Neither was there any Christian at that time, which did communicate alone, while others looked on.

For

so did CALIXTUs in times past decree, that "after the consecration was finished, all should communicate, except they had rather stand without the church doors. For thus," saith he, "did the Apostles appoint, and the same holy Church of Rome keepeth still."k

Moreover, when the people cometh to the holy Communion, the sacrament ought to be given them in both kinds for so both CHRIST hath commanded,' and the apostles in every place have ordained; and all the ancient fathers and catholic bishops have followed the same. And whoso doth contrary to this, "he," as GELASIUS saith,' m"committeth sacrilege." And therefore we say that our adversaries at this day, who, having violently thrust out, and quite forbidden the holy Communion, do, without the word of God, without the autho

let him be excommunicate, as a disturber of the church, and a breaker of public order.' (Canon 10.) "-Defence, p. 226.]

k" Peracta consecratione, omnes communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis cavere liminibus. Sic enim et Apostoli statuerunt, et sancta Romana tenet ecclesia." De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Peracta. [This is one of the chapters in the Canon Law, attributed in the older editions, as cited by JEWELL, to Pope CALIXTUS. But it is in reality the same with another chapter attributed to ANACLETUS, (as cited above, Note h) and JEWELL acknowledged the mistake into which he had been led by this error of GRATIAN, (the compiler of the Canon Law,) when pointed out by HARDING.

CALIXTUS I. was chosen Bishop of Rome in 218, and died in 223. The decrees in his name in the Canon Law, are, notoriously, forged.

The quotation was doubtless used by JEWELL as an argumentum ad hominem, since the pretended authority of CALIXTUS, (or ANACLETUS, a still earlier Bishop of Rome,) though of no weight with Protestants, would be irrefragable with such as acknowledged papal supremacy and infallibility.]

["Certainly these words of CHRIST, 'Drink ye all of this;' 'Do this in remembrance of me;' are very plain words of commandment and institution. Therefore CHRYSOSTOM saith, 'CHRIST both in the bread, and also in the cup, said, Do this in remembrance of me.' (in Prim. Cor. Hom. 27.) Likewise THEOPHYLACT: 'The reverend cup is in equal manner delivered unto all.' (in Prim. Cor. 11.)"-Defence, p. 229.] "Aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire." De Consecrat. Distinct. 2. Comperimus.

[GELASIUS I. was chosen Bishop of Rome in 492, and died in 496. The remark made in Note, applies equally to the use of GELASIUS' authority as to that of CALIXTUS. They were better to confute an adversary, than to establish truth,]

rity of any ancient council, without any catholic father, without any example of the primitive Church-yea, and without reason also," defend and maintain their Private Masses, and the mangling of the sacraments-and do this not only against the plain express commandment of CHRIST, but also against all antiquity-do wickedly therein, and are very church-robbers.

We affirm, that the bread and wine are the holy and heavenly mysteries of the body and blood of CHRIST, and that by them CHRIST himself, being the true "bread of eternal life," ," is so presently given unto us, as that by faith we verily receive his body and blood. Yet say we not this so, as though we thought that the nature and substance of the bread and wine is clearly changed, and goeth to nothing ;P as many have dreamed in these

[Without reason, indeed, they were; yet not without pretences of reason; for instance, the fear of spilling the wine--the danger of a drop's sticking to men's beards--the possibility of its freezing, or turning sour. The futility of these pretences (all grounded on the superstitious reverence for the elements created by belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation) proves the utter indefensibility of the practice.] . John vi. 47, 48.

P [This is the doctrine of Transubstantiation, maintained by the Church of Rome: so called from its purport--the change of substance in the elements of the Eucharist.

According to the old philosophy, there were believed to be "in every natural thing," (to use JEWELL'S own words) "two things to be considered the substance, and the accidents. For example: in bread, the material thing that feedeth us, and is changed into the blood, and nourishment of our bodies," (in modern phrase, the nutritive matter,) "is called the substance of the bread: the whiteness, roundness, thickness, sweetness, and other the like that are perceived outwardly by our senses," (the qualities, form, colour, taste, tangibility, &c.) "are called accidents."--Defence, p. 232.

Now the Romish Church maintains that the accidents of the bread and wine in the LORD's Supper (the form, colour, &c.) remain unchanged: but that the substance is annihilated, and the real body (the flesh and blood) of CHRIST given in its stead. How absurd, and contrary to every principle of true philosophy and right reason, this distinction is, it is unnecessary to point out. Such as it is, however, it is the doctrine of transubstantiation.

This doctrine was gradually introduced among the other corruptions of the Church, in the interval between the eighth and thirteenth centuries. It took its rise, most probably, in the hyperbolical language often employed, in speaking of the Eucharist, by the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Its progress was accelerated by the support which it afforded to the growing pretensions of the clergy. The wretched philosophy of the schoolmen furnished the weapons for its defence.

latter times-and yet could never agree among themselves upon their own dreams. For that was not CHRIST's meaning, that the wheaten bread should lay apart its own nature, and receive a certain new divinity; but that he might rather change us, and, to use THEOPHYLACT's words, "might transform us" into his body. For what can be said more plainly than that which AMBROSE saith: "Bread and wine remain still the same they were before; and yet are changed into another

The Council of the Lateran, held in the year 1215, by Pope Innocent III. first gave it explicit sanction, as it is now maintained; and first employed the word transubstantiation, as its name.]

[Some Romanists have held, that in the reception of the Eucharist, 'CHRIST's body passeth down into the stomach: others, that it merely 'entereth the mouth, and goeth no further:' others, that as soon as the consecrated bread is touched with the mouth, 'immediately CHRIST'S body is caught up into heaven.'

The supposition that a piece of consecrated bread (or, as they call it, from the form in which they use it, wafer) should be eaten by a mouse, has exceedingly perplexed them. Some have maintained (to repeat the assertion is almost blasphemy,) that in that case, 'the mouse would eat the body of CHRIST' others, alarmed at this consequence of their doctrine, have chosen to believe that a special miracle would take place, and that what was the body of CHRIST, would be so no more, as soon as the mouse should touch it. PETER LOMBARD, the great master of the schoolmen, after starting the question, leaves it, in his perplexity, with this only remark, "DEUS novit ;" "GOD knows."-The references are in JEWELL's Defence, p. 236, 256.]

- Ανακιρνώμενος ὥσπερ καὶ μεταςοιχέιωμενος εις αυτον.-In Joannis Cap. vi. [THEOPHYLACT, sometimes called the last of the Greek fathers, was Archbishop of Acris, the metropolis of Bulgaria, in the eleventh century. He studied at Constantinople, and became eminent for his acquaintance with the Scriptures and the early Greek fathers. His Commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, and some of the minor Prophets, are still extant, and highly esteemed and often quoted; although much of their value is derived from their close adherence to the more diffuse explications of CHRYSOSTOM.

HARDING affirmed that THEOPHYLACT had elsewhere made assertions, relative to the Eucharist, inconsistent with that here quoted. JEWELL remarks in reply: "Of THEOPHYLACT's authority, we never made any great account. He is but a very late writer, in comparison of the ancient fathers. For the most part of that he writeth, he is but an abridger of CHRYSOSTOM. He writeth against the Church of Rome, stoutly maintaining a known heresy, concerning the 'Procession of the HOLY GHOST.' Notwithstanding, in this place we allege his words to good purpose.”— Defence, p. 238.]

"Panis et vinum sunt quæ erant, et in aliud commutantur." De Sacramento. Lib. iv. c. 4. "They are changed into another thing: that is to say, they are made the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which before they were not."--Defence, p. 243.

66

thing?" or that which GELASIUS saith: "The substance of the bread, or the nature of the wine, ceaseth not to be?" or that which THEODORET saith: After the consecration, the mystical signs do not cast off their own proper nature; for they remain still in their former substance, form, and kind?" or that which AUGUSTINE saith: "That which ye see, is the bread and cup, and so our eyes do tell us; but that which your faith requireth to be taught, is this: the bread is the body of CHRIST, and the cup is his blood?" or that which ORIGEN saith:w "The bread which is sanctified by the word of

"Non desinit esse substantia panis, vel natura vini." Contra Eutychetem.

Οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυςικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας εξίςαται φύσεως. Μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας ἐσίας, καὶ του σχήματος, καὶ του ἔιδους. Dialog. II. Inconfusus. [Opp. THEODORET. ed. J. L. SCHULZE. Tom. IV. p. 126.

A similar passage occurs in Dialog. I. p. 26.

THEODORET is one of the most learned and judicious of the Greek fathers. He was chosen bishop of Cyricus, in Syria, about A. D. 420. THEODORE of Mopsuestia, celebrated for his skill in the criticism and interpretation of Scripture, and CHRYSOSTOM, were his instructers in theology. The advantage which he derived from their instructions appears plainly in his writings. These consist of an Ecclesiastical History, Commentaries and Questions on the greater part of the Bible, and treatises in confutation of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresiesopposite errors relative to the nature of the SAVIOUR, which then divided the whole Church.

THEODORET was present at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, and is thought to have died about 457.]

▾ In Sermone ad Infantes. [as quoted in the Canon Law] De Consecratione. Distinct. II. Qui Manducant. "Quod videtur, panis est, et calix, quod etiam oculi renuntiant. Quod autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus CHRISTI; calix, sanguis."--" AUGUSTINE fully expoundeth his own meaning, in what sense the bread may be called the body of CHRIST. These be his words: 'CHRISTUS levavit,' &c. 'CHRIST hath lifted up his body into heaven. from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. There is he now, sitting at the right hand of the Father. How then is the bread his body? And the cup, or what is in the cup, how is it his blood?" These, my brethren, be called sacraments, for that in them one thing is seen, and another thing is understood."-Defence, p. 254.

w Comm. in Matth. c. 15. [The translation in the text is made literally from the quotation, as it was made in JEWELL'S original Latin. HARDING having complained of that quotation as unfaithful, it is thus given in the Defence, p. 255. "Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum DEI, et per obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, &c." "The meat [food] that is sanctified by the word of GOD, and by prayer, according to that material part that is in it, passeth, &c." The sense of the passage-a sense wholly at variance with the Romish doctrine-is not altered by the difference in quotation.]

6

GOD, as touching the material substance thereof, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?" " or that which CHRIST himself said, not only after the blessing of the cup, but also after he had ministered the Communion: "I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine?” -It is well known that the fruit of the vine' is wine, and not blood.

66

And in speaking thus we mean not to abase the LORD'S Supper, or to teach that it is a cold ceremony only, and nothing to be wrought therein; as many falsely slander us, that we teach. For we affirm, that CHRIST doth truly and presently give himself wholly in his Sacraments in baptism, that we may put him on ;" and in his Supper, that we may eat him by faith and spirit, and may have everlasting life by his cross and blood. And we say not this is done slightly or coldly, but effectually and truly. For although we do not touch the body of CHRIST with teeth and mouth, yet we hold him fast, and eat him, by faith, by understanding, and by spirit.b And it is no vain faith, that comprehendeth CHRIST; neither is it received with cold devotion, that is received with understanding, faith, and spirit. For CHRIST himself altogether is so offered and given us in these mysteries, that we may certainly know we be

* Matt. xxvi. 29. z John vi. 53.

> Gal. iii. 27.

a John vi. 51.

b["We have no special regard to the bread, wine, or water; for they are creatures corruptible, as well after consecration, as they were before but we direct our faith only unto the very body and blood of CHRIST; not as being there really and fleshly present, but as sitting in heaven, at the right of God the Father. The holy father CHRYSOSTOM saith, though in general words, not speaking especially of this sacrament: The eyes of our faith, when they behold these unspeakable good things, they do not so much as mark those outward things that we see with our bodily eyes.' (In Genes. Hom. xxiv.)

"TERTULLIAN Saith: 'CHRISTUS-in causa vitæ recipiendus: devorandus auditu: ruminandus intellectu; et fide digerendus est.' 'CHRIST-must be received in cause of life: he must be eaten by hearing: must be chewed by understanding: and must be digested by faith.' (De Resurrectione.)

"ST. CYPRIAN saith: Quod est esca carni, hoc est animæ fides.' 'What meat is to the flesh, that is faith unto the soul.' (De Cœna Dom.) ST. AUGUSTINE saith: Credere in eum, hoc est manducare: illud, bibere, quid est, nisi vivere ? To believe in him, is to eat him: the drinking, what is it else, but to live by him? (in Johan. Tract. 26.)" Defence, p. 262. 266.]