Macmullevi

ms

TWO EXERCISES

THE DEGEEE OF B.D.

READ IN

THE DIVINITY SCHOOL, OXFORD,
APRIL 18, AND 19, 1844.

nv
RICHARD GELL MACMULLEN, M.A.
Ill
FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGK.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER;
»AMES BUKNS, 17, PORTMAN STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE,
LONDON. 1844.

ADVERTISEMENT.
The unusual and unhappily notorious circumstances
connected with these Exercises will account for, and it is
hoped justify, the writer in making them public.
In doing so, he feels quite sure that he shall receive from
many who read them that candid and kind interpretation
of his language, which he was not sanguine enough to
hope for in the Divinity School on Thursday last. De
clarations of attachment to our Church, and of hearty
adherence to her Formularies, avail but little against the
persevering misrepresentations and suspicions of these
times; nor can they be of much use as regards others from
the mouth of one who, like the writer of these Exercises,
has so little power or right to influence any. He will
therefore content himself with saying, that his most earnest
and single desire in writing on the perplexing and difficult
subject imposed upon him was to ascertain and follow the
teaching of his own Church.
Oxford, C. C. C.
April 23, 1844.

THESIS.

The Church of England does not teach, nor can it
be proved from Scripture that any change takes
place in the Elements at Consecration in the Lord's
Supper.

I There is perhaps no subject of Christian doctrine
on which the prevailing notions of the present day
contrast more strikingly and more painfully with the
spu'it of the Early Church, than on questions con
nected with the Holy Eucharist; and this not so
much in the precise theological statement of the
doc^ine, as in the tone and temper of mind in which
the subject is approached. Whilst the Apostolical
Tradition was yet fresh in the minds of those to
whom it had been originally committed and their
immediate successors, and as it wlere the echo of our
Lord's words of Benediction was still heard amongst
them. Christians were content to receive His Divine
Promises with a simple faith and devout thankfulness,
not daring to measure the Revelations of the Infinite
by the Kne of their own reason or judgment, nor
imagining that it could be given to them to compass
B

the length, and breadth, and depth, and height,
of His unsearchable Dispensations. The Ancient
Fathers of the Church, in their varied warfare with
unbelief, had no necessity laid upon them to engage
in controversy on this most sacred subject; amid all
the tares that the enemy sowed thus early, we have
no proof that the Catholic doctrine of the Holy
Eucharist was for some centuries openly and directly
assailed ; for although the multiform heresies which
sprung up in relation to the Mystery of the Incarnation
entailed of course by necessary consequence erroneous
conceptions of the Holy Eucharist, we know that
St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian, and others of the Fathers
not unfrequently adduced the orthodox doctrine on
this last subject, as if acknowledged by those with
whom they were in controversy equally with them
selves, against the wild speculations of Marcion, and
Valentinus, and their followers, as in the succeeding
ages of the History of the Church, St. Cyril and
Theodoret did against the heresies of Nestorius and
Eutyches. Accordingly, we find very little in the
writings of the Early Fathers, or in the records of
the Early Church, of a directly controversial nature
on the subject which is now to engage our attention.
The Holy Eucharist with its manifold and precious
gifts was with them an object of silent, adoring awe,
rather than of rash debate; therefore it was not their
wont to speali of it even to those Catechumens who
were the most advanced, and on the very threshhold
of Holy Baptism ; it was to the " faithful" only, who

were admitted into the inner sanctuary of the Church,
to whom these Holy Mysteries were unfolded. So
careful were they as on other matters of religious
truth, so especially on this, to use that reverential
reserve against which are arrayed so strongly the
prejudices of the present age, which has so imperfect
an apprehension of the real nature of religious truth,
and of the discipline necessary to that heart which is
to receive it to profit withal. In the words of their
own Eucharistic Liturgies, they felt that " holy things
were for the holy," whilst before them, and on suitable
occasions, they would speak with an unsuspicious
freedom and fulness, as they who thought no evil;
as worshippers rather than controversialists. Every
where throughout Holy Scripture they recognised
tokens and foreshadowings of the great Christian
Gift; they saw it associated with, and impressed
upon, the histories, and manifoldly prefigm-ed by
the types and prophecies, of the Elder Testament.
Happy indeed had it been always thus; but when the
usurpations of human reason broke in upon the
sacred enclosure of Divine Truth, and the restless
eye of an undisciplined curiosity feared not to look
into the ark, the special Presence Chamber of Him
who shews Himself only to the pure in heart, this
holy reserve, and fulness of devotion, which mutually
explain and act upon each other, were laid aside;
arbitrary definitions on the one side, led to pre
sumptuous denials of the Grace of God, as exhibited
and consigned specially in His Sacraments on the
B 2

other, till we have come to a period of the Church's
history, when the most sacred and revered Mysteries
of our most holy Faith are not deemed unmeet to
be made the subjects of cold criticism and philoso
phical speculation, by those who have no eyes to
apprehend or hearts to love them ; when to believe
as little as possible is accounted by the many to be
the best belief, and a devotional use of God's highest
gifts is made to give way beneath the chill formalities
of a self-invented creed.
No one then can reflect at what peril at once to
truth and charity the subject of the Holy Eucharist
is dragged into controversy amongst us, but would
gladly, if he could, avoid the risk of making tha*
Holy Sacrament, which is at once the symbol, and
pledge, and efficacious means of unity, in any way
the signal of division and debate. Well would it he,
if amidst the tumultuous jarrings of an intellectual
age, some one holy spot at least were left for reve
rence and love to make its home; if amidst all the
exactions of a restless party strife, some one sacred
truth could be left to meditation and to silence; that>
in the beautiful language of St. Augustine, " we
would enter into our own selves, withdraw fi-om every
kind of tumult, look into ourselves, if there we have
some sweet retreat of conscience, where there should
be no noise, no disputations, no thought of dis
sension or self-will, that so peradventure it might be
our's to say, ' Thou shalt make me hear of joy and
gladness, and the bones which have been humbled

shall rejoice"." With such a temper at least I
would earnestly desire to enter on the closer con
sideration of the subject now before me; not with
positiveness, nor in contention, but with reverence
and humility, thankful that I am able to adopt the
thoughts and language of others rather than my
own, and desiring above all to submit to the supreme
authority of holy Scripture, and to the teaching of
the Church.
In proceeding then to speak on the Pro
position which was just now read, it may help to
the clearing of the subject before us to allude in
passing to the Article of the Church of England on
the Lord's Supper. We are there told that " Transub
stantiation (or the change of the substance of the
Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot
be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the
plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of
a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many super
stitions." The observation I would wish to make
upon this is, that the Article in denying a particular
kind of change, a change of material substance,
evidently does not thereby deny any change what
soever; rather its definite and guarded language
would seem to be a presumption and to point the
other way ; yet this remark obviously as it springs
from the words I have quoted, is rendered necessary
by the confusion which prevails so extensively in
theological statements on this subject in our day.
" Serm. 62. (al. 63.) ix. (22.)

6
Here in fact the low Sacramentarian view coincides
with that of the Roman Schools. It is well known
how careful, whether in books of controversy or
devotion, the latter are to identify the doctrine of
the Real Presence with the tenet of Transub
stantiation, and that there is in fact no difierence
between the two, the advocate of the former as
vehemently maintains; only he draws from this
premise a directly opposite conclusion, and strips
the Sacrament of its mystical character altogether,
degrading it into a moral means of improvement,
and a bare commemorative rite.
Now in the question proposed for my con
sideration there appears to be an ambiguity of
expression which makes it necessary for me to treat
of it in two difierent aspects. The words of it may
be intended to mean only, " that the Church of
England does not teach that any change takes place
in the Elements at Consecration in the Lord's
Supper," in the sense of its not being incumbent on
the Members of the Church to maintain it; or their
meaning may be, " that to beheve that any change
takes place in the Elements at Consecration in the
Lord's Supper" is not only beyond, but against, and
inconsistent with, her teaching. It will therefore be
my object to endeavour to estabhsh in the first
place. That the Church of England does teach or
imply that some change takes place in the Elements
at Consecration ; and in the second. That even if
this cannot be maintained, forasmuch as she does

not necessarily disallow what she does not pro
minently teach, nor even what holy Scripture does
not prove, " so that it be not contrary thereunto, nor
be requii-ed of any man that it should be believed
as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite
or necessary to Salvation ;" the Church of England
does not prohibit us from believing that some change
takes place in the Elements, and that she does not
will be proved to be no matter of opinion, but of fact,
by various and most direct testimonies of theologians
in her Communion of acknowledged orthodoxy.
However when this second proposition is insisted
on, it must not be taken for any acknowledgment
of the deficiency in the proof for the other ; the
evidence in fact for the one necessarily enters into
and confirms the other ; if the Church did not teach
it, it is not to be supposed that her Doctors would
have so openly maintained it — whilst it is quite
inconceivable they should have done so, if their
teacliing was not only not enforced, but contradicted
by the authority of their own Church, of whose doc
trines on this very point they regarded themselves,
and were regarded by others, as the expositors.
Now certainly the very order and rite of Con
secration itself in our Book of Common Prayer
is a presumption in favour of the view that the
Church of England does teach that the Sacramental
Elements are themselves changed into the Body and
Blood of Christ. It would certainly seem at least
to he upon those who deny any change to explain

the meaning, and give any adequate account of
this Rite. That the Consecration is appointed
to take effect, and that it terminates upon the
Sacramental Elements, and not on the recipients of
the Sacrament, the express directions of the Rubric,
that the Priest in reciting the words of institution,
is to take the Paten into his hands, and to break
the Bread, and to lay his hand upon it, and so
upon every vessel in which there is any Wine to be
consecrated, (directions which were once expunged
from our Litm-gy through the influence of the
Sacramentarian party, and the restoration of which
was vehemently opposed from the same quarter,)
are a sufficiently plaiu indication. Shall we say
then that the virtue of the Divine benediction of our
blessed Lord, who is the Primaiy and True, His
ministers only the secondary and subordinate con-
secrators, effects nothing ? Does not rather the very
instinct of piety teach us in the words of an early
Father, that " whatsoever the Holy Ghost toucheth,
that thing is consecrated and changed " ?" And well
would it be if they who deny this, would consider
with themselves whether they ai-e not in fact grounding
their opinions, not on the authority of Holy Scripture
or of the Church, but on the rationahstic principle
that the Holy Spirit cannot impart a real sanctity
to things manimate, a principle, let it be observed,
inconsistent with a right belief of the mystery of the
Incarnation. The Chm-ch, as the habitation of the
'' S. Cyr. Catech. xxiii. (Myst. v.)

quickening Spirit, has no such things as empty and
lifeless forms; forms without spirit and life were
the worldly elements of the Jewish Economy, but
no parts are they of the dispensation of Grace and
Truth; and yet upon the supposition that no change
of any kind is wrought upon the Elements in the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Consecration is
little more than an impressive scenical ceremony,
calculated at best to give effect and solemnity to the
edifying memorial of our Saviour's death. Surely
this is a very inadequate and degrading account
of this most venerable Mystery of the Christian
Church. Whatsoever our blessed Lord effected by
His Blessing- the Elements at the original Institution
of this Sacrament, that does our Church imply to be
effected at each Consecration of the Elements now;
thus she calls the Consecration the Blessing of the
Bread, and the Blessing of the Cup. What He
made the Bread and Wine to be, was His Body
and Blood; and so each several Communicant re
ceives the Elements thus consecrated and blessed,
as " The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was
given," and " the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ
which was shed for him." Now the history of the
successive alterations which have been made in our
Book of Common Prayer, shews us the importance
which was attached to these words. We know that at
a time when the unhappy influence of the Con
tinental Reformers prevailed to the signal deteri
oration of our Church, the words which now only

10
form the conclusion of the address of delivei-y of
the Elements to the Communicants, stood alone.
But when God put it into the hearts of our fore
fathers to seek a return to the old ways they had
forsaken, those who were engaged in the restoration
of our Liturgical offices recovered, in spite of the
most determined opposition, those words which
evince the mind of the Church of England to be,
in the words of the Catechism, her instruction for
the babes in Christ, that it is in and through the
Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, that not
any mere gracious influence is poured upon the
heart, still less edifying thoughts suggested to the
imagination and memory, and borne in upon the
affections, but that " the Body and Blood of Christ
are verily and indeed taken and received by the
faithful in the Lord's Supper," which is said to be
the inward and spiritual grace of the Sacrament
itself. In accordance with this teaching the XXVIIIth
Article of the Church of England tells us, that " the
Body of Christ is" not only " taken," and " eaten,"
but " given" in the Supper after an heavenly and
spiritual manner; and the Homily "^^ cautions us against
holding that in the Supper of the Lord there is " any
vain ceremony, any bai-e sign, any untrue figure of a
thing absent;" and in the Advertisement to the
second Book of HomiHes we read of receiving
the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, under
the Jbrm of Bread and Wine. In the Consecration
" On the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament.

11
Prayer the Priest prays that, receiving- the creatures
of Bread and Wine, we may be partakers of our
Saviour Jesus Christ's most blessed Body and Blood.
The Elements are called " High" and " Holy
Mysteries," " a ghostly substance ;" the remains of
the consecrated Elements are to be reverently placed
upon the Lord's Table after the Communion; and
at the end of the service to be " reverently" eaten and
drunk. If then before Consecration, the Elements
are merely the natural substances of Bread and Wine,
and after it, are called and are the Body and Blood
of Christ, are they not, though in a way incompre
hensible by us, really changed? Have we any
sufficient wai-rant to deny that they are so, because
we can neither understand nor explain the nature
and conditions of the change ? Surely we shall be
actins: more in accordance with the wise caution of
our Church, if we are content to leave all such
questions of the mode of the change, or of the Pre
sence of our Blessed Lord in the Sacrament, in
the obscurity in which Holy Scripture has left it,
and shall regard all attempts at explaining it as so
many unauthorized and unhallowed efforts to eman
cipate ourselves from the obedience, andvto elude the
claims of Faith. If then we repeat the Bread and
Wine from being worldly elements, fitted by then-
proper nature only to nourish and support the body,
become to us the Body and Blood of the Incarnate
Word, whereby (as our Church, adopting the Catholic
interpretation of the sixth chapter of St. John's

12
Gospel, teaches us) " we dwell in Christ, and Christ
in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us;"
if from being of the earth, earthy, they are made an
" immortal seed," " consecrated for the endless good
of all generations till the world's end';" and made
for ever the instruments of life by virtue of our Lord
and Master's divine benediction, whereby in the
words of the Homily, not only the souls of the faithful
live to eternal hfe, but they surely trust to win to
theii- bodies a resun-ection to immortality," by union
with the glorified Body of their Lord; to what end
serve our ceaseless strifes as to the " how can these
things he?" or as to the application of the word
" change" to express such transcendent and blessed
efforts of Divine mercy and power, but to perplex
those who "go up to the reverend communion to
be satisfied with spiritual meats, and hinder them
from looking up with faith upon the Holy Body
and Blood of their God, from marvelling- with re
verence, from touching it with the mind, from
receiving it with the hand of then- heart, from taking
it fully with their inward man." Indeed as our For
mularies no where expressly use the word change in
relation to the effect of Consecration upon the Ele
ments, no private authority can render it binding upon
any to adopt it; and of course Christian considerate-
ness and charity should induce us to forego its use, if
in the minds of any who sincerely sought and held the
right faith on the Sacrament, it were connected only
" Hooker.

18
with what were held to be perversions or exagge
rations of the Truth. But on the other hand, if it
be the natural expression to us to convey the un
doubted Catholic Truth, and what is objected to is
not the particular formula, but the doctrine of which
it is the symbol; the same charity should teach us
to assert our right to the use of a term, the due
application of which to the subject of the Holy
Eucharist was, as we shall see, never doubted of in
the Ancient Church; and which has been in all ages
of our own Church, adopted without suspicion or
restraint. It must be, however, allowed in honesty
and candour, that our Book of Common Prayer
taken by itself, and without those aids which ai-e its
legitimate interpreters, implies perhaps rather than
teaches the Truth we have been contending for.
The assertion of some Change in the Elements
upon Consecration was once much more prominently
impressed upon om- Eucharistic Liturgy than it is
at present. In the first Book of King Edward VI.
there was an express prayer, in accordance, as will
be seen hereafter, with all the ancient Liturgies both
of the East and West, that "with the Holy Spirit God
would vouchsafe to bless and sanctify his creatures
of Bread and Wine, that they might become the
Body and Blood of His most dearly beloved Son
Jesus Christ ;" and if this omission is thought on
the one hand to bear against the view we are taking,
let us on the other hand keep in mind that it was
made confessedly from a mere principle of com-

14
prehension and compromise, and that in the Act of
Uniformity, which ratified the use of the second
Book, it was asserted, " that there was nothing
contained in the first Book but what was agreeable
to the Word of God and the Primitive Church, and
that such doubts as had been raised in the use and
exercise thereof, proceeded rather fi-om the curiosity
of the Minister and mistakers than of any other worthy
cause." Furthermore, it is to be considered that
our Prayer Book is to be regarded as a relic of
ancient days, and, where there is no express limita
tion put to bar the operation of this rule, is to be
interpreted according to the principles of the Church
Universal, of whose original deposit of faith she is,
as we trust, an heir. It cannot be necessary to
vindicate this principle here, so directly and re
peatedly maintained as it has been by the authority
of om- Church. Thus she refers us" to the
ancient Authors as witnesses of her Apostolic
succession. Her Preachers are enjoined to teach'
their people nothing "to observe or believe but
that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old
and New Testament, and that which the Catholic
Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered out
of the same;" and in especial reference to the
subject more immediately before us, we are in
structed "Before all things, this we must be sure
of especially, that this Supper be in such wise done
' In the Preface to the Ordination Service.
' By the Canon of 1571.

15
and ministered as our Lord and Saviour did and
commanded to be done, as His Holy Apostles used
it, and the good Fathers in the Primitive Church
frequented it^"
Let us proceed then to apply this principle to
the present subject, and shew briefly what was
the ancient doctrine upon it. Now it will scarcely
be denied that the Fathers do speak as with a
common consent not only with all the fervour of a
devout affection of the transcendent blessings vouch
safed to us in this Holy Sacrament, and that in and
through the Consecrated Elements, but that they
assert directly a change, a conversion, a ti-anselement-
ation, and that sometimes in language to which the
unhappy controversies of later times have attached
a meaning which they by no means necessarily imply,
and which is moreover inconsistent with the received
Faith of the Catholic Church. Amidst the variety
and multiplicity of authorities fi-om these early writings,
bearing upon the point on which we are treating, let
a few suffice as specimens of the undoubted and un
contradicted testimony of the Ancient Church. It
will serve as an explanation to the meaning of several
of the undercited passages to bear in mind, that the
Fathers seem generally, according to the order of
their Eucharistic Liturgies, to have attributed the
change of the Elements to the Invocation of the
Holy Ghost upon them, which formed, as we shall
see, a part of every ancient office : not to the words of
^ Homily on the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament.

16
institution only, as in the Canon of the Mass in use
at the present day, with which our Church too seems,
since the last review of our Prayer Book, to have been
brought in this respect into a closer agreement than
before. To begin our testimonies with St. Justin
Martyr ; " We do not receive these things, he says,
as common bread or common drink, but as our
Saviour Jesus Christ, being made Incarnate by the
Word of God, had both Flesh and Blood for our
salvation; so are we taught that the Food over which
the thanks have been given (jvxotptcrTri6el(rav
Tpo(f)r)v) by the Prayer of the Word which came
from Him, whereby by a change (/cara fu.era^oX'^u)
our blood and flesh is nom-ished, is both the Flesh
and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus ''." St. Irenaeus
says, "For as the Bread which is of the earth,
receiving the Invocation of God, is no longer common
bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an
earthly and a heavelily, so also our bodies, partici
pating of the Eucharist, are no more corruptible,
having a hope of an eternal resurrection'." Origen
^ ov yap ct)ff Koivov aprov, ovBe Koivov nopu ravra \ap.^dvopev, aXXa
&v Tp6irov dia \6yov Oeot) SapKOTroiTjBeis 'irja'avs Xpio'Tos 6 ^arijp rifiav,
KOJ. adpKa Kal aijua imep (T(OTr)plas rffimv e(Txev, ovras Kal TrjH 8t f>>xrjs
\6yov Tov nap' avrov evxapKrrqBela'av Tpocpfjv, e^ ^i aifia Kai crapxee
Kara ji,eTa^o\r]V Tpe(f>0VTai fjpav, eKeivov tov SapKoiroir)6€VTOs ItjitoO Kat
trapKa Ka\ alp,a ibiha^Brjpev eivai. Justit). (Apol. 0.)
' Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis percipiens voca-
tionem Dei jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharislia ex
duobiis rebus constans terrena et celesti; .sic et corpora nostra
percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia spem re-
siuTectionis hahentia. Adv. Haeres. lib. iv. 34.

17
against Celsus; " Let Celsus, indeed, as knowing
not God, render thank-offerings to devils, but we,
performing- an acceptable service to the Creator of
the universe, eat bread brought with thanksgiving
and prayer over the gift which is made a certain
holy Body by the prayer, and which sanctifieth those
who use it with a sound purpose of mind''." St.
Cyril of Jei-usalem speaks of " the bread and wine of
the Eucharist before the Holy Invocation of the
Adorable Trinity being mere bread and wine, [apro?
Koi olvos XtT09,) but when the Invocation has been
made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the
wine the Blood of Christ'." And again, " Once He
changed the water by His own will in Cana of
Galilee, and is it incredible that He should have
changed the wine into Blood " ?" Again, in explaining
the liturgical rites to those who had been recently
baptized, he says, " That, having sanctified om--
selves by these spu-itual hymns, we may call upon the

'' KcX(roy peu, as ayvo&v 0c6i/, ra x'^pi-'T'rrjpia haip.oo'iv aTroSiSdrm"
fjae'is he ra TOV navros hrjfxiovpyio cvap€(rTOvVT€S, Kal tovs per ev-j(api<TTlas
Kat ci'X^^ '"^^ ^'^^'- '^^'^^ dode7(ri 7Tpo<rayopevovs aprovs ia-dlofiev, crapa
yevopevovs 8ia rfjv cixijv ayiov n, Kal ayid^ov Toiis pera vyiovs npodeaecos
aira xpap^vcov. Cont. Gels, lib. viii.
' "Qa-Trep yap 6 apros Kal 6 oivos Tijs (vxapiarias irpo riji ayias
iiUKKijaeas t^s npoa-KvmjTiKrjs TpiaSos apros tjv Kal oivos XiTos, otikXtj-
aeas fie yevopevrjs 6 pev apros yiverat awpa 'K.pnTTOv, 6 6e oivos alpa
Xpia-Tov. Catech. xix. (Myst. i. and iii.)
¦" To vScop TTOre eis ohov peraPe^XrjKev iv Kava Ttjs TaXikaias oikci'm
vevpari, Kal ovK a^wTTKTTOs 'itrriv oivov ptra^akav els alpa. Catech. xxii.
(Myst. iv.) C

18
merciful God to send forth the Holy Spirit upon
the gifts lying before Him, (eVt to, TrpoKel/xeva,')
that He would make the bread the Body of Christ,
and the wine the Blood of Christ ; for whatsoever
the Holy Ghost hath touched, is sanctified and
changed {fxerafie^X'rjTai) "." St Gregory of Nyssa
speaks " of the nature of the visible things being
transelemented (p-erao-Toixeicoaas) by the power of
the benediction °." Again, " The bread before the
Consecration is common bread, but when the Mystery
has consecrated it, it is called, and is, the Body of
Christ P." St. Ambrose says, " As often as we take
the Sacraments, which by the Mystery of the holy
prayer are transfigured into the Flesh and Blood of
Christ, we do shew forth the Lord's death''." Again,
" Perhaps, you say, I see something else. How do

" Iva S.yido'avTes eavrovs Sid twv Tn/evpariKaiv roirav vpvav irapa-
KoKapev Tou (pCKavSpairbv Bebv to ayiov irv^vpa i^airoa'TeTXai cm rd
npoKclpeva tva Troirjirr} tov pev aprov aapa Xpi(TTOv — tov 8e oivov alpa
'S.pLorTov, Trdvras yap oi edv e^aijraiTO to dyiov mievpa rovro rjyiacrrai
Kal pera^e^XrjTai. Catech. xxiii. (Myst. v.)
° T,^ rijs evXoy'ias Svvdpei irpos cKetvo peTacrToix^i&a-as raiv (paivopevav
Trjv (f>va-iv. Orat. Catech. c. xxxvii. There is a tract by St. Greg.
of Nyss. (Inter. Liturg. var. Patr. p. 123. edit. 1560.) on the
subject. " That the consecrated bread is changed {peraTroieirai)
into the Body of God, and that it is necessary for human nature
to partalie of it."
I* 6 apros ndXtv apTos earl Teas KOivbs, aXX' orav to pva-rrjpiov
Upovpyf]a~q, aSipa Xpiarov Xeyerai re Kal yiverai. In Bapt. Christ.
1 Nos autem quotiescunque sacramenta sumimus quae per sacrae
orationis mysterium in carnem Christi trausfiguraritur et san-
giiinem, mortem Domini annuntiaraus. De Fide, lib. iv. 5.

19
you tell me that I receive the Body of Christ ? It
remains for us stUl to make this good also. How
gTeat examples then do we make use of to prove
that it is not what nature hath formed, but what
the benediction hath consecrated, and that the
power of the benediction is greater than that of
nature, for by the benediction even nature itself is
changed." — "Before the benediction of the heavenly
words the outward form of bread and wine (species) is
named, after the Consecration the Body of Christ is
sig-nified '." St. Jerome thus reproves the presumption
of Deacons in the Church of Rome who on account
of their wealth and worldly importance exalted
themselves against the Priests ; " Who would endure
a minister of tables and widows to puff himself
proudly up above those at whose prayers the Body
and Blood of Christ is made (conficitur) °." St.
Augustine says, " We call that only the Body and
Blood of Christ, which being taken from the fruits
¦¦ Forte dicas — aliud video, quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi
Corpus accipiam ? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest ut probemus.
Quantis igitur utimur exemplis, ut probemus non hoc esse quod
natura fonnavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit, majoremque vim
benedictionis quam natmrne, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa
mutatur ? Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non
erat non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod non erant ? Non
enim minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas. Ante
benediclionem verborum coelestium species nominatur, post con-
secrationem Coi-pus Christi significatur. De Initiandis, c. ix.
" Quis patiatur mensarum et viduarum minister, ut supra eos se
tiimidus efferat ad quorum preces Christi Corpus Sanguisque con-
ficitur. Ep. ad Evangelum, ci. (al. 86.)
c 2

20
of the earth, and consecrated duly by the mystical
prayer, we receive to our soul's health, in comme
moration of the Lord's Passsion for us'." Again,
" That bread which ye see on the Altar, when sanc
tified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ ;
that cup, yea rather what the cup contains, when
sanctified by the word of God,is the Blood of Christ"."
The author of the Treatise on the Sacraments
says, " Perhaps you say. My bread is that in common
use; but this bread is bread before the Sacramental
words, after Consecration it is made of bread Christ's
flesh. How can that which is bread be the Body of
Christ ? By Consecration. Now by what or by whose
words is the Consecration made ? By the words of
the Lord Jesus. If then there is so great power in
the words of the Lord Jesus as to make those things
begin to be which were not, how much rather is it not
efficacious to cause them to remain what they were,
while they are at the same time changed into some
thing else " ?" Again, " Before Consecration it is

' Corpus Christi et Sanguinem dicimus illud tantum quod ex
fructibus terrse acceptum et prece mystica consecratum rite sumimus
ad salutem spiritalem in memoriam pro nobis Dominicse passionis.
De Ti-in. iii. 4. (10.)
" Panis ille quem videtis in altari, sanctificatus per verbum Dei,
Corpus est Christi. Calix ille, immo quod habet calix, sanctifi-
catum per verbum Dei, Sanguis est Christi. Serm. ccxxvii. (al. 83.)
" Tu forte dicis Meus panis est usitatus. Sed panis iste panis
est ante verba sacramentorum ; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane
fit caro Christi. Quomodo potest qui panis est. Corpus esse
ChrLsti P Consecratione. Consecratio autem quibus . verbis est.

21
bread; after Christ's words, This is My Body have
been pronounced, it is Christ's Bodyy." St. Chry
sostom, says, " It is not man who maketh the Gifts
(to. irpoKeifxeva) become the Body and Blood of
Christ, but Christ who was for us crucified. The
priest standeth fulfilling his office, uttering those
words, but the power and grace is of God. " This
is my Body," He says. This word changes (fxerap-
pvOpLL^ei) the Gifts lying before Him, and as that
Voice which said, " Increase and multiply," was
spoken indeed once, but throughout all time enableth
our race to produce children ; so also this word once
spoken maketh the sacrifice perfect in every table in
the Chiu-ches from that time until now, and till His
coming again". Once more, we see in Theodoret that
the doctrine of some change in the Elements was
so established and notorious in his days, that in the
dialogue between Orthodox and Eranistes, he intro
duces the latter, adducing against his opponent this

et cujus semionibus ? Domini Jesu. Si ergo tanta vis est in
sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quse non erant, quanto
magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant et in aliud commutentur.
'¦ Antequam consecretur panis est; ubi autem verba Christi
accesserint Corpus et Christi. Et ante verba Christi calix est
vini et aquae plenus; ubi verba Christi operata fueriut, ibi Sanguis
Christi eiBcitur, qui plebem redemit. Lib. iv. 5.
^ Ov yap 6 dvOpawos icrnv 6 woimv ra wpoKcipeva yeveadai crSjaa Kal
alpa Xpia-TOv, dXX' aiiros 6 crravpcodels vnep rjpmv Xpia-ros' o-x^ipa TrXrjpav
ea-rrjKev 6 Upeiis rd pfjpara (pdeyyopevos iKeiva, f] te Svvapis Kal rj xap'S
TOV 0eov ea-Tf rovro pov ea-ri to (rmpa, cf>r](ri' rovro to pfjpa perap-
pvdpiC^i ra TtpoKelpeva k. t. X. In Prod. Jud.

22
change which takes place in the Invocation of the
Priest, as corresponding to the absorption of the
human mto the Divine Nature of Christ, which
according to the heresy of Eutyches he maintained
took place after the Ascension. Orthodox does
not deny that such a change is wrought in the
Elements, but asserts only that the " mystical
symbols do not lose then- proper nature, but
remain in their former substance, and form, and
appearance, to sight and touch as they were before;"
a proof this at once of the general consent as to the
truth of some change in the Consecrated Elements
in the Eucharist, and of the belief of Theodoret,
and of his age, that it was no material and sub
stantial change, on the supposition of which the
argument of the Heretic would have been incontro
vertible, and his parallel complete *.
Let us now turn away from the testimonies of
individual Fathers to an evidence of still higher
authority as concentrating in itself the witness of
the Universal Chm-ch, and running up into times
of the most sacred Antiquity. I mean the Eucha
ristical Liturgies of the eai-ly Chm-ch. It would be
" EPAN. "Qo'Trep Toiwv rd avp^oXa toO bearroTiKov o'aparos re Kal
atparos aXXa pev elo'i npb T^s UpariKrjs ejrHeXijo-eiBS' jueTo Se ye r^v
in'iKkrjaiv pera^d'KKeTai, Kal erepa yiveraf oi^Tca to befTiroTiKov aSipa
pcrd TrjV dvdXrj^JAiv els rr/v ov(riav peTePXrjBrj ttju Oelrjv.
OP©. 'EoXwr als vcpijves apKvcn,V ov8e ydp perd tov dyia<rpdv to
pvcriKd (Tvp^oXa r^s olKeias e^iaraTai ^vaeois' pevei ydp iirl rrjs
nporepas ovaias, Kal rov (rxflparos, Kal tov etdovs, Kal opard ecrri, Kal
diTTd ola Kal npoTcpov r/v. Dial. 11.

23
impossible within the usual limits allotted to these
Exercises, to enter into any lengthened examination
of the age of these venerable offices, nor is it
necessary to do so. Whatever additions in the
subordinate details may have grown upon them from
time to time, the uniformity with regard to all
substantial points in Liturgies sanctioned through
out the Catholic Church, in countries very far remote
from, and in ecclesiastical jurisdiction independent
of each other, can be accounted for on no other
hypothesis, but that it must have prevailed fi-om the
very beginning; and indeed we have the testi
mony of St. Basil, implying- that the form of Con
secration was of Apostolical tradition''. And further,
as we know that the Apostles delivered only to
the Churches what they had themselves received,
and that there are intimations in Holy Scripture"
of Eucharistic rites being instituted, and in use
whilst the Apostles lived, it will not be thought
perhaps an unwarranted conjecture, (and in propor
tion as it may be regarded to be well founded, it
does invest these monuments of primitive tradition,
with a peculiarly sacred dignity and authority,)
that they were probably instructed in the ordaining
of these rites by our Blessed Lord Himself, who
having told them at the Institution of the Sacrament of
His Supper, " that he would drink no more of the
fruit of the vine until that day that He should drink
'' De Spiritu Sanct. c. xxvii. (66.)
^ Acts ii. 42. Rom. xv. 16. 1 Cor. x. 16. and xiv. 16.

24
it new with them in the kingdom of God^," spake to
them we are told throughout the forty days, in which
He was seen of them after His resurrection, of the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God\ Now
the Clementine Liturgy in the ApostoUcal Consti
tutions, and the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom, St.
Basil, St. James, St. Mark, or the Alexandrian,
in a word all the Greek Liturgies, (and virtually
the Latin too,) agree in having the Prayer of Invo
cation upon the Elements, that they might be made
the Body and Blood of Christ. " We offer unto
Thee," (so runs the prayer in the Liturgy of St.
Chrysostom, and the others do not materially differ
fi-om it,) " We offer unto Thee this reasonable and
unbloody sacrifice, and beseech Thee send down
Thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts lying
before Thee, and make the Bread the precious Body
of Christ, and that which is in the cup the precious
Blood of Christ, changing them (fji€Ta^aXa>v) by
Thy Holy Spirit, that they may be to those who
participate in them for the washing- of then- souls,
for the forgiveness of sins, for the fellowship of the
Holy Ghost, for the fulfilment of the kingdom of
Heaven." Having thus examined the teaching of the
Early Church, on the subject which is now
before us, it has I trust been established that the
Ancient Fathers bear most unequivocal witness to
•' iMalt. xxvi. 29. Mark .\iv. 26. •¦ Acts i. 3.

25
the doctrine of some change being wrought by the
prayer of the Church, and the power of the Holy
Spirit m the Consecrated Elements of Bread and
Wine, and that this their testimony so express in
itself, and against which no evidence fi-om the same
source it may safely be affirmed can be adduced in
an opposite direction, ought according to the principles
of the Church of England, to be taken into account
in the interpretation of her own Eucharistic office.
That that office has in fact been so interpreted by
a succession of Divines in the Church of England,
some of the best and wisest of her sons, I shall now
proceed, according to the method originally pro
posed to make good; and as the force of this part
of the argument lies in the accumulation of testi
monies from sources independent of each other, and
fi-om authors who within the limits allowed for the
operation of a freedom of opinion in our Church,
differed very widely on many points of Christian
doctrine, it will be necessary to devote some little
space to this portion of the enquiry.
To begin with Hooker; " Touching the sentence
of Antiquity in this cause," he says, " it is evident how
they teach that Christ is personally there present; yea
present whole, albeit a part of Christ be corporally
absent from thence; that Christ, assisting this hea
venly Banquet with His Personal and True Presence,
doth by His own Divine Power add to the natural
substance thereof supernatural efficacy, which addition

26
to the nature of those Consecrated Elements changeth
them and maketh them that unto us which otherwise
they could not be'." Overall, who from the part he
had in the drawing up of our Church Catechism speaks
with high authority, says, " It is confessed by all
Divines that upon the words of Consecration, the
Body and Blood of Christ is really and substantially
present." — " Before Consecration we call the Holy
Mysteries God's creatures of Bread and Wine, now
we do so no more after Consecration ?." Thus Nicholls,
in his Notes on the Common Prayer, supposes all
parties to be agi-eed that there was a change in the
Elements, for he says; " And so again whereas there
was a contention what it was that made a change in
the Elements, whether, as the Roman Chm-ch would
have it, the bare pronouncing of the words " This is
My Body," or whether, as some Protestants say, only
the Prayer to God to sanctify them for a spu-itual
use, our Church has ordered both a Prayer to God,
and also the word of Institution to be repeated''."
Field. " The only thing- he affirmeth to have been con
firmed by miracles is that Christ's Body and Blood
are truly present in the Sacrament, that they are
given to be the food of our souls, and that the out
ward Elements are changed to become the Body and
' B. V. Ixvii. 11. (Keble's Edit.)
^ Additional notes to Nicholl's Commentary on the Book of'
Common Prayer.
'' Rubric belbre Prayer of Consecration.

27
Blood of Christ, which we deny not, though we depart
from the Papists' touching the manner of conversion
which they imagine to be substantial'." Archbishop
Laud in answer to the objections made against
the Scotch Liturgy that the Prayer of Invocation
involved the doctrine of the Corporal Presence of
Christ's Body in the Sacrament, replies; " How will
they squeeze Corporal Presence out of them ? Why,
first, the change here made is a work of God's
Omnipotency. Well, and a work of Omnipotency it
is, whatever the change be. For less than Omnipo
tence cannot change those Elements either in nature
or use, to so high a service as they are put in that
great Sacrament. And therefore the Invocating of
God's Almighty goodness, to effect this by them is no
proof at all of intending the Corporal Presence of
Christ in the Sacrament. 'Tis true this passage is
not in the Prayer of Consecration in the Service
Book of England, but I wish with all my heart it
were, for though the Consecration of the Elements
may be without it, yet it is much more solemn and
fuU by that Invocation''." Dr. Donne says, " But yet
though this Bread be not so transubstantiated, we
refuse not the words of the Fathers in which they
have expressed themselves in this mystery. Not
Irenseus, his " est Corpus," that that Bread is His
Body now. Not Tertullian's " fecit Corpus," that
that Bread is made His Body which was not so
' On the Church. Append. Part 1.
" Hist, of Troubles of his Time, p. 121.

2S
before. Not St. Cyprian's mutatus that that Bread
is changed. Not Damascenus's " supernaturaliter
mutatus;" no nor Theophylact's " transformatus est,"
(which seems to be the word that goeth furthest of all,)
&c'." Lake says, " the interpretation of these words
is much controverted, and it is much disputed what
change of the Elements the words of Christ did make,
for that Christ changed the Bread when He conse
crated it, we make no doubt "'." Bp. Cosin, who wi-ote
his history of transubstantiation by the express com
mand of King Charies the Second, to shew what faith
the Church of England maintained on the subject
of the Holy Eucharist, says, " It is an article of the
faith in the Church of Rome, that in the Blessed
Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine is
reduced to nothing, and that in its place succeeds
the Body and Blood of Christ. The Protestants are
much of another mind, and yet none of them denies
altogether, but that there is a conversion of the
Bread into the Body, and consequently of the Wine
into the Blood, of Christ, for they know and acknow
ledge that in the Sacrament by virtue of the words
and blessing of Christ, the condition, use, and office
of the Bread is wholly changed, that is, of common
and ordinary it becomes our mystical and sacramental
' Fourth Sermon on the Nativity.
'" .lust before tho words in the text are the following, " What
good came to the Elements by Consecration? Surely much; for
they ure made the Body and Blood of Christ: so saith Jesus,
" This is My Body, this is My Blood."

29
food, whereby as they affirm and believe the true
Body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured,
but also given indeed and by worthy communicants
truly received"." Again, " We confess the necessity of
a supernatural and heavenly change, and that the
Signs cannot become Sacraments but by the infinite
power of God, whose proper right it is to institute
Sacraments in His Church, being able alone to endue
them with virtue and efficacy"." Once more. " In truth
Protestants freely grant that the Wine is changed
into the Blood of Christ, and firmly (as I have often
said) believe it; but every change is not transub
stantiation''." " Christ," says Sparrow, " is present at
the Sacrament now that first instituted it. He con
secrates this also : it is not man that makes the
Body and Blood of Christ by consecrating the Holy
Elements, but Christ that was crucified for us"^."
Thorndike speaks of the " Elements being really
changed from ordinary Bread and Wine, into the
Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a
Sacrament, and that in virtue of the consecration,
not by the faith of him that receives." Again;
" I will go no further in rehearsing- the texts
of the Fathers which are to be found in all books
of controversies concerning this, for the examination
of them requires a volume on purpose. It shall
° Hist, of Popish Transubstantiation, c. iv.
» Ibid.
p c, vi.
' From St. Chrysost. de Prod. Jud.

30
be enough that they all acknowledge the Elements
to be changed, translated, and turned into the
substance of Christ's Body and Blood, though as
in a Sacrament, that is mystically, yet therefore by
virtue of the Consecration, not of his faith that
receives." Once more ; " I conclude, that as it is by
no means to be denied that the Elements are really
changed, translated, and turned into the substance
of Christ's Body and Blood, (so that whosoever
receiveth them with a hving faith is spiritually
nourished by the same; he that with a dead faith
is guilty of crucifying Christ,) yet is not this change
destructive to the bodily substance of the Elements,
but cumulative of them with the spiritual grace of
Christ's Body and Blood'." Jeremy Taylor says, " The
question is not whether the symbols be changed into
Christ's Body and Blood or no ; for it is granted
on all sides ; but whether this conversion be sacra
mental and figurative, or whether it be natural and
bodily'." Again. " The doctrine of the Church of
England, and generally of the Protestants in this
Article, is, that after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries
hath rightly prayed, and blessed and consecrated the
bread and the wine, the symbols become changed
into the Body and Blood of Christ after a sacramental,
that is, in a spu-itual real manner'." Tillotson says, " I
deny not but that the Fathers do, and that with great
"¦ Epilog, b. iii. c. 4. See the whole of chaps. 1, 2, 3, 4.
' Real Presence, §. i. ' Ibid.

31
reason, very much magnify the wonderful mystery and
efficacy of this Sacrament, and frequently speak of a
great supernatural change made by the Divine Bene
diction", which we also readily acknowledge." " We
are not ignorant," says Bull, " that the ancient
Fathers generally teach that the bread and wine
in the Eucharist by or upon the Consecration
of them do become and are made the Body and
Blood of Christ"." Brett, in his learned work on
ancient Litm-gies, in answer to the objection that to
pray that the Holy Ghost may make the Elements the
Body and Blood of Christ, is, as it were, to expect
some extraordinary change to be made in them
requiring an Omnipotent Power to produce it,
replies, " And I freely confess for my own part,
that I do beheve so." Again; " Nevertheless there
is a great change made in the Elements, a change
that requires an Omnipotent Power to effect it, for a
less power cannot infuse such a vhtue into weak
Elements, and make that which in it's own nature
can only nourish the body and preserve the life
awhile in this world become the food of eternal life ''."
Archbishop Wake, in his discourse on the Holy Eu
charist, the second chapter of which is entitled, " Of
the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of
England," says, " The bread and wine after Con-

" Discourse on Transubstantiation, vol. i. p. 233. Ed. 1736.
' Corruptions of Church of Rome.
" p. 169, and 173 and throughout his work passim.

32
secration are the real, but the spiritual and mystical
Body of Christ." "Bythese," says Wheatley, the words
that is of the Consecration Prayer, " the Elements are
consecrated and changed into the Body and Blood
of Christ ''." Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in his Private
Office for Holy Communion, drawn up when the use
of the public Liturgy was proscribed amid the con
vulsions of the Great Rebellion, inserted the Primitive
Prayer of Invocation on the Elements, that they
might be made the Body and Blood of Christ; and a
similar form we know was used by Bishops Overall
and Wilson, at the Administration of the Holy Eu
charist. It would be very easy to add from the works of the
same or other writers indefinitely to this weight of testi
mony; as, for instance, from Andrewes, and Bramhall,
and Johnson, and this chain of witnesses might be
continvied on down to the present time. Now in
these writings we have a clear cm-rent of interpretation
all running in one direction, which might be fairly
regarded as the unfolding of those truths which it is
confessed do not appear on the surface, nor are de
veloped in the precise structure of our Formularies.
But at all events, to put the force of their testimony at
the lowest, may we not be permitted now to adopt asour
0 wn with a claim only to forbearance, what they preached
openly and without contradiction, as the acknowledged
y Wheatley on Common Prayer, Prayer of Consecration, Ed.
1714.

33
doctrines of the early and the English Church?
It is not pretended that the writers who have now
been quoted give the same explanation as to the
nature of the change in the Elements; aU that they
have been adduced for is only as evidence of what
has been contended for in this Essay, that some
change at least there is.
Finally, we may be sure that from their impHcit
reverence for and submission to the authority of
Holy Scripture, they beheved that they had suffi
cient sanction from it so to teach; and so doubtless
they had, though it would be looking to Scripture
to fulfil an office which it would seem it was never
designed by Divine Providence that it should
fulfil, to expect any thing like a systematic state
ment on the subject that is before us. But inter
preting, in accordance with Catholic consent, (a con
sent expressly recognised by our own Church,) the
sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel of the Holy
Eucharist, we learn that the Bread which is therein
given is the Flesh of the Son of Man ", whereby they
who eat are quickened in soul and body unto incor-
ruption and Ufe eternal. We see in the fourfold
history of the institution of this Sacrament the
inspu-ed Authors guided by the Holy Ghost amid
all their incidental variations to retain their Lord's
most solemn words, " This is My Body^" spoken of

' v. 61—56. 63.
' Matt. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 1'^.
D

34
the Bread which he had blessed. We hear St. Paul
assuring the Corinthians, that " whosoever should
eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord (the
Bread and the Cup upon which the Lord had given
thanks or blessed) unworthily, should be guilty of the
Body and Blood of the Lord;" and again, " would be
eating and drinking damnation to himself, not dis
cerning (StaKplvoji', distinguishing) the Lord's Body'."
Again, the same Apostle tells us, that " the Bread
which we break, (not which is received simply,) is
the communication of the Body." " The Cup which
we bless, (not which is distributed merely,) is the
communication of the Blood of Christ." These
words seem plain enough in themselves, though they
convey a mystery beyond our comprehension; but if
we would see what a determined theory will do to
pervert the most sacred teaching of Holy Scripture,
we need only turn to the interpretation of the last
passage by a commentator of great learnmg and
reputation among us*, " The Cup of Blessing which
we bless," he makes to be equivalent with " which
we receive with thanksgiving to God for it," thus
studiously keeping out of sight the sacerdotal cha
racter of the Consecration, and the power of it which
the Apostle's words suggest; and "is it not the
communion of the Blood of Christ," he interprets,
" is it not that rite by which we Christians do pro-
' 1 Cor. xi. 27—29. and x. 16.
¦i Whitby ad loc.

35
fess to hold Communion with, and own Him as our
Lord and Saviour, Who shed His Blood for us?" On
such a system of interpretation. Holy Scripture may
be wrested to give its testimony to any hypothesis
which men's private judgment may set up; and so it
is that one while, such expositors will adhere with a
Judaical preciseness to the mere letter of the Bible,
to the veiling of its living spirit, and another while
will enervate the force of the letter by the pretence
of trope and figm-e; in all their inconsistency con
sistent only in this, in their aim to rob the faith of its
mysteriousness and awe, and the believer of his deepest
and truest consolations.
To conclude : in endeavom-ing to prove that the
Church of England does teach in accordance with Holy
Scripture that some change takes place in the Elements
at Consecration in the Lord's Supper, or at all events
that she does not disallow it, nor forbid her members to
believe it, nothing has been further from my intention
than to give any explanation or account of the mode of
the True Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacra
ment, which is all that is of essential Faith herein.
With* Bishop Andrewes I would maintain, " that this
is, we firmly believe, that it is in this mode, or of
the mode whereby it is wrought, that it is, whether
in, or with, or under, or transubstantiated, there is
not a word in the Gospel. And because not a word
is there, we rightly detach it from being a matter of
faith ; we may place it amongst the decrees of
• Answer to Bellannine's Apology, c. 1.
D 2

36
the Schools, not among the Articles of faith."
And indeed we seem to have in Holy Scripture itself a
wai-ning and as it were a prophecy of that to which
the history of the later ages of the Church has given
but too melancholy an attestation. " How can these
things be '?" asked Nicodemus in reference to the Sa
crament of Regeneration. "How can this Man give us
His flesh to eat« ?" was the question put by the men of
Capernaum in relation (as we maintain) to the Sacra
ment of the Body and Blood of Christ. And accord
ingly, both Holy Sacraments have been made the
subjects ofrashandin-everent disputings; in both sight
has been brought to contravene faith, and the simple
declaiations of Divine Grace andPower have been either
gainsaid by the presumptuous dictates of reason, or
overlaid by the deductions of a spurious and misplaced
philosophy. Would that we might profit by the ex
perience of the past ; much need in truth have we of
the cautions which the History of the Church would
thus suggest to us, for over and above the impatience
of partial knowledge which is the A'ery condition of
the revelation of Divine mysteries which is natm-al to
all men, we are exposed to the influences of an
unbelieving age, the tendency of which it has been
well said by a living writer to be " to beheve too
little for fear of beheving too much^" Yet such
difficulties as there are on this sacred subject, con
nected as it is with the deep and hidden springs of
the Christian life, are confessedly those of speculation
' John iii. 9. ^ John vi. 62. '' Williams on the Passion.

37
rather than of practice. Be we on our guard against
that subtle rationalism, which assuming different forms,
sometimes of superstition and sometimes of credulity,
is impatient of doubt, and restless under the restraints
in which a reverential faith acquiesces as the necessary
condition of its probation, and the appointed step to
a more perfect understanding which is faith's reward.
Let us remember that our highest wisdom is to be
ignorant where God has not been pleased to make
himself fuUy known ; and let us not be anxious to
" seek out the things that are too hard for us, nor to
search the things that are above our strength. But
what is commanded us, let us think thereupon with
reverence, for it is not needful to see with our eyes
the things that are in secret. Let us not be curious
in unnecessary matters, for more things are shewed
unto us than men understand'."
' Ecclus. iii. 21—23.

THESIS.

It is a mode of expression calculated to give erroneous
Views of Divine Revelation to speak of Scripture
and Catholic Tradition as joint authorities in the
matter of Christian Doctrine.

Among the many perplexities attendant upon a
state of theological controversy, the confusions which
arise from the unavoidable imperfection of human
language cannot be reckoned to be the least con
siderable. Most objectionable, indeed, as is the
notion, and opposed to the very first principles of
all right belief, that the Revealed Truth is no
definite object external to the individual, but
variable according to the almost infinite varieties of
the mind that contemplates it, yet no one can have
watched with candour and considerateness the pro
gress, in every age, of religious dissension, and still
less perhaps in om- own days, and not be cheered by
the conviction, that, amidst all our ceaseless strifes,
there is with really good men not only, of course, a
deep inward unity of heart and affection, but even
of belief. The diverse influences of education and

40
early association, superadded to the manifold
varieties of natural temper, give not only their
peculiar hue to the convictions men come to form,
but cause them to take their view of the same
doctrines of the Faith, for instance, from an aspect
opposite to that in which others contemplate it, and
so starting fi-om different points, and not staying to
understand one another by the way, their divergence
becomes greater and greater step by step, whereas,
perhaps, originally at least, they held the same
essential truth. It is plainly impossible then for
this as for many other reasons, to pronounce with
any positiveness, what modes of expression which in
dogmatic teaching must necessarily be of a senten
tious form, may not under supposable cu-cumstances
give very erroneous views of the truth which they are
designed to convey, and especially if we chance to
live at a time when much truth has been lost sight
of and forgotten, must the attempt to recover it in
this way be attended by many dangers both to those
whose office it is to teach, and to those who have to
leai-n. Let what is meant be exempUfied by
instances of certain modes of expressions familiar
to us all, in which the force of these observations
would perhaps be generally acknowledged.
" That we are justified by Faith only." One may
think this expression, when used without proper ex
planation, tends to convey to the mass of men as we
actually find them, not only an erroneous but a most
dangerous impression; that interpreted as it will

41
probably be by the generality of those who receive it,
its effect will be to exclude Holy Baptism from its
divinely appointed instrumentality in the regenera
tion and justification of the children of wrath; that
it will be apt to generate slothfulness, pride, and
false assurance, to conceal from men their obliga
tions to mortification, and self-denial, and a strict
conscientiousness, and to disparage the importance
and obscure the value of good works. Yet for
all this, the expression is in itself true, and to those
who receive and apply it only in its due harmony
and connection with other revealed doctrines, conveys
a most important and essential truth. Again, when
persons speak of the Holy Scriptures as sufficient
for salvation, though many use the term in unaffected
reverence for God's word, and jealousy for its divine
authority, yet it is indisputable, that in the minds of
many more it means rather their own sufficiency, than
the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, and that what
makes it so attractive to them is, that it seems to bid
fair to set them free from those external restraints,
and that sense of subjection to an external law, which,
whether in matters of belief or practice, is so unpa
latable a discipline to man's unruly heart. And yet
this expression again we know, when rightly under
stood, (of which more hereafter,) is the symbol of a
fundamental and undoubted Christian verity. And
now to apply this to the subject more immediately
before us. It cannot be denied, that to say " of Holy
Scripture and Catholic Tradition," that they are

42
"joint authorities in the matter of Christian Doctrine,"
may be under given circumstances, and to certain
persons, calculated to give erroneous views of Divine
Revelation. Rather I would maintain that it would
do so, if it should lead any to derogate in the least
from the supreme authority of the written Word, if
it tended to discourage the reverent and humble
study of it, if it conveyed the idea that Holy Scripture
and Catholic Tradition were of equal or coordinate
authority, if by Catholic Tradition were understood
not the faith once for all delivered to the Saints, and
consigned to us by the testimony of the Universal
Church, but a continuous stream of so called Tradi
tion running- down along- the whole line of the
Church's history to om- own times, independent of
and unchecked by Holy Scripture. If the expression
does convey to the minds of any such views of Divine
Revelation, it would doubtless be only the suggestion
of Chi-istian vfisdom and charity to forego the use of
it; if the essential truth, that is, that is signified
thereby can be expressed in any other way. And
certainly we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact,
that the most obstinate prejudices of our age are
arrayed against Tradition in every form, and however
understood; that it is associated in the minds of
many of whose zeal for God and His truth we cannot
doubt, whose very prejudices therefore we are bound
to respect, and for whose edification we cannot too
carefully consult, with indefinite suspicions of human
inventions and adulterations of the revealed will of

43
God. Let this then be fully granted; to what extent,
or in what cases any such erroneous view might be
likely to result from the expression we ai-e speaking
of, must clearly be a matter in which every on.e will have
his own opinion, derived from his own personal ex
perience, and the practical duty which results from
it must to each man too be matter for his own
serious consideration ; so that he remembers always
that he is under a heavy responsibility, not only to
speak and maintam the truth, but to maintain it in
such a way and such a temper as shall most effectually
recommend it to the hearts and minds of others, and
cause least offence to those with whose interests he is
in any way put in trust. Yet after all, these consi
derations are beyond the real point at issue, and
leave the only important question untouched, viz.
whether to speak of Holy Scripture and Catholic
Tradition as joint authorities in the matter of
Christian Doctrine be necessarily calculated to give
erroneous views of Divine Revelation, and may not
therefore lawfully be used; or to speak more plainly,
and to rid ourselves of the covert of ambiguous
phrases, whether or no Holy Scripture and Catholic
Tradition be or be not actually joint authorities
in the matter of Christian Doctrine. Now I
gTant that under the name of Catholic Tradition,
very serious corruptions of the Faith have been
introduced from time to time into the Church,
most injurious to its purity, and hostile to its
unity and peace; and amongst the many evils re-

44
suiting therefrom, not the least has been the pretext
which has been given hereby to undervalue the true
use, and disparage the authority, of genuine Catholic
Tradition. Granted, as it is most fully to be granted,
that the authority of Holy Scripture and Catholic
Tradition are not of the same kind, that Catholic
Tradition is in such wise not independent of Scripture
as that it may be referred to it as its supreme and
ultimate judge, and is to be controlled and hmited by
it, yet this does not in the least interfere, nor is
inconsistent with the appointed use and office of
Catholic Tradition, as the authoritative guide and
interpreter of Holy Scripture. Accordingly it is
quite out of place to object as is often done in
questions of this nature, and that in a tone of great
exaggeration, the mistakes or pecuharities of indi
vidual Fathers, or instances of their disagreement
with one another, and the like ; let them even be
allowed to exist to the full extent of the objection,
yet does this avail nothing against the force and
authority of CathoUc Tradition, properly so called,
which is a question not of opinion, but of fact, into
which every Doctrine of the Faith to which they
bear consentient testimony may be resolved. We
appeal to them not as individual writers, and separate
authorities, but as common witnesses to that which
came within their observation, on which they could
neither be deceived themselves, nor could have any
conceivable inducement or power (if their holy
lives and the constancy of many of them unto death

45
did not render such a supposition absolutely im
possible,) to deceive others. The conditions then of
Catholic Tradition are not variable, but according
to the well known Canon of Vincentius Lirinensis are
Antiquity, Universality, Consent. Whatsoever does
not satisfy these conditions, with whatever subordi
nate authority it may be invested, and as a practical
guide, it may of course be of very high authority, does
not come before us with the signatures of Catholic
Tradition, in the proper sense of the term. What
soever does satisfy them we believe to have been
derived from the Apostles, and to be binding on us
both because it is so witnessed, and because, as is
the case with every such Tradition in points of
necessary Faith, it is coincident with, and may be
proved by the written Word. Let this then be borne
in mind throughout the following enquiry, that by
joint authorities is not meant (as neither does the
term itself of course imply) independent, or coordi
nate, or equal authorit'ies, that it is fully admitted
that the authority of Catholic Tradition, though
fu-st in order of time, and in relation to him to whom
it is delivered is subordinate to, and may be ultimately
resolved into, the supreme authority of Holy Scrip
ture. If for example we were to speak of an am
bassador's instructions as authoritative, no one would
suppose that we therefore denied that his powers
were delegated to him by his sovereign, in whom was
the original and fountain of power, but that as they
issued fi-om his will, they were to be limited by it ;

46
yet within that limit his v^ords and actions are without
doubt authoritative in every true sense of the term :
and just so with the Holy Church, her office and
teaching are recognised and bounded by Holy
Scripture, nor is her authority less truly authority
because it is not primary and independent, but
derivative and subject to control.
But now, after tliis explanation which the extreme
prejudices which surround us on all sides, seemed to
render necessai-y, if we examine the question before us
historically, and as a matter of fact, nothing can be
more certain than that for some time before the canon
of Scripture was fixed, Apostolical or Catholic tradition
was not only an authority, but the only authority in the
matter of Christian doctrine. It is not miusual to hear
persons amongst us talk as if the Bible in its present
form, and even in our own ti-anslation of it, were a
treasure entrusted to the Church at its very first in
stitution, designed to convey systematic teaching on
all points of Christian faith, as well as to provide the
adequate proof for them, and bearing the undoubted
marks, and signatures, and sanctions of its own exclu
sive authority, and genuineness, and authenticity. It
need scarcely be said, that any such view of it is abso
lutely inconsistent, no less with the circumstances of
the case, than with the contents and declarations of
Holy Scripture itself. Open the New Testament, and
say where is there the least mtimation that it was de
signed to be the teacher, much less the sole authori-
tative teacher, of Christian truth. Of the four Gospels

47
we know from the express historical testimony of
Eusebiusa, that St. Mai-k wrote his Gospel at the
earnest request of the Christians at Rome, who wished
to have in writing the same doctrine they had heard
with such dehght from St. Peter, and that that Apostle
afterwards, through the inspiration of the Spirit, con
firmed it for the use of the Churches. St. Luke's
Gospel is addressed to one Theophilus, with the ex
press purpose of shewing him the cei-tainty of the
things in which he had been previously instructed —
catechised. St. Irenaeus and St. Jerome"^ inform us,
that St. John wrote his Gospel with an especial refer
ence to the heresies of Cerinthus and Ebion, and
others, which necessarily implies at once a previous
instruction in, and some famiharity with, the faith which
there had been time for them to corrupt so grievously.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we have con
stant allusions to the teaching of the several Apostles
in their journey to and fi-o to plant, and establish, and
confirm the Churches, but notoriously we have there
no detailed account of the substance, and still less of
the form, of the teaching which they so communicated
to then- converts. When we come to the Epistles, we
find that they invariably suppose and imply the pre
vious instruction of those to whom they are addressed
in the Christian faith. They are written " to the
beloved of God," called to be saints, " to the elect
in Christ Jesus," " to the Churches of God at
" Hist. Eccles. ii. 15.
'' Iren. iii. 11. Hieion. Catal. Scr. Eccles. in Joan.

48
Corinth," "of Galatia," "to the Bishops and Deacons
as well as saints at Philippi," " to those who have
obtained like precious faith ^" And they continually
recognise in express terms the existence of some
Apostolical Tradition, as when St. Paul to the Gala
tians says, " Though we or an Angel from Heaven
preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed'^;" and to
the Thessalonians, " Hold fast the traditions which ye
have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle";"
and when they are commanded to " withdraw them
selves from every brother that walked disorderly, and
not after the tradition which he had received of him '."
Timothyis commanded to "hold fast the form of sound
words which he had heard" of St. Paul, to " keep the
good thing which had been committed to him," "to his
trust," and to make provision by the ordination of
others in the Church of Ephesus for the perpetuation
and transmission of this deposit^. In the same way
St. Peter declares the purpose of both his Epistles
to be, " to stir up the pm-e minds of those to whom he
wrote by way of remembrance, that they might be
mindful of the words which were spoken before by
the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the
Apostles of the Lord and Saviour '';" and St. John
enjoins, " Let that abide in you which ye have heard
•= Rom. i. 7. I Cor. i. 2. Gal. i. 2. Ephes. i. 1. Phil. i. 1.
Col. i. 2. 1 Thess. i. 1. 1 Pet. i. 1. ¦= Gal. i. 8.
' 2 Thess. ii. 16. ' 2 Thess. iii. 6. ' I Tim. vi. 20.
2 Tim. i. 13, 14. and ii. 2. '' 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2.

49
from the beginning. If that which ye have heard
fi-om the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall
continue in the Son and in the Father ''." Accordingly
in agreement with these notices of Holy Scripture, we
know that the Catechumens in the early Church
were instructed in the Creeds of their respective
Churches previously to their admission to Holy
Baptism ; that these Creeds, which were throughout
the Church in the East and West identical in sub
stance, called the rule of faith, the canon and rule of
truth, are spoken of by the Primitive Fathers as of
Apostohcal Tradition, by which all that professed to
be of the Faith was itself tried, and which was
of course of direct authority. Thus St. Irenseus
speaks of the " Church though scattered through
out the whole world having received from the
Apostles and their disciples the faith which
is in God the Father Almighty, who made heaven
and earth, the sea and all things that are therein;
and in Jesus Christ the Son of God Incarnate for
our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who by the
Prophets preached the dispensations and the advent
and the birth from the Virgin, and the passion and
the resurrection from the dead and the ascension in
the flesh into heaven of Jesus Christ om- Lord, and
His coming from heaven in the glory of the Father
'' 1 John ii. 24. This accomits too for the incidental introduction
of the great truths of the Gospel in the Epistle, as of the Hu
miliation, and Mediation of Christ. Phil. ii. 5 — 8. 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6.
spoken of in connection veith the grace of humility in the first
instance, and the duty of prayer in the other.
E

50
to gather together all things in one, and to raise all
the flesh of mankind." This faith, he says, " the
Church though scattered through the whole worid
guardeth diligently, as dwelling in one house, and
believeth it as having one mind and one heart, and
harmoniously proclaimeth, teacheth, and delivereth
it as possessing one mouth'." And in like manner
TertuUian, speaking of a similar creed, says, " This rule
ordained by Christ hath no questions but such as
heresies bring in, and such as make heretics"'." And
thus St. Irenaeus tells us of " certain barbarous nations
having salvation written without pen and ink by the
Spirit in their hearts, and preserving carefully the
ancient tradition;" to whom he says "if any one
speaking in their own language were to preach those
things which have been lately invented by the heretics,
they would at once stop their eai-s and flee far away,
not enduring even to listen to their blasphemous
ordinances °." And this Creed thus received from the
Apostles the Church has preserved substantially the
same in all ages, developing it only and throwing up
such bulwarks and defences from time to time as the
craft and subtlety of the heretics rendered necessary;
exacting- the belief and confession of it as her term of
Communion, and enforcing it authoritatively upon all
her members, appealing- to Holy Scripture as she may
well do against the gainsayer for the proof of it, and
making- offer to establish it therefrom ; but to her chil
dren superseding, as a privilege surely not a burden or
' Lib. i. c. 2. '" de Piae.'?. adv. Haeres. c. xiii. " c. iii. 4.

51
a hardship to them, the necessity of private judgment
altogether. And this we must allow at least as
matter of fact to be the order in which we severally
inherited the faith of the Church. It was imposed
upon us, and we took it on trust; we were prejudiced
by the whole force of our education in favour of
it; were not left, as is absurdly said, to gather it out
of Holy Scripture for ourselves, have probably never
felt that we were obliged or needed to prove it thereby;
for though Holy Scripture is the foundation of the
Creed, and om- Article says it is to be received and
believed for that it may be proved by most certain
warrants of it, yet this does not imply that it is not
to all men for a great part of their lives at least, and
to by far the greatest part of men all their lives, an
authority irrespective of their belief in Holy Scripture.
I. The Baptismal Creed then of all Churches
would seem to be, and in all ages to have been, one
instance of a Catholic authoritative tradition.
II. Again : It is well known how in the (Ecumeni
cal Councils (confining ourselves to those which
the Church of England recognises as such) the
Fathers assembled on these occasions proceeded to
the settlement of the points in question, not by
proofs drawn principally and directly from Holy
Scripture, for the question generally was as to the
interpretation of Scripture; the heretics, as Arius
especially at Nicaea, pretending to ground their errors
upon it; but by a collection of the testimony of the
assembled Bishops as the representatives of the
E 2

52
Church universal. They gave their voices not as
authorities, but as witnesses, and thus under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost one certain, definite
interpretation of Holy Scripture was fixed as the
true Catholic faith against those who would pervert it
to the support of their pernicious heresies. Here then
this historical testimony, from sources so various and
so independent of each other, whose agreement can
only be accounted for on the supposition of the
apostohcal origin of that to which they bore
testimony; this developement of Holy Scripture,
as one and the same throughout the whole
Church, is surely another instance of the authority
of Catholic tradition; an authority wMch besides its
claims on our hearts as members of Christ's mystical
Body, rests on the same grounds of reason as the
validity of testimony of whatever kind, which we
cannot therefore enervate or deny without endangering
the whole fabric of Revealed Rehgion. And here let it
not be objected that the Church of England speaks of
the liability of General Councils to error. For at
least as regards those Councils whose authority
she recognises, she attests that they have not actually
erred. III. Again : Whereby, but by the authority of
Catholic tradition or the testimony of the Church can
the Canon of Scripture be established, or by what but
the same authority the principle which the sixth
Article of our Church enunciates that " Holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.

53
so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be
proved thereby is not to be required of any man
that it should be believed as an article of the Faith,
or be thought requisite or necessary to salvatioii?"
for we do not maintain it on the gi-ound of any
deductions of our own reason or antecedent
probabilities, as, for instance, that it could not be
conceived that God would have left his Revelation or
any portion of it to be handed down from age to age
by so uncertain and precarious an instrument as oral
tradition ; for, as Bishop Butler argues °, we are in no sort
judges of what it was fitting that God should do in
such a matter, nor of the purposes he might design
to fulfil by any revelation he might make to us of
Himself. But as for the establishment of the Canon
of Scriptm-e, and of its peculiar, immediate inspiration,
we have recourse to the historical testimony of the
Universal Church fi-om the first, in other words, to
the authority of Catholic Tradition; so does the same
consent assure us that Holy Scriptm-e is a complete
and perfect rule of faith, not in any such sense as
that of excluding the dogmatic, authoritative teaching
of the Church, and it's claims to the submission of
her children, but as being the record of all saving
truth; the standard and ultimate appeal to which
every doctrine that professes to be of the essence of the
faith may be brought for confirmation of it's truth.
It has been so ordered by Divine Providence as a
matter of fact, however little the circumstances under
which the New Testament was written would have
" Analogy, p. ii. c. iii.

64
made it probable, from the several books of it being
composed for special occasions, to meet specific
wants, to obviate particular irregularities and dis
orders, and despite of it's utterly undidactic, unsys
tematic form and structure ; and this fact bears the
attestation of Catholic Tradition.
And these instances must now suffice ; for to
speak of the authority of Catholic Tradition in refer
ence to the Divine right and institution of Episco
pacy, of the Lord's day, or of Infant Baptism, and the
like, may be considered as not altogether relevant to
the present question, which is concerned strictly only
with matters of Christian Doctrine.
Let us now turn then to the consideration of
another branch of our subject, the testimony borne
by the Church of England to the principles of the
authority of Catholic Tradition.
Now it is undeniable, whatever instances of violation
of their own principle may be brought against them, that
the Reformers did profess to adhere to the authority of
the primitive and Catholic Church; it maybe objected
against them, that they acted at all events very incon
sistently with this professed adherence; with that we
have nothing to do here ; but that they did constantly
assert that the principle on which the Reformation
in this country was conducted, was a reference and
return to Catholic Truth when it had been overlaid
with what they considered to be the corruptions of
later innovations, cannot be denied. And no one,
however imperfectly acquainted with the writings of
our Divines of the seventeenth century, but must

55
know that they continually recognise and enforce,
and apply to the judgment of the existing contro
versies of their day the testimony of the Universal
Church, the triple test of truth, antiquity, univer
sality, and consent. And this is so notoriously a
principle of our Church, that it is now and has been
in times past a matter of unmeasured complaint, on
the part of those who deny the doctrines of the
Church, no less than of thankfulness to those who
maintain them. Thus the sceptical Middleton in
his Free Enquiry says, " Though this doctrine of the
sufficiency of the Scriptures be generally professed
through all the Reformed Churches, yet it has hap
pened I know not how in our own that it's divines
have been apt on all occasions to join the authority
of the primitive Church to that of sacred writ, and
supply doctrines from the ancient Councils on which
the Scriptures are either silent, or thought defective,
to add the holy Fathers to the college of the Apo
stles, and by ascribing the same gifts and powers to
them both, to advance the primitive traditions to a
parity with Apostolic precepts^"
And thus in the Preface to the Ordination Service
the Church of England refers us to the witness of
the ancient authors from the times of the Apostles
(in other words to the authority of Catholic Tradition)
for the threefold Institution of the Christian Ministi-y,
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and in the Canon
" Free Enquiry, Introd. p. 98. quoted by Palmer on the Church,
vol. ii. p. iii. c. 3. p. 61. note o.

56
of 1671, Preachers ai-e required not " to teach any
thing from the pulpit to be religiously held and be
lieved by the people but what is agreeable to the
doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and collected
out of that very Doctrine by the Catholic Fathers
and ancient Bishops." Again, in the Article which is
so perseveringly quoted in disparagement of the au
thority of Catholic Tradition, the recognition of the
principle is most clearly implied. In the first place
the words " is not to be required of any man to be
believed," " is not to be thought necessary or requisite
to salvation," supposes of necessity some superior,
some authority which has the power to require,
which we learn from the twentieth Article to be the
Church, the inheritor and transmitter of Catholic
Tradition ; and so for the establishment of the Canon
of Holy Scripture there is reference again made to the
same Tradition. " In the name of the Holy Scrip
ture we understand those Canonical Books of the
Old and New Testament, of whose authority was
never any doubt in the Church." Again. There is
another Article expressly on the authority of the
Chm-ch which is declared to have power not " only to
decree rites and ceremonies, but to have authority
in controversies of faith," and the limits of this
authority are asserted to be precisely the same
by which the authority of Catholic tradition is said
to be limited, " that it is not to ordain any thing
against God's Word written, nor so expound one
place of Scripture as that it be repugnant to another."

57
Accordingly whilst on the one hand the Church is
said to be " a witness and keeper of holy writ," yet on
the other " she ought not to decree any thing against
the same, nor besides the same to enforce any thing
to be believed for necessity of salvation."
But the place which the Athanasian Creed holds in
our Church Offices puts the matter beyond all doubt.
It does seem quite inconceivable how any man can
repeat it, and pronounce its concluding anathema, to
those who deny the faith contained in it, and yet refuse
his assent to the principle of the authority of Catholic
Tradition. The Creed begins with a declai-ation of
the necessity before all things of holding the Catholic
Faith ; it goes on to explain and develope what this
Catholic Faith is, which though it may be proved from
Scripture, no one can pretend is on the surface of it,
or unfolded therein in the form of this ancient and
blessed confession : it says we are forbidden by the
Catholic religion, which it makes equivalent and one
with the Christian verity, to say there be three Gods,
and three Lords, &c. Surely that only can forbid
which has authority to command.
We have seen then that the Creeds all of them
developed out of the original Baptismal Creed derived
from the Apostles, and adopted by the Universal
Church; all definitions of CEcumenical Councils;
the attestations by consent to the Canonicity, In
spiration, and Sufficiency of Holy Scripture ; divers
Catholic rites and usages, and as might of course be
added, consentient expositions of texts of Scripture

58
and principles, and rules for it's interpretation — these
at least have an undoubted authority, distinct from,
yet not exclusive, or independent of the authority of
Holy Scripture. Tradition teaches, systematizes,
developes, those truths which Holy Scripture
contains, establishes, and confirms. So that the
statement of our Church, that " Holy Scripture con
tains all things necessary to salvation," does not
mean that it can possibly be the duty, much
less as is often proudly and profanely said, the right
of every man to go to Scripture to gather out his
system of opinion for himself, to receive no doctrine,
to believe no truth, but what he sees to be declared
therein, does not mean that we are to address ourselves
to the study of it with minds, as it is said, unprejudiced;
for this as a matter of fact cannot be ; if we are not
prejudiced on the side of truth, we are prejudiced on
the side of error, and the end of all lawful authority
and of all right education, whether by the Church or
by those who m the providence of God are set over
us to guide us, is to bias and prepossess us on the
side of what is right and true. The authority which
we know to be inherent in and which we gladly yield
to parents or elders, to those who are better and wiser
than ourselves in matters of this world, we dare not
deny to the Holy Church, the antitype and fulfilment
of all earthly relationships, the treasure-house and
depository of the Catholic Tradition, and the witness
and keeper of Holy Writ. Her office is by her Divine
institution to witness to, and proclaim, and guard the

59
Faith ; She is the pillar and ground, the firm stay
of the Truth; the instructress and salt of the nations,
it is for this end that such transcendent gifts are
promised her in the words of prophecy, " As for me,
this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord. My
Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have
put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the
mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from hence
forth and for ever"." It is to this end that she is
inhabited by God's Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Wisdom
and Truth, to this end that her Apostolic Ministry
and Sacramental gifts were bestowed on and are con
tinued to her; " for the perfecting of the Saints, for
the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body
of Christ, till we all come in the Unity of the Faith
and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a
perfect man°." In our own Church we receive at
least and profess as the condition of Communion the
three Creeds of the Church Universal; and this on
none other than the authority of the Church, which
witnesses, confirms, and transmits them to us. True,
the ultimate appeal even as regards these may lie to
Holy Scripture, for they may be proved by most
certain warrants of it, but it is the evidence of as
weak a reason, as faith, to infer from hence that we
must not rest upon them till we have proved them
for ourselves; and to boast that it is our privilege to
" Isa. lix. 21. ° Ephes. iv. 12, 13.

60
reopen in fact questions which have been settled by the
Universal Church, and incorporated from the earliest
times into her sacred system of Faith and ritual of De
votion. The Church as standing to each one of us as
his divinely appointed instructor demands as the con
dition of her disciple's improvement, a submission to
her teaching, and an undoubting deference for a time
at least to her authority; and as with regard to om-
earthly teachers, education supplies the place of
motives to us, and anticipates and renders needless
the efforts of reason, and we must act in a measure
blindly and in faith; so is it here, and provided only
that we be true children, we shall surely come to
justify Divine Wisdom in all His appointments in
proportion to our docility and humbleness of mind ;
and, on the other hand, to reject or be impatient of
this authoritative guidance argues extreme wilfulness,
as though in practical matters we were to think we
had a right to gainsay and examine those indemon
strable sayings, and maxims, which are the accumu
lation, and result of the wisdom and experience of all
past ages, or as if in subjects of natm-al philosophy,
we were to go to build up our own hypotheses, re
fusing the large inductions and generalizations of
those who have gone before us, and laboured in the
same pursuit. But " the children of this world are
in their generation wiser than the children of light."
If then the rejection of the authority of Catholic
Tradition, as determining and bringing out the
sense of Holy Scripture, (for it is in this view that the

61
subject has been now considered,) hung together
as a consistent theory, mstead of being involved as it is
in endless contradictions, opposed to the constitution
of human nature, and contrary to the whole analogy of
the providential system, in which man finds himself
placed; if it could be reconciled with the external
facts of history, and with the constitution of the
Church, instead of being as it is plainly contradicted by
them, yet even then the deplorable consequences which
have resulted from it, might well make every serious
person pause before he committed himself to a prin
ciple so fhiitful of evil as this has ever been. It
amounts in fact practically to a rejection of Revela
tion itself, and in the course of ages, when the
principle has had time, and scope to work out its
real developement, in the history of a school or party,
will end in the denial or disbelief of it. Germany
and Switzerland, where once the sole authority of the
Scriptures was proclaimed so loudly, are now become
the seats of a desolating unbelief, and a rationalism
which was contented first to exercise itself in the
interpretation of Holy Scripture, has now fastened
itself upon its text; just as in ancient times, as St.
Irenaeus tells us, the Gnostics who began by asserting
the falsehood and adulteration of the Catholic Tradi
tions, came when convicted out of Scripture to the
accusation of Scripture itself. Nor do our own
times or country fail to furnish us with melancholy
examples enough of the fatal effects of this pre-
p Iren. iii. 3.

62
sumptuous private spirit. The almost endless multi'
plications of sects and schisms around us day by day,
reproducing one another in more and more fantastic
forms, what are they but warnings to us not to forsake
nor treat lightly the divinely appointed guardian
of the Faith, " the rich depository of Apostolic
truth'';" and what will they be but too likely to
lead too, in proportion as men learn to throw off
the few restraints which yet remain to them, as the
age of lawlessness (as it is to be feared) advances,
but to a general scepticism as to Revelation alto
gether; for when men see that instead of an exclu
sive, dogmatic, one only faith, claiming submission
on the ground of its Apostolic descent, and en
forcing obedience by the authority which unity
commands. Revelation is made to assume the ten
thousand forms of the almost endless varieties of the
mind, that contemplates and criticises it, when the
question which (as has been well said) human
nature and human philosophy have been asking
as if in vain, " What is truth?" seems still as far
from being resolved as ever; and truth seems still
a pilgrim on the earth, divided peacemeal among
the countless systems of human thought, and opinion,
and philosophy, and enshrined in no one sacred home;
men will not be long in throwing aside all reverence
for the record, as they have done already for the guide
of faith, for a small and easy step in truth it is
to the rejection of all Revelation, from the rejection
1 Iren. iii 4.

63
of it's definite and ascertainable interpretation. But
for ourselves authority of some kind or other we must
have, human nature craves for it, despite of all theories,
it cannot stand alone. It is not then a question whether
we will interpret Holy Scripture with or without a rule,
but whether that rule shall be Catholic and Divine,
or private and human Tradition. By the exaltation
of the latter above the former have arisen all the
corruptions by which the truth from time to time
has been overlaid and obscured; by adherence to the
former, we may hope to read Holy Scripture by the
light which has been shed around it from Heaven,
in the harmonious use of the Divinely appointed
instruments of teaching and learning the one Truth.
Authority then, exclusiveness, dogmatism of some
kind or another we must have, our very enemies being
judges, for what does the history of Latitudinarianism
even, along the whole line of the Church's history
teach us as it pursues its bad, wild com-se? In
terms it rejects faith, and substitutes opinion for it,
but see it in its actual operation, and in power, and
verily there is no more spiteful, crushing tyranny
than the dogmatism of self-will.
To conclude. Whilst on the one hand in claiming
authority for Catholic Tradition, one is not denying
but confirming the supreme authority of Holy
Scripture, on the other hand to deny the authority
of any truly Catholic Tradition, is to shake the very
foundations of the revealed faith; for, to adopt the
words of a living writer, " If proofs like these, (he

64
had been speaking of the attestation of the Church
to its own belief,) if proofs like these be rejected
on the ground of the uncertainty of all human
testimony, then there can be no certainty of any of
the facts of history, and we are reduced to believe
only facts which have come under the cognizance
of our own senses. If the testimony of the early
Christian writers in this question of fact be rejected,
the extei-nal evidences of Christianity are subverted.
The authenticity of primitive Tradition and its
records, of Scripture and its doctrines, and of
Christianity as a revelation, stand or fall together.
It is not the defence of any particular doctrine which
is involved in the question of the credibility of
Tradition, the whole fabric of Christianity is vitally
connected with it'."
' Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. p. iii. c. iii. p. 48.

THE END.

BAXTER, PRiNTEB, OXFORD.

3 9002 08837 0177

it*' J, .
>'i, it

' LJ

m