo eorum, qiite vel jam data esse, vel datum iri certissimum est, externa quajdam agnitio significatur. In c. De Sacrament is. (ib.) — Jam et Christi mortem commemorare et annunciare, et pro ea gratias publice agere, ad omnes Christianos teque pertinere, nemo est, quin fateri cogatur. Nee ver6 est, in hoc ritu alicujus divinse rei ulla datio seu ministratio (sic enim loqui oportet) et propterea nullus certus homo requiritur, qui, quasi Christi vicem gercns, panem et viniim cicteris distribuat aut porrigat. ( 13 ) them what title we will — are mere ^' rites and cere- monies/' and^ as such, may have as many others added to them as the chm*ch of Rome, or any other particular church, shall think fit to ordain. So says our own 34th Article. For, why is it that we may not, rather cannot^ make New Sacraments? — not because they are " ordained by Christ himself," for Christ expressly empowered his Church to make binding ordinances of its own authority — but because the very distinctive characteristic of Sacraments is, that they are channels of grace, and none but God can annex grace to any ordinance whatsoever. Again, if Socinus and our author speak true, if " Union with Christ cannot be effected through any other medium than that of individual faith," our Church teaches what is directly contrary to truth; for, in the homily " of Common Prayer and Sacra- ments," it tells us, that ^' the exact signification of Sacraments is to be visible signs, expressly com- manded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of sins, and of our joining in Christ. As for the number of them, they be but two — Baptism and the Supper of our Lord," Once more : if these writers speak true, if " indi- vidual faith " is not merely causa sine qua non in adults, but is the sole medium of union with Christ in all, then those babes, who by reason of their tender age cannot have *^' individual faith " — even they, whom our Lord Himself " took into his arms, laid his hands upon them and blessed them," saying " for of such is the kingdom of God '' — even these blessed babes, blessed by our Lord himself, cannot have union with Him ! Lastly, if Socinus and this writer say true, not .( 14 ) only is the teaching of our Church in its Homilies, its Articles, its Prayer Book false, but it will be impos- sible to accept the statements of Holy Scripture itself, I will not say in their plain and obvious sense, but in any sense which ordinary minds are capable of eliciting ; for, if we are not united with Christ in Baptism — if Baptism be not the medium of such union — what does the Apostle mean by saying, ^^ As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ T' If we are not united with Christ in the Lord's Supper, if that heavenly feast be not the medium of our Union with Him, what does the Apostle mean by saying, " the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ ? — the Bread, which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ ?" Nay, what can our Lord himself be conceived to mean when He says, " Take, eat, this is my Body ; drink ye all of this, for this is my blood ? " I will not pursue this matter further; I will rather turn to the dogmatic statements respecting the Church, which we find in the publication on which I have deemed it my duty to comment. We are there told, ^' Often as the word Church [the capitals are the writer's own] occurs in the New Testament, as distinguished from its primary sense as an as- sembly, it uniformly admits of one and the same definition. It signifies the Body of Believers in Jesus Christ — this Body acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, professing that faith, and being baptized in His name, this Body is the Church of Christ."— p. 52 * * Here, too, it is but justice to the writer to say, tliat lie has the authority of Socinus on his side— except, indeed, that Socinus does not ( 15 )7 Now, can the phrase " body of Believers/' be ac- cepted as an adequate definition of the Church, the one Body, so called by the Apostle, and designated in the Creeds as "the Holy Catholic Church," and the " one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?" In the first place we must bear in mind that " the Church" is a body, whose members are dispersed throughout the whole world, and throughout every generation of the world, from the day of Pentecost to the consummation of all things. For this is the Church of Christ, the one Body of which He is head. It comprehends both " the spirits of them who have departed hence in the Lord, and, being deli- vered from the burden of the flesh, are with Him in joy and felicity," — and also all those who, being still in earth, have been " received into the congregation of Christ's flock," " incorporated into God's holy Church " by being " baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." All these, while they are permitted still to live, be their lives what they may — while they at all remain in the true Vine, while they have hold of it by the smallest fibre — and they have that hold, slight as it may be, until they cut themselves off by final apostasy, or are cut off by a just sentence of excommunication, — or by death in a state of unrepented sins, and then, as " withered branches, are to be gathered and cast into the fire to be burned" — all the rest, I repeat, w^hatever be their sins, are still members of Christ. say that whenever the word Church occurs in the New Testament, it uni- formly means the Body of Believers : but he does say, " Aspectabilis Ecclesia potest considerari tanquam unum corpus, quod, veluti membra, comprehendat omues particulares Ecclesias, seu coetus eorum, qui salutarem Cliristi doctrinam profitentur." — Socini Op., t. i. 341 : De Ecclesia. ( 1^ ) And here I may be permitted to remind every discreet Protestant, that this view of the unity of the Church, as " the whole family in heaven and earth/' — the Body — ought never to be lost sight of by any who would successfully resist the pretensions of Rome. It is absolutely fatal to the claim of headship over the Church, which is made by the successor of St. Peter. That headship is claimed as essential to the unity of the Church — but it does not pretend to be ex- tended beyond the Church upon earth. If, therefore, the Church, whether triumphant or militant, the Church in heaven and earth, the invisible and visible, be one, then there is, and can be, but one Head, even He who " both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living." Rom. xiv. 9. Will it be said, that the claim is made for the Pope only as the Vicar, the Vicegerent, of Christ upon earth? We answer that the unity of the Church is of the whole Church, and it consists in unity under one Head. The being under one Head is stated by the Apostle in the plainest terms to be the formal cause of the Church's unity ; " Christ is the Head of the Church ;" " the Head— even Christ." " One body, from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every part supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." This, I repeat, is fatal to the pretensions of Rome. But if, instead of adhering to these direct statements of Christ, and of his Apostle, we choose to devise for ourselves a enw unity of the Church, an unity " in affection, in ( 17 ) interests, in motives, and in objects," we do, in truth, favour those pretensions — we are advocates for that earthly headship which would thus keep us one under itself. And yet we are told that " this is the only unity which could have been in the mind of our Lord whilst utter- ing this affecting prayer — ' Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word : that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.' " I would not imitate what I should deem the fear- ful irreverence of saying "what only could have been in the mind" of the Saviour when He poured forth '^for our learning," within hearing of His A-postles, this most affecting prayer for us to the Almighty Father; but I must not scruple to say, of what is liere said to be the only meaning the words will bear, that it appears to me to be in direct contradiction to the words of our Lord Him- self, which immediately follow — as it is itself con- tradicted by the comments of the most eminent Fathers of the Church. The necessity of dwelling on this matter is unhappily increased by a further statement which accompanies what we have just read : " This prayer of our blessed Lord, if not fully accomplished, is still not ineffectual, that as the Father and Son are one, not in Unity of Person, hut in mind and 'purpose, so Christians may be one in Faith and Practice, and hold up to the world the truth of that Gospel which they agree in believing to be the revelation of God." It is painful thus to see one who cannot be sup- c ( 18 ) posed to disbelieve, or to doubt, or to regard with indifference, the prime Truth of Revelation, that "the Father and the Son are of one substance, power, and eternity," thus betrayed by zeal for an unhappy theory into a readiness to lower the stan- dard of Faith in the one God to a level Avith the teaching of the most notorious heretics. "As the Father and the Son are one — not in Unity of Person^ hut in mind and purpose — so Christians may l)e one in faith and practice ! " and this, we are confidently told, is the only unity which "■ could have been in the mind of our Lord." And yet, looking, as I have said, to the context, to what immediately follows, we read, " And the glory which Thou hast given me I have given them, that they may he one, even as we are one" Thus we see that the oneness really here meant was Christ's giving to His chosen disciples the glory which the Father had given to Him — to Him, that is, having been made flesh ; for it was as He was man that glory was given to Him. As God, He is by nature of the same power and glory as the Father. But, as man, He received as a gift the glory of being Son of God. It was because of the Spirit overshadowing the blessed Virgin that the "holy thing which was born of her was called the Son of God." Again, at His baptism, "Jesus, being baptised and praying, the Heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove, upon Him, and a voice came from Heaven, which said. Thou art my beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased." At His birth, then, Avas the glory given to Jesus ; and at His Baptism proclaimed by the Father Himself; the glory of being the Son of God, born of the Holy Spirit. And that same ( 19 ) glory was given by Him to His discijDles ; for " to as many as believed on Him, to them gave He power to become the Sons of God, even to them which believed in His name." He gave them power to be " born again of water and of the Spirit ;" for all who were made disciples in the way com- manded by Him, " believing and being baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, were saved." Mark xvi. 16. And this wondrous blessing was conferred through the Spirit of Christ and of God, given to them in order that they might be one " even as we," says the In- carnate Son, to the Almighty Father, " even as we are one " — one, by the Spirit given to Himself as man when He was '' anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows " — " above," but not so as to ex- clude '' His fellows," them whom He calls by a still dearer name ; for " He is not ashamed to call them Brethren ,•" — and for this very cause, that " both He that sanctifieth," Christ, ^' and they who are sancti- fied, are of one " — one spirit. Such is "the unity of the Spirit," which we must indeed "endeavour to keep in the bond of peace," " grieving not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby we were sealed," namely, at our baptism {eTna-cppay'ia-- Oiifievy not are sealed, as the English version gives it), " to the day of Redemption." And because His Spirit had been thus given by Him to them, our Lord pro- ceeds, " I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know tliat Thou sentest me, and lovedst them, as Thou lovedst me." For, as St. Cyril of Alexandria* * S. Cyril Alex, in Joan. Ev. 1. ii. c. i. p. 123, 124. c 2 ( 20 ) says, " Since the Word of God has heen made man, He receives the Spirit from the Father, as one of us men, not receiving anything for Himself solely, 'iSiKoo?, for He was the donor (x^jOf/yo?) of the Spirit to us, in order that by taking that nature, as man, He, who knew no sin, might preserve to the nature which He took, and might again root in us, that grace which had departed from us. Therefore for us, through Himself, He receives the Spirit, land renews to our nature its original good. And thus, too, it is said, ' He became poor for our sakes ' (2 Cor. viii. 9) ; for being as God, rich and wanting nothing that is good, He has become man, wanting everything ; to whom it has been said, and excellently well said, ' What hast thou, that thou didst not receive ? ' (1 Cor. iv. 7). As, therefore. He who is life by nature, died for our sakes, in order that in our stead He might overcome death and raise up together with Himself our whole nature, for all of us were in Him, inasmuch as He hath become man ; so the Spirit also is received by Him for our sakes, in order that He might sanctify all our nature." This view of the unity, for which our Lord prays, is in full conformity with the teaching of other Fathers. The prayer itself was urged by the Arians, in proof that, as our Lord prayed that His disciples might be one in Him and in the Father, even as the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, therefore the Unity of the Father and of the Son is the same in kind as the Unity which is thus prayed for in behalf of the disciples, which could be only (as our author with them says) an " Unity in faith and practice," " in mind and purpose." 21 ) The objection is indignantly repelled by St. Atha- naskis (Orat. iii. 22 cont. Arianos). After saying that there is indeed included in our Lord's words a prayer for our own perfect concord, he proceeds (c. 22) to quote the 23rd verse, "I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." " In these words," says he, "something of a higher and more perfect sort is asked for us; for it ap- pears that the Word was made ^in us' when He put on Him our Body • — ' and Thou in me,' for I am thy Word. Since therefore I am in them because of my Body, and since because of Tliy being in me, the Salvation of man was completed, I pray, too, that they may be made one — namely, by communion of the Body which is in me, and of its perfection : hy which Body they also, having oneness with it, and being made one in it, may become perfect, so that all, being by me borne, miay be * one Body and one Spirit, and come unto a perfect man.' " — Eph. iv. 13. My next authority is St. Hilary of Poictiers, the most triumjDhant champion of the Catholic Faith, after the death of St. Athanasius, and second only to him in zeal and power. He writes as follows (De Trin. 1. viii. 5) :— " Id quod ait ' Ego et Pater unum sumus ' tentant [Hajretici] ad unanimitatis referre consensum, ut vo- luntatis in His unitas sit, non naturae, id est, ut non per id quod sunt, sed per id quod idem volunt, unum sint. Et id — quod Dominus salutem crediturarum in se gentium a Patre postulans, ait ' non joro his autem Ego tantum, sed et pro iis qui credituri sunt per verbum eorum in me, ut onines unum sint, sicut ( 22 ) Tu, Pater, in Me, et Ego in Te, lit et ipsi sint iinum in nobis." He then comments on the whole passage, in order to show how totally without reason the heretics were in supposing that our Lord spoke of the Unity of Believers as unity only in faith and affection; and concludes as follows : — " Hsec autem idcirco a nobis commemorata sunt, quia voluntatis tanttim inter Patrem et Filium Haeretici mentientes, unitatis nostrse ad Deum ute- bantur examplo, tamquam nobis ad Filium, et, per Filium, ad Patrem, obsequio tantiim ac voluntate religionis unitis, nnWa, par Sacramentum carnis et san- guinis naturalis communionis proprietas indulgeretur ; cum et per honorem nobis datum Filii, et per 7na- nentem in nobis carnaliter Filium, et in Eo nobis cor- poraliter et inseparabiliter unitis, mysterium verae ac naturalis unitatis sit praedicandum." I am unwilling to load my text with quotations, and therefore add a few others below.* * S. Cyril. Alex, in Joan. Ev. 1. xi. c. 11 : — \x.i7vti V/i •pra.Xiv avayxaiui ipou/jAv, Mi 8/'j iixovBC x,a) TVTroM Tni aoiairTaffTeu (piXiac; ti xa) ofzovoia.; Kal stornros, t?j avTOv, aliTo; "Si ail -xaXii -r^o; tov Tlarioa., auia.ia.Kifia.irSai T^oVot riva xx] ri/ua? aXXji- Xov; SiivXtra-i, iv 'hvva.f/.ii O'/iXotoTi t5jj ayia; n xa) oiz-oviritiv T^taioi^ eo; tv vmTirfai ro ffvfc'^a)) Tris ixxXti(r'ia; (ra//.a, S;a ffmohou xal irvvoiofiris Tut ouo Xaoit I'l; Ivo; TiXiUu avtt- S.Greg. Nyss. in Cant. Cant. Horn, xv, " Our Lord, conferring from Himself on his disciples (iva'roTiCifMvas) power through the Blessing, both gives to the Saints by the words of His Prayer to the Father other benefits, and adds the head and sum of all, their being no longer divided by dif- ference of judgment of what is good, but being made all 'one by being planted together in the one and only good ; so that by the unity of the Spirit, ^istffipvyfivTa;, as the Apostle says in the common "bond of peace," we may be all made one Body, and one Spirit through one hope, in which we were called. " But it is better to produce word by word the divine sayings " ((putas), " That they all may be one, as Thou, Father," &c. ( 23 ) I have adduced these passages, not only as con- taining the well-weighed judgment of some amongst the most profoundly versed in sacred lore of all the " The Bond of this oneness is ' the Glory.' But that the Holy Spirit is here called the Glory no considerate person can deny, looking at the very words, which came from our Lord." " For," says He, " the Glory which Thou hast given me, I have given them," &c. S, Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. 85 (c. xviii. 21) " I in them," &c. How did He give the Glory ? coming into them, and having with Himself the Father, so as to couple them together {j; xecra rov dXn^ivov avSpwxov oixotof/.'ia.s, Trii ix tra^xo; xa) viv^av xa) offT'iuv avvlirr&xrn;' riTi; xaX ix tou vornpiav alrov, iffTi 10 a,if/,a, icuTou, T^Kptra,!, Koti in. tou a^rou, o 'effn to iTafjt,a avTou, a.u'^irai, • — Iren. 1. v. adv. Hser., c. 2. ( 26 ) are plainly told in Scripture that " God so loved the world," even in its fallen state, " that He gave His only begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in Him should not perish, but have everlast- ing life " — again; " Christ so loved us," in the same lost state, " that He gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God" — nay, if He himself de- clared, of His own love for us — ^' Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends " — if all this, and much more than all this, is over and over again proclaimed of the love of God and of Christ towards us, can it be supposed that when St. Paul says, " This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and His Church," he means no further mystery, than that " the union of Christ with His people " is no less close and tender than that of husband and wife — that " He loves them as husbands are bound to love and cherish their own wives" ? — p. 82. So to deal with Holy Scripture is, in my judg- ment, little better than to shut it out from the reach of the people, — nay, it is even worse ; for to suppress part, and pervert what is not suppressed, is worse than altogether to conceal it. The Apostle does not say (as is said for him) that " Christ loves His people as husbands are bound to love their wives ;" but that husbands are bound to love their wives, to " nourish and cherish them " as their own flesh, because the Lord so loves the Church as His flesh, '' even as the Lord the Church : for we are members of His body, we are of His flesh, and of His bones." " There- fore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be ( 27 ) one flesh." These words were spoken by Adam, I need not remind you, as the consequence of Eve, the mother of all livings being taken out of man. " This," as says the Apostle, " is a great mystery," It is, indeed, a great mystery : or rather, as the words should be rendered^ " This mystery is great," of mighty import ; for in it is dimly shadowed forth, to them who will not shut their eyes to the intimations of holy Scripture, our blessed Lord, leaving, as it were, the bosom of His Father, emptying Himself of His great glory, and becoming one with the fallen race, whose nature, flesh, and bones, He assumed, in order that, by assuming. He might save it. "Hus- bands love your wives, even as Christ also loved His Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word " — the mystical word — baptizing into the name of the Father, arid of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now, that the Church, thus sanctified and cleansed, was indeed taken out of the body of Christ, is shown by the beloved Evangelist; who tells us, as of a fact so wonderful that nothing less than his own inspired testimony as of an eye-witness could make it credible, that when the last Adam was dead — of whom the first Adam, " sleeping a deep sleep," was a type — "" one of the soldiers, with a spear, pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe" (John xix. 34, 35). So solemnly does St. John attest the reality of the fact, and so plainly does he affirm the mystical import- ance of it as an object of Faith. He goes further. ( 28 ) 111 his First Epistle, he tells us that this is " He that came by water and by blood, Jesus the Christ : not by water only, but by water and by blood, and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth : for there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one." * In making the reference to this passage of Gospel history which I now make, and pointing to it as to an inspired declaration of the formation of the Church out of the pierced side of the dead Saviour, and so out of His flesh, I am not adducing anything novel — for novelty in interpreting Holy Scripture, eighteen hundred years after it was given to the Church, is only another word for error — but I am simply applying the statements of the ancients, and, in so doing, am following the canon of our own Church in 1571, expressed almost in the very terms of the more venerable 19th canon of the General Council in Trullo — " Let the Governors of Churches, every Sunday at the least, teach their clergy and people the oracles of piety and true religion ; collecting out of divine Scripture the sentences and doctrines of the Fathers. And, if any doubt or controversy arise about Scripture, let them follow that interpretation which the lights of the Church, and the doctors, have left in their writings. By which they shall deserve more commendation than by making private interpretations, which if they adhere to, they are in danger of falling from the truth." Let me then adduce testimonies from a few of the most distinguished of the fathers of the Church, * 1 John V. 6-8. ( 29 ) to the soundness of the interpretation here given to the passage we are considering. St. Chrysostom, in his 85th Homily on St. John, says, " Not without special reason, nor by mere accident, did these two fountains break forth, but because it is of both of these that the Church has its subsistence. And (as is known to those who are admitted to the mysteries, being regenerated by baptism, and nourished in their new life by blood and water) the mysteries here receive their beginning in order that, when you approach to the venerable cup, you may so approach as if you were drinking from the very side of our Lord." St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on St. John's Gospel, says, p. 107: — "The soldiers, being for a short time incredulous of his death, with a spear pierced his side, which sent forth blood mingled with water ; God making to us the act of the soldiers, to be, as it were, an image and first-fruits of the mys- tical evXoyia (the Eucharist) and of Holy Baptism. For of Christ really is, and from Christ, Holy Bap- tism and the power of that mystical Eucharist." St. Augustine (in Joan. Tr. 120, 2) says of this passage: — "The Evangelist used a well-considered word, when he says, one of the soldiers with a spear — not struck, not wounded, but — opened his side, that there, in a certain manner, the door of Life might be opened, whence flowed the Sacraments of Life, without which there is no entrance to the Life which is true life. That blood was poured forth for the remission of sins ; that water tempers the cup of sal- vation — it gives us at once the laver and the cup. This was foreshown by the command received hy ( 30 ) Noah, to open a door iyi the side of the Arh, by which entrance was given to those animals who were to escape from perishing in the flood, by whom the Church was prefigured. It was, too, because of this, that the first woman was made out of the side of the man sleeping, and was called Life, and the Mother of all living. It was a type of a great good, before the great evil of the fall. Here, the second Adam having bowed his head, fell into sleep on the cross, that thence might be formed a wife to him, even that which flowed from the side of the sleeping Lord. O, what a death was that, which was the resurrection to Life of the dead ! What can be more pure than that blood ! What more curative than that wound !" One testimony more I will adduce, not as more plain than those which have preceded, but as more authoritative ; for it was adopted by the fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon, and the sixth, that in Trullo. I mean the Letter of St. Leo to Flavianus : — " If therefore he receive the creed of Christians, let him consider whence it was that the blood and the water rushed forth, so that the Church of God was moistened both by the laver and by the cup. This is He, who cometh by water and by blood, Jesus Christ, not in water only; but in water and blood. And the Spirit it is that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the Truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the Water^ and the Blood ; and these three are one — the Spirit of Sancti- fication, the Blood of redemption, and the water of Baptism; which three are one, and remain indivi- sible; and no one of them is separated from their ( 31 ) common union ; because it is in this union that the Catholic Church has its life, and advances in the faith." And here I would say a few words, concerning the mysteries of the Gospel : — for this revelation of God's savmg truth, while it put an end to some mysteries — such as was the calling of the Gentiles, " the mystery, which was kept secret, since the world began, but now is made manifest" — did yet announce other mysteries, and left them mysteries ; " the preaching" of which is " foolishness" to the world, but to the initiated — to them, who receive them with reverence, and cherish them as the means of life — they are " made the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Of these mysteries, we are only told with what qualifications they are to be received, how they are to be performed, and what is the promise annexed to each. Enough, in short, is made known for edification — nothing for curiosity. The first and fundamental mystery of all, called by St. Paul, Kar e^o^w, " the mystery of godliness," — 1 Tim. iii. 16 — of true religion, as eva-e^elat! might rather here be rendered — is Jesus Christ. That holy name, involving in it the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is invested by the " beloved disciple," at once Evangelist and Apostle, with some hidden and most awful meaning. " Father," says our Lord, " keep through thine own name* those whom Thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. While I was with them in the world I kept them in Thy name. Them whom * Aia.r>jr>=7(r(oci roh; /j:,x(i}Ta; T» T^; alp/irou (pvina; ivvdfjLil xa.) t^ouri'a (iivXiTai i» TM ovofiUTi aou u 'iiiuixd; f^oi' tovtktti ru hiu, — B, Cyril, AldX, in loc. ( 32 ) Thou hast given me I kept, and none of them was lost but the son of perdition." What is meant hy " keep through thine OAvn name?" and, "I kept them in thy name?" Can we doubt that there is here a mystery — too deep, it may be, for our poor faculties even to compre- hend ? Yet look to modern commentators ; see their confident, but poor and miserable, attempts to explain these words ! Not so the ancients : St. Basil,* for instance, speaking of the form of Bap- tism, thus writes of it : — " This form of words, de- livered down as it was given to us in the very grace which bestoweth Life, must ever remain without change. For he that redeemed our Life from cor- ruption, gave to us a power of renewal, the cause of which is unutterable, and held in mystery, but it carries to our souls the great salvation Avhich is annexed to it by our Lord : — so that, to add to the words delivered to us, or to take from them anything whatever, is manifestly a falling from everlasting Life." When we contrast these words of Christian sober- ness, issuing from an intellect of the very highest order, how utterly foolish as well as presumptuous, apjiears the flippancy of modern sciolists, venting their " profane and vain babblings " about " water baptism," gauging its hidden power after their own shallow measure, and reducing it to a ceremony — venerable indeed, because instituted by our Lord himself, but still a mere ceremony — a rite ! The name Jesus Cltrist, I repeat, " God manifest in the flesh," is the first and fundamental mystery of * S. Basil de Si?. Sto., c. xv. ( 33 ) all, and underlies all other mysteries. For, what is holy Baptism, but the inserting us into " God manifest in the flesh " — the incarnate Son ? what is holy communion, but the incarnate Son coming into us, nourishing and feeding us with his own humanity ? Again, what is the process of the grace of Baptism, but the giving to us part, first, in Christ's death, and then in his resurrection ? so that by it we not merely rise to life again, but to the powder of " walking in new^ness of life" — of living a resurrection-life, " dead to sin, but living unto righte- ousness" (after righteousness) "in Christ," 1 Pet. ii. 24 — of ^^ growing \\\ grace" — for the mystery of Baptism is daily to be unfolded : initiation into it, is jjractical, daili/ dying to sin, ^^ reckoning ourselves to be dead unto sin," and daily rising — ascending — sitting even at the right hand of God, for " our Life is hid with Christ in God." This is the true use of the mystery, — continuously unfolded — and by practical initiation realized — and thus is the abuse of opus operatmn prevented. How all this is wrought in Baptism, we are not told, — if we were, it Avould no longer be a mystery. But, because it is a mystery, because God's wondrous working by it is not explained ; because, in short, it is left a trial of our faith, too many among us (we tremble to think who are in the number) choose to set at nought the Holy Spirit's express teaching of the mighty power of a little "water eV prjixari" (ac- companied that is by the ordained form) — and of a morsel of bread and drop of wine, made by the effectual word of our Lord Himself to be his Body and his Blood. Yet is it not our office as Ministers D ( 34 ) of Christ, to be " Stewards of his Mysteries" ? is not this the special charge, to Avhich we are ordained ? did we not, when we were ordained^ solemnly pledge ourselves to " give our faithful diligence always so to minister them, as the Lord hath commanded ? " " Moreover, it is required of Stewards, that a man be found faithful." But can we deem ourselves faithful Stewards of God's mysteries, when we dare, before the people, if not openly to deny, yet to keep back, their very essence — to represent these life-giving ordinances, as no more than "dedicating the Chris- tian to his Saviour, or commemorating his Cross and Passion " ? So to deal with them, is far worse, than to do what we justly reprobate in the practice of the Church of Rome — to give only half of the outward part of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to all but the celebrating Priest. Whether indeed this mutilation be not such a violation of Christ's insti- tution as to destroy the mystery — to rob it of its annexed grace — is a grave question, which few of us would venture to answer in the negative. For when the mystery is an action, to omit or change any por- tion of it, may, for auglit man knows, be fatal to the whole.* But still fewer, I conceive, would hesitate * It is worthy of remark, that this presumptuous practice of modern Eome is expressly declared to be sacrilegious by an ancient Bishop of Eome, in words which are adopted in the Canon Law, iii., P. Dist. ii. n. 12. Gelasius Papa Majorico et Joanni Episcopis (circiter an. 494). " Comperi- mus, quod quidam sumpta tantumraodo corporis sacri portione a calice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam nescio qua super- stitione docentur astringi) aut Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur ; quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire." Eoman Catholic writers, when pressed on this subject, have no better excuse to make than that the canon is directed against those who, of themselves, and by reason of their own ( 35 ) to say — that the mystery is actually made ineffectual — its grace rejected — by the doctrine which would reduce it to a mere ceremony, making not only the Priests to minister, but the peo^Dle to receive it, without faith in the promise of God made to them in that Sacrament. That this very low and most unevangelical, as well as unCatholic, doctrine of the Sacrament is not new, I readily admit. That its teachers are increasing — not in number, I hope, but certainly — in boldness, is too manifest. And to what can this be owing ? — to that which is the cause of all Heresy — to the impa- tience of " the natural man " to submit to '■' the words which man's wisdom teacheth not, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Much, too, must be ascribed to the want of practical restraint from the state of Church-discipline amongst us. We have, in truth, no discipline — nothing which can be truly called discipline. The Eeformation, which freed us from thraldom to Rome, — one of the greatest bless- ings ever given to man, — enslaved too many of the reformed, especially on the Continent, to a worse bondage — bondage to their own wilfulness and pre- sumption. The first, who dared publicly to assail the Catholic Faith in the article of Sacraments, was Zuinglius, one who, during his shorter career, was contemporary with Luther, but who Avidely differed from him in many particulars, especially in this. superstition, decline the cup, and has nothinf;; to do with the rule of the Church. They dare not attempt to explain away the reason given by Gelasius for his judgment— Quia divisio xmius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. D 2 ( 36 ) Zuingliiis, in the beginning of his Book, '^de Baptismo," has these astounding words : " I must candidly avow, in the very outset, that all, one may say, as many as from the very times of the Apostles have undertaken to write of Baptism, have, in not a few particulars, erred from the truth. For not one of them can be found who does not attribute to the water itself what neither our Lord, nor his A]:)ostles, have taught that it possesses. — Our Lord's own words, ' except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' are misunderstood by those ancients. Before, how- ever, I begin to speak of Baptism," he says, "it is neces- sary to consider what a Sacrament is. A Sacrament, then, is an outward sign, by which we attest what is our prof ession, and what our duty. For, as he who bears a white cross attests that he is, and always will be, a Helvetian — in like manner, he who, being con- signed with the sign of Baptism, is dedicated (ini- tiatus) to God, promises that he will henceforth be a hearer and disciple of God. But he who to this first dedication adds further, by the solemn Eucharist of Christians, an open declaration that he rejoices solely in the death of Christ, and is most thankful for it, &c. " The Sacraments, therefore, are indeed what the Romish doctors admit, signs of a sacred thing ; and considering the matter thus. Baptism is a sign, which binds and dedicates us to Jesus Chiist. The Eucharist indicates, that Christ suffered for us, and was taken out of the world by a dreadful death." This, it will be admitted, is exactly equivalent to the statements on which I have been com- ( 37 ) menting, that Baptism is " the solemn initiation which dedicates the Christian to his Saviour," and the Eucharist " that which commemorates his Cross and Passion." To the authority, therefore, of Socinus for this writer's teaching, we must add that of Zuinglius. But then Zuinglius himself is our authority for saying, that this doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. For Zuinglius tells us that it directly contradicts the interpretation given to the words of our blessed Lord on Baptism by all ancient doctors, and all who had ever written on Baptism, from the times of the Apostles to his own — in other words, for the first fifteen hundred years. But the Church of England strictly enjoins its ministers not to depart from the uniform interpretation of any Scripture by the Ancient Fathers. This is not only required by the Canon of 1571, but recognised in all the most public acts of our Church, and in all the most authoritative writings of our Reformers. For instance, Cranmer professed to the very last, that he was ready to abide in all things by the sentence of the ancient Church. Jewel, in his Apology for the Church of England, rests his whole case on the conformity of her doc- trines to those of the ancient Catholic Church. In his public challenge to the Romanists, at Paul's Cross, he declared himself ready to yield to them, if on any one of the 27 ^particulars of his challenge the doctrine of the Romanists was shown to have been taught in the Church in any part of the first six centuries. In his elaborate Reply to Harding's Answer to that challenge, he dwells on the same principle, asserting it over and over again, and ( 38 ) triumphing in the inability of his opponent to con- fute him. If, therefore, there be truth in the Church of Eng- land's construction of our Lord's words, " Except a man be born again of Water and of the Spirit he can- not enter into the kingdom of God," and in her own declaration that "this proves the great necessity of Baptism " — if there be truth in the uniform teaching of the Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years — if there be truth in our own Church's declaration of the authority of such teaching — tlien there is not truth in the doctrine of Baptism set forth by Zuinglius, Socinus, and our Author. And yet I do not deny that the influence of the teaching of Zuinglius on the opinions of a large portion of the English clergy, for nearly a century, was unhappily very great. Zurich, which had been the seat of his teaching, and where his memory was highly revered, had acquired the affections of many of the English refugees in the time of Mary's persecution, by the hospitality and kindness with which they were there received. Jewel had been protected there — had there honourably maintained himself by teaching— unhappily under Peter Martyr, himself a most unsound teacher on the Sacraments ; and Jewel was, it must be owned, not wholly unin- fected by the contagion.* The leaven continued to * Jewel (Reply, p. 26) says, " It is granted of all, without contradiction, that one end of all Sacraments is to join us unfa Ood:" and he cites Gal. iii., " Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as are baptized into Jesus Christ, have put on Christ." " And Chrysostom (in Ep. ad Eph., Hom. 20), that by Baptism we are made Bone of Chribt's Bones, and Flesh of Christ's Flesh." Yet Jewel, not long after, says, " Ilowbeit, in plain speech, it is not the receiving the Sacrament that worketh our joining with God, for whosoever ( 39 ) work long, aggravated in its progress by the admix- ture with it of the teaching of Calvin respecting the divine decrees ; though it is due to the memory of Calvin to say that his own views of Sacramerital Grace were of a very different kind from those of Zuinglius, and of many who, in these our days, most unworthily call themselves after his name. But the combined leaven of Zuinglianism and Calvinism long worked within our Church — not un- opposed, indeed, by the leaven of truth ; but truth had not its full triumph until a whole century had passed away. Before that time, even such men as Archbishop Usher were not in clear possession of the truth ; while Bishop Bedel was in the number of the deluded. True it is, these were prelates not ol' our own, but of a sister Church — a Church in which a body of Articles of Religion had been set forth widely different from ours, for it embodied not only the Lambeth Articles, which the Church of England happily escaped, but also other dogmas, especially on regeneration, wholly inconsistent with the English creed. Usher lived long enough to retract his error, and to join, as Primate, in substi- tuting the English Articles of 1562 for those which the Church of Ireland had adopted, with his own is not joined to God before he receive the Sacraments, eateth and drinketh his own judgment. The Sacraments be seals and witnesses, and not pro- perly the causes, of this conjunction." And yet the passage which he cites from St. Augustine in proof of this directly contradicts him, so far as Baptism is concerned. " Wherefore," St. Augustine saith, " no man may any\^■ise doubt but every faithful creature is then made partaker of Christ's Body and Blood, when in Baptism he is made the member of Christ — for he is deprived from the partaking and benefit of the Sacraments (i. e. the Lord's Supper) so lon,g as he findeth in himself that thing that the Sacra- ment signifieth." ( 40 ) concurrence, whilst he was yet a private minister in that Church, in 1615. I return to what our Author says respecting the Church. " As often as the word Church occurs in the New Testament it uniformly admits of one and the same definition : it signifies the Body of Be- lievers in Jesus Christ. This Body, acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the World, professing that Faith, and being baptized in his name, this Body is the Church of God." Now, I have looked with great care, not only into the work from which I am quoting, in order to dis- cover in it some correction of this statement, but also into the New Testament itself, that I may find some- thing, if not to justify, at least to excuse it. But my search has been in vain. In no one single instance can I find the word Church used in the sense in which he says, that, " often as it occurs, it uniformly admits of one and the same definition — it signifies the Body of Believers" On the contrary, I venture to affirm, that in no one Text of the New Testament does the word Church signify the Body of Believers. The Church is repeatedly spoken of as tlte Body of Christ (in a mystical, but most real sense), never as the Body of Believers. The instance which, at first sight, might appear most likely to admit of such interpretation, is 1 Cor. xii. 21, "now there are many members, but one Body." But this is a little afterwards explained, V. 27. *^^But ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." There is another instance, which, ( 41 ) if there were no context, might seem to favour the statement in question: Eph. ii. 16, "That he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] in one body by the Cross." But what immediately precedes makes it evident, that the Body, here spoken of, is the Body of our Lord: v. 15, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments con- tained in ordinances, for to make in Himself^ of twain, one new man, so making peace." I venture further to say — that the word of which " Body " is the translation, a-wixa, the word used in all the texts which can Ije supposed to have re- ference to Christians, does not admit of being applied in the same manner, as our word Body, when spoken of a Body of Believers, or Body politic of any sort. In order to make this matter plainer, I will endeavour to show by scriptural testimony what makes our union with Christ, — in other words, what is the Unity of the Church, as wrought by its several causes. 1st. I say then, that the Church, according to the uniform teaching of the New Testament, is one Body — the Body of Christ the Head — his Body mystical — but though mystical, not less real — incomparably, indeed, more real — than any Man's Body, inasmuch as it is, and will be the Body of Christ for ever. I will enumerate the principal Texts, by which I prove this and my following positions : and I do so, without fear of being deemed tedious by any who bear in mind the great importance of the subject, and the too common carelessness, with which it is treated. That the Church is one Body, and that Body the Body of Christ, is plain from the Scriptures which follow : — ( 42 ) Kom. vii. 4, " Wherefore, my Brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the Body of Christ " — by being in the Body of Christ, which died to sin. Rom. xii. 4, 5, " As we have many members in one Body — so we being many are one body in Christ." 1 Cor. xii. 12, " For, as the Body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one Body, being many, are one body ; so also is Christ." Here, so entirely are believers one body in Christ, that the Church, the Body, is called by the name of Christ. The Apostle proceeds through the rest of the Chapter to show, how the several memliers of the Church by their several functions and actions make up one Body, even as the members of man's natural Body, and then says, " Now ye are the Body of Christ and members in particular," v. 27- Eph. i. 22, 23, God " put all things under his feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all ;" in other words the comple- ment {to 7r\r]p(i)ixa) of Him, — that which makes Him to be fully Christ. Eph. iv. 4, " There is one body " — v. 11, &c. "And He gave some Apostles, &c.for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come into the oneness of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ [the fulness appointed for the Church, which is His Body, to attain] — that, being sincere in love, we may grow up into Him in all things which is the Head, even Christ; from whom the whole Body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual ( 43 ) working in the measure of every part, maketh in- crease of the Body, to the edifying of itself in love." Whatever may be the obscurity of some of the expressions here used, an obscurity increased by their being presented in a translation, enough is manifest to place beyond all doubt the meaning of the whole — that it has reference to a real mystical Body. 11. Secondly, having seen what the Church is, we proceed to consider why it is — in other words, the final cause, the end for which tlie Church was or- dained in the Counsel of divine Wisdom and Love ; and that is declared to be, the renewing of fallen man after the image and likeness of God, and the reuniting him to God. Rom. viii. 29, " Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren." 1 Cor. XV. 47, 49. " The first man is of the earth, earthy, the second man is the Lord from Heaven. And as we bore the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." 2 Cor. iii. 18. "We all with open face as seeing the glory of the Lord in a mirror from which the splendour is reflected on us, are transformed into the same image, deriving glory from the glory mirrored before us, as from ihe Spirit of the Lord." Not so those who are not of the Church, for " the God of this world blinded the minds of the unbe- lievers, lest the Liglit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Image of the Father, [the immediate eradiation airavyaa-ixa of His glory, Heb. i. 3 — Himself the Light of the new Jerusalem, the Church] should shine unto them." 2 Cor. iv. 4. ( 44 ) Eph. ii. 14, &c. " He is our peace, who made Jews and Gentiles one — having in his own flesh de- stroyed the law of ordinances, in order that he might create the two in himself into one new man, and might reconcile both in one Body to God by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Phil. iii. 20, 21. " Our citizenship TroX/reu/xa is in Heaven, whence we are earnestly expecting the Sa- viour, our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be made like unto His glorious Body, according to the working whereby He is able to subdue all things unto himself." Eph. ii. 17. " Therefore ye are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's Household." This is manifestly connected with Heb. xii. 22, " Ye are come unto Mount Sion and the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the general Assembly of Angels, and Church of the first- born enrolled in Heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the Spirits of the just made perfect." This heavenly Jerusalem we are elsewhere told, is " the Mother of us all." Gal. iv. 26. Col. i. 22, " You that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind in wicked works, now he reconciled in the body of his flesh, by death, to present you holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight." iii. 10, "Ye put off the old man [being baptized] and j)ut on the new man, which is renewed into knowledge after the image of Him that created him (the new man)." v. 15. " May the Peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which Ye were also called in one Body .'" ( 45 ) III. Thirdly, the meritorious Cause of the Churcli, is " Christ crucified " — Acts xx. 29, who ^' purchased it witli His own Blood." Col. i. 14. " In whom we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of our sins, who is the first-born of every creature." 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. " Ye were redeemed — with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot.' Rev. i. 5. "To Him that loveth us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, be the glory and the power for ever." Rev. v. 9. They, the four Beasts and twenty-four elders, the Church in Heaven — "sing a new song saying, Thou art worthy — for thou wast slain, and redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kingdom, and tongue, and people, and nation." xiv. 3. " The hundred and forty and four thou- sands, the redeemed from the earth," ol riyopaa-ixevoi, a word equivalent to ^ eKKXrja-ia, " the first fruits to God and the Lamb." IV. Fourthly, the /orma? cause, that which consti- tutes it a Church, is, the being united through the Spirit into one Body under Christ the Head, who is the one Mediator between God and man, 1 Tim. ii. 5, being Himself both God and Man ; and so we are united to God, being united to the Body of Him, who is both God and man. Eph. ii. 20, 2 1, 22. " Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom you also are builded together for an habitation of God in the Spirit." Eph. iii. 5, 6. " The mystery of Christ was re- ( 40 ) vealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets in the Spirit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the same body, a-va-arwixa, and joint partakers of his pro- mise in Christ, by the Gospel." iv. 3, 4. "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one Body and one Spirit, even as ye were called kXijOrjTe in one hope of your calling" rJ/? /cX?7o-ew9 v/ut.wv, your being called out of the world e/c/fX/^o-m?. v. J 6, "Let us grow into Him in all things, who is the head, the Christ, of whom the whole Body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh the growtli of the Body into the building up of itself in love." Col. ii. 19. "not holding the head, from which all the Body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and being knit together, groweth the growth of God." f 1 Pet. ii. 4. " To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious " [for " the Stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner "] " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual House." On this, and the immediately preceding Scrip- tures, I gladly cite the remarks of one of the greatest and most judicious of our English Divines, Bishop Patrick, in his Mensa Mystica, p. 83. After giving St. Chrysostom's enumeration of the many similitudes in Scripture of Christ's uniting us to Himself, he says, " Observe, that the highest and closest union is that which is made by one Spirit and one Life moving in the whole ; and therefore the Scripture ( 47 ) delights most frequently to use the examples of a Body, and a Building * " Now, because a Building hath no Life, but yet by its firmness and strength doth notably set forth the firmness of the Union, that is between Christ and His People ; therefore the Apostle puts both these together, and calls Christ ' a living Stone,' and those that come to Him ' lively or living Stones,' which are built up a spiritual House, or Temple, where they offer spiritual Sacrifices unto God, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5. " That Union, therefore, is most perfect, which is made by Life, though others may be of greatest strength ; therefore the Apostle applies it even to things without Life, that he might the better show the Union between Christ and His Members, by one Life, which is in strength more like the solidness of a Temple than any other thing, the parts being so united, as if they would last as long as the World," p. 83. Such, then, is the formal Cause of the Church. V. Fifthly, I proceed to the instrumental Cause, that is, the Sacraments. For, 1st, by Baptism we are made one with Christ, born again of Water and of the Spirit— the Spirit of God— 1 Cor. xii. 12, "By * S. Chrysost. Horn. 8, in 1 Cor. He is the Head, we are the Body ; He is the Foundation, we the Building ; He is the Vine, we are the Branches ; He is the Bridegroom, we are the Bride ; He is the Shepherd, we are the Sheep ; He is the Way, we the Travellers ; We are the Temple, He the Inhabitant ; He is the first-born, we are the Brothers ; He is the Heir, we are the Coheirs ; He is the Life, we are the living ; These things evoxriv 4/jb