First he uses it in his Epistle to the Ephesians : -"For if I in so short a season formed such an intimacy with your Bishop, not a human but a spiritual, how much more do I call you fortunate, who are so united to him, as the Church to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, that all things may be concordant in unity? Let no one err; unless a man be within the Altar (évròs τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου) he comes short of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one and a second has such power, how much more that of the Bishop and all the Church ?" §. 5.

"Let there be

Next, in that to the Magnesians: one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love, in that joy which is irrreprovable. There is one Jesus Christ, to whom nought is preferable; all of you then run together as to one Temple, as for one Altar, ἐπὶ ἓν θυσιαστήριον) as for One Jesus Christ, who is come forth from One Father, and returned again to One." §. 7.

Thirdly, in that to the Trallians:-"Guard against such [sectarians,] and this will be if you are not puffed up, nor separated from Jesus Christ our God, and the Bishop, and the ordinances of the Apostles. He who is within the Altar (Evròs OvσiaσTηpíov) is clear; that is, he who does any thing without Bishop, and Presbytery, and Deacon, such a one is not clean in conscience." §. 7.

Lastly, in that to the Philadelphians :-" Be

careful to use one Eucharist; for the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is one, and one Cup for the uniting of His blood; one Altar, (èv Ovσiaσtýpiov,) as one Bishop, together with the Presbytery, and Deacons my fellow-servants; that whatever ye do, ye may do after God." §. 4.

' Dr. F. maintains, that "not one" of these four passages goes to the extent of proving, that by the term altar (voiαTigov) is meant the material table at which the communicants partook of the Eucharist." p. v. Whether St. Ignatius did or did not mean in these passages to speak of the material Table, (for this is the right way of putting the question, not whether the words go to the extent of proving,) I leave confidently to the judgment of readers, being quite sure, though here and there and for awhile it may be answered in the negative, yet that the general voice of competent judges will be with me. If it be against me, I have nothing more to say. The Fathers have too long been sealed books, known to us only through the testimony of a few theologians, who have spoken according to their bias, whether right or wrong. I anticipate little difference among educated persons about their meaning, when they are read more generally. For instance, Mr. Osburn, who has lately written on the Doctrinal errors of the Fathers, says, "He (Ignatius) writes thus to the Philadelphians, There is One flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and One cup in the unity of His blood, One Altar.'" Then in a note, he continues ; Ovolaorgio, that is, place whereon a sacrifice is offered; he certainly uses it in this literal and offensive sense." p. 101. As to the opinion of Ussher, great names, we know, can be found on the side of all questions of divinity, great and small; I subjoin at the end of my pamphlet a passage from Beveridge to meet it, if we must go by names. I will but express my regret that Dr. Faussett does not produce the passages which make him say, that "the term altar, as synonymous with the Lord's Table, does not appear to have been adopted till about the end of the second century." I should have liked to have seen the very passage which to his judgment first "goes to the extent of proving that

And while the goodly list of ecclesiastical witnesses to the use of the word Altar for the Lord's Table begins as early as it can after the Apostles and Evangelists, (who use it also as I would contend, (vid. Matt. v. 23. Heb. xiii. 10.) but who are not at present under review,) it proceeds downwards, not only in an uninterrupted series, but with a sort of prerogative of usage; for it is very remarkable that, excepting one passage in a letter of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, no ecclesiastical writer at all is found to use the word "Table" till St. Athanasius in the fourth century; and what is also remarkable, when St. Athanasius uses it, he does so with the explanation, "that is, the Holy Altar;" as if he were not using a word commonly adopted. On the contrary, the word Altar is used after by the term altar is meant the Table." As I have produced mine for its being at the end of the first, I should have liked the opportunity of judging whether his passages were stronger than mine. Who knows but, on the assumption that the passages in Ignatius do not refer to the material altar, we might have pushed down that use of the term lower still? As to Dr. Faussett's interpretation of the passages in Scripture, Matt. v. 23. and Heb. xiii. 10. it is but his assertion against my assertion. I believe that in both places the word means a material altar under the Gospel; he says in the former it is the Jewish altar, in the latter a figure. Each person will decide according to his previous bias. As to the expression" within the pale of the Church,” it is figurative, but a figure taken from a literal fence round a literal building. What does Dr. F. consider the literal sense of Altar, what and where is that literal Altar, from which Ignatius's figure is taken? is he as well as our Lord referring to the Jewish Altar? Second meanings imply first.

St. Ignatius by St. Irenæus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Austin *.

The next point on which it is necessary to remark, is your saying, that the Tracts for the Times" appeal" on the subject of the Eucharist to the half-converted German Reformers," that is, to Luther, and Melancthon, "and to the strong and unguarded expressions which their works supply;" and this you call an " alarming fact." I am very glad to find we are so agreed in our judgments as to the authority of Luther and Melancthon in our Church; but I cannot allow that the Tracts do appeal to them, or wish to shelter themselves behind them. Bp. Cosin, in the Tract you refer to, certainly does quote the Lutherans, but he also quotes Calvin, Bucer, and the French Protestants; and that, in order to shew, that

"

none of the Protestant Churches doubt of the real (that is, true and not imaginary) presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament;" and he begins with the Church of England," quoting first our formularies, then the words of Bilson and Andrews. In what sense then do you mean that the writers of the Tracts appeal to the Lutherans, when, not the writers, but only Bp. Cosin in the Tracts, appeals, not to the Lutherans, but to

k Vid. Johnson Unbl. Sacr. vol. i. p.

306-9.

the whole Protestant world'? Concerning the Real Presence itself something shall be said presently; meanwhile I do not fear that any great number of Divines will identify or assimilate with Luther's the doctrine held by Hooker, Andrews, Bramhall, Cosin, Bull, Ken, and Leslie. It may be well to quote the words of the last-mentioned Divine concerning this work of Bp. Cosin, whose views you consider do not " fall much, if at all, short of what has been commonly termed Consubstantiation."

Bishop Cosin's History of Transubstantiation," he says to a Romanist, is "a little book, long printed both in English and Latin, not yet answered (that I hear), and I believe unanswerable, wherein you see a cloud of witnesses through the first ages of the Church, and so downwards, in perfect contradiction to this new article of your faith." Rome and England,

I Dr. Faussett says, "this is utterly uncandid, and must not be allowed to pass." p. ix. He goes on to say, that "the Tract," though "a treatise of Bishop Cosin's," "being adopted as a Tract, becomes from that moment, every letter of it, the avowed language of the Tract writers." I altogether protest against the idea, that a person reprinting a work, or part of a work, is answerable " for every letter of it." Next, he says, that the Tract writers appeal not only to the Lutherans but " to the whole Protestant world,” i. e. to their formal Confessions, " at a period," i. e. at the Reformation, when a belief" closely bordering on Consubstantiation was widely prevalent." It seems then that Dr. Faussett differs from the Reformers and the Protestants of the Reformation. He goes on to speak of Laud, Cosin, Bilson, Andrews, and Bramhall, as involved in the same charge. At least the Tract writers are in good company; yet Dr. F. treats them as innovators.

cr