HE was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, HE brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of ME. After the same manner also HE took the cup, when HE had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of ME. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the LORD's death till he come."-1 Cor. xi. 23-26.

Now, from these accounts of the institution of the holy eucharist, which are all that exist in holy scripture, we find the following particulars-(1) that our Lord gave thanks; (2) that he blessed the bread; (3) that he broke it; (4) that he gave it to his disciples; (5) that he declared it to be his body; (6) that he took the cup and gave thanks; (7) that he gave it to his disciples; (8) that he declared it to be the cup of his blood. But we do not find any ritual prescribed. We are told that he gave thanks, and that he blessed; but of his thanksgiving and his blessing not one word is recorded. Two of the evangelists omit all direction to the disciples to continue the celebration of the holy eucharist; and St. Luke does not apply the direction to the cup; St. Paul alone declares the command of commemoration fully. The words, "Take, eat," &c., are addressed, not to celebrators, but to communicants; they only instruct persons what they are to receive, and to what use they are to apply it, but give no instruction whatever to persons as to anything previous to receiving. And so, to use Dr. Brett's words, "Forasmuch as the scriptures have not taught us with what words either Christ or his apostles did bless the eucharistic elements, and forasmuch as his blessing of them was part of the consecration, it is evident that the scriptures have not taught us the whole form of consecrating the eucharist."

The Warden, therefore, having hemmed himself in, by the difficulty of making his rule tally with the rule of the church of England (of which I am to speak shortly) is, I think, forced into the following

statements:

"This do in remembrance of me' was our Lord's parting command. The words are at once clear and pregnant with meaning. We are to approach the holy table with hearts warmed with the remembrance of him-that is to say, with recollections of our own originally lost nature; of all that we have done and thought amiss; of our wanderings, our rebellions, our worldliness, our ingratitude; and we are to set this consciousness of our own total want of desert against all that he has done and suffered for us. We are, by eating and drinking the visible representations of that holy body and blood which was sacrificed for us, to awaken our feelings of humble gratitude, and to learn and strive, as far as our human nature will permit, to assimilate ourselves to him who put on himself the form of men for our sakes, and to run our course as regenerate beings, redeemed by that act of mercy from the dominion of sin. Now, can we seriously assert that obedience to a command imposing upon us this course of holy duty is inadequate to the wants of our spiritual constitution, or unworthy of him from whom we received it?"-(pp. 123, 124.)

These venerable words are, no doubt, clear, and pregnant with meaning. I suppose that the Warden understands what I have now quoted to be their meaning. If so, I reply, taking his own ground, that there is no such interpretation of them in holy scripture; and

* Dissertation on Liturgies, p. 19, ed. 1720.

that, however fairly what he states might be inferred from them, yet he has no right to demand the acquiescence of any one in his view. But clear and pregnant with meaning as they are,—say with the meaning which the Warden has interpreted them to have,-why has he chosen them for remark out of the words of institution, when he had previously asked, and left unanswered, these more searching questions?

"What, then, it may be asked, is the blessed eucharist after all?—a mere commemorative ceremony, involving no special mystery, and conveying no spiritual grace? Are the bread and wine after consecration still mere bread and wine, unchanged in their nature, and endued with no special sanctity?"—(p. 122.)

The other part of the words of institution would have furnished answers to these unanswered questions. I am at a loss also to understand the meaning of the question of the Warden beginning, "now, can we seriously assert that obedience," &c. Who asserts that obedience is inadequate to the wants of our spiritual constitution? Obedience, in relation to the holy eucharist, seems to be, so to speak, one remove off from being in the position of adequacy or inadequacy to the wants of our spiritual constitution. By obeying the command, we ensure to ourselves the reception of that heavenly food which is given and received in the holy eucharist; but it is the holy communion itself which is adequate to the wants of our spiritual constitution; not the obedience by which instrumentally we put ourselves within reach of that inestimable channel of blessing. And, I now ask, do the persons whose opinions the Warden is combating "seriously assert that" holy communion "is inadequate to the wants of our spiritual constitution"?

I believe I am doing the Warden no injustice in saying, that from the statements which I have now quoted, and from all others in relation to the eucharist in his book, I can collect only the notion of a commemoration; for his declaration (p. 123) " that if we perform it according to the instructions which we have received [I think it appears that we have received none] from Him, the divine grace annexed to this act of solemn duty and worship will inevitably follow," does not at all make the consequence necessary that divine grace is conveyed in and by holy communion. Now, commemoration is truly said to be a part, and that not an accidental but an essential part, of the holy eucharist; but to represent the holy eucharist as only a commemorative rite or ceremony is as imperfect an account of it as it would be, on the other hand, to represent it as an uncommemorative sacrament. And so, it seems to me, the Warden has been forced into Zuinglianism. But further, in relation to ritual. The Warden asserts the complete sufficiency of the "range of scripture" to enable us to "perform" the holy eucharist "according to the instructions we have received from Him." I ask, what and where are they? The Warden does not attempt to give an account of them; and waives the topic of celebration altogether. Surely his uninformed, and therefore anxious, readers, have a right to learn, from the same writer who is disabusing their minds of error, what is truth. They have a right to learn from him, what is essential to making a holy communion; in what the household

articles of food differ from the sacred elements which are seen upon the holy table; whether there is any necessity, or none, for the solemn communion office, in the use of which the whole Christian world was unanimous for 1500 years, and is still unanimous, with the exception of an insignificant section of protestants; and whether, therefore, the church of England has or has not, in all time of her existence, been superadding to that which the Lord enjoined as needful and complete, and of which therefore any essential alteration, and to which any essential addition, must be sacrilegious-the inventions of men. And so, again, it seems to me, the Warden has been forced into an over-statement in regard to holy scripture, and a very great disparagement of the holy catholic church in general, and the church of England in particular. 3. The effects of the same rule which the Warden has adopted upon certain societies of persons calling themselves Christians, are worth our especial attention. The members of the church of England who have heartily embraced the Warden's rule are exceedingly inconsistent; but the presbyterians, independents, and the several sects who may be rated under those denominations, are, at all events, consistent with themselves, and keep their views and practice in harmony. They go to holy scripture with their rule, and finding only what has been quoted to direct them, say at once that all set liturgy must be of human invention, and will use none. They find, too, that the apostles received sitting, or, however, not standing nor kneeling; and accordingly they sit to receive their bread and wine. I confess I do not see how it is possible to refute their presumptuous follies, with the Warden's rule admitted on all hands. Their conclusion from it is, I think, the only conclusion at which it is possible to arrive, if we will do it and ourselves justice. I blame them, not for professing to hold one rule of faith and interpretation, and acting upon another, but for holding and acting upon one which is utterly insufficient for the purposes of Christianity.

4. The rule of faith and interpretation in the church of England seems to me to differ as widely from that stated by the Warden as is possible. The sixth article, which has been so much misrepresented, says that "holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, (neque inde probari potest, in the Latin) is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

These articles were passed by convocation, and became in force in 1562. In 1571 were passed by convocation "certi quidam articuli de sacro ministerio et procuratione ecclesiarum;" of which the sixth is headed "Concionatores," and contains this injunction" Imprimis vero videbunt [concionatores], ne quid usquam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiosè teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinæ veteris aut Novi Testamenti, quosque ex illâ doctrinâ catholici patres et veteres episcopi collegerint."*

Both the articles of 1562 and of 1571 were made under the

* Bishop Sparrow's Collection, p. 236, ed. 1684.

VOL. XV.-Jan. 1839.

F

primacy of Archbishop Parker; and probably a large number of the members of convocation who passed those of 1562 joined also in passing those of 1571. Not only, therefore, are we bound by the provisions of the articles of 1571, but we get from them, according to their subjectmatter, the mind of the convocation of that day, as to the meaning of those of 1562, which (by virtue of the remainder of the article "concionatores") we subscribe. And I think that, taking the sixth article, and the part of the article "concionatores" which I have quoted, together, we obtain the full decision of the church of England, as to the use of holy scripture. Whatever, therefore, is to be held de fide, must either be read in scripture expressly, or must be capable of proof by it-i.e., able to bear the test of it. And the test is not to be applied by any one at his pleasure, not even by a duly commissioned preacher; but even he is only to teach what is in agreement with the teaching (i.e., the expressed teaching) of the Old or New Testament, and specifically what the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected out of that very teaching.

But further, the church of England distinctly recognises traditions by name in the thirty-fourth article, headed "The Traditions of the Church;" and says of them, that

"Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church, which be not repugnant to the Word of GOD, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly."

So that we find the church of England teaching, (1) interpretation of holy scripture by catholic antiquity; and (2) the reception of traditions not drawn out of holy scripture, provided they are not repugnant to it. And in regard to the holy eucharist, she has followed her own rule exactly. Your readers do not need to be informed that, with certain alterations, (the merit of which is not my present business to discuss,) we have the identical liturgical canon which the holy catholic church in all ages has used. Of this canon though many expressions are scriptural, yet the whole, as a whole, is not to be found in scripture, nor anything which could ever have occupied its place. The church of England has therefore not only declared for the reception of traditions in general, but has adopted, for example, this particular tradition of the celebration of the holy communion. And I must now, most briefly, state the grounds on which she is justified in so doing; or rather, on which she would have been convicted of apostasy if she had failed so to do. I put first the fact, that the Lord and his apostles (as says St. Paul, "the cup of blessing which we bless") gave thanks, and blessed the eucharistic elements. Secondly, that in holy scripture there is no account of what this thanksgiving and blessing was. Thirdly, that in the ancient liturgies there is a full arrangement of thanksgiving and blessing, in perfect harmony with the scripture accounts of the institution. Fourthly, that the canon, in which all the liturgies are agreed, is apostolical; that is to say, the rite ordained by the divine authority of the apostles, who derived it from the Lord Jesus Christ.

For the proof of this last statement—which the church of England

has shewn, by her practice, that she assumes to be true-I refer your readers to Dr. Brett's Dissertation on the Liturgies, which is just republished, and to Johnson's "Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unveiled and Supported." And before quitting this topic, I will give the quotation from S. Justin Martyr which I promised in my first letter. I give it to shew that, about fifty years after S. John, there was a well known long eucharistic service; which, however, S. Justin Martyr carefully abstains from detailing.

"Prayers being over, we salute each other with a kiss. After this, bread and a cup of water, and mixed wine, are brought to the president, or bishop, which he takes, and offers up praise and glory to the FATHER, through the name of the SoN and the HOLY GHOST. And this thanksgiving to Gon, for vouchsafing us worthy of these his creatures, is a prayer of more than ordinary length. When the bishop has finished the prayers and the eucharistic service, all the people conclude with an audible voice, saying, Amen...... This food we call the eucharist, of which none are allowed to be partakers but such only as are true believers, and have been baptized in the laver of regeneration for the remission of sins, and live according to CHRIST'S precepts; for we do not take this as common bread, and common drink; but as JESUS CHRIST Our SAVIOUR was made flesh by the word of God, and had real flesh and blood for salvation, so are we taught that this food, which the very same word blessed by prayer and thanksgiving, is turned into the nourishment and substance of our flesh and blood, and is the flesh and blood of the incarnate JESUS."

I should mention that, under this head-the holy eucharist-the Warden quotes the part relating to its celebration from Justin Martyr, (on the omission of which, in the place where it was to be expected, I remarked in my first letter,) but without any hint by which the English reader would be led to suppose it was part of the same description, and for the purpose of charging Justin Martyr with being the first recorder of innovation.*

I have kept back to this place the argument for the necessity of tradition for the reception by the church of infant baptism, because I can put it very shortly, after what I have said of the rule of faith and interpretation of the church of England, in relation to the holy eucharist.

I believe it is admitted by all, that the doctrine of infant baptism is

64

And

The Warden, in a note on p. 117, says, that "altar," in the epistle of S. Ignatius, would have its meaning best rendered by our word "church," as designating a body of men held together by a common religion; and quotes, as a passage in point, that in the Epistle to the Trallians, "he that is within the altar is pure.' He gives no authority whatever for this, I believe, novel interpretation. Johnson, in his "Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar," (p. 303, ed. 1714,) says, He [S. Ignatius] speaks of one eucharist, one flesh of CHRIST, one cup, one altar, one bishop, and bids the Magnesians run to one temple, one altar, one Jesus Christ." He adds, "he that is within the altar is clean," by the altar, meaning the altar-room, the chancel. again, "He that is not within the altar, or altar-room, is deprived of the bread of GOD." And again, Johnson says (p. 309), "It is irrational to suppose that a material altar should be raised for the offering of immaterial sacrifices, such as our adversaries mean by spiritual. A table is but an indifferent convenience for offering prayer; a desk, or pulpit, much more eligible." And again (p. 313), “I cannot but reflect on the inconsistence of those pleas which have been advanced against the sacrifice. Sometimes our adversaries tell us that, the ancients declared against the altar and sacrifice; and to prove what they say, they can only produce some passages out of those writers last mentioned [Arnobius and Lactantius], wherein they do indeed seem to disown these things, to incautious readers. At other times our ad