The same once it is sanctified by the holy mystery, it is made and called the body of Christ. So the mystical oil, and so the wine, though they be things of little value before the benediction, yet, after their sanctification by the Spirit, they both of them work wonders. power of the word makes a priest become honourable and venerable, when he is separated from the community of the vulgar by a new benediction. For he who before was only one of the common people, is now immediately made a ruler and president, a teacher of piety, and a minister of the secret mysteries: and all these things he does without any change in his body or shape; for to all outward appearance he is the same that he was, but the change is in his invisible soul, by an invisible power and grace. Pope Leo goes one step further, and tells us, that baptism makes a change not only in the water, but in the man that receives it; for thereby Christ receives him, and he receives Christ, and he is not the same after baptism that he was before, but the body of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of him that was crucified. From all which it is easy to observe, that in all these cases, the change which they speak of is not made in the substance of the things, but in the qualities only; the water is not the blood of Christ substantially and really, but only symbolically and mystically; nor is a man changed into the flesh of Christ thereby any other way, than as he is made a living member of his mystical body, participating of that Spirit whereby he rules and governs his church, as the Head of it. So that when the ancients speak of a Divine change or transelementation (for as yet the word transubstantiation was not known) in the bread and wine in the Eucharist, they are to be interpreted, as here we do in baptism, of a change in qualities and powers, and not in substance; since all the words they used to express that change, are equally verified in the waters of baptism after consecration.”—Bingham on Consec. in Bapt. book xi. c. 10, s. 1—4. Now, after this clear and consistent testimony, what are we to say of the distinction attempted to be made by the Archdeacon ? It is manifest that it has no foundation in Scripture, and has no sanction from the writings of the early Christian Fathers. The standard divines of our own Church, as far as they touch upon the subject, speak the same language as those of primitive times; so that Mr. Archdeacon Wilberfore is left in solitary dignity, save in so far as support may be drawn for his teaching from heretical * Leo, Serm. 14. de Passione, p. 62. sources, such, that is, as regard neither the Bible nor primitive Christianity in their attempt to build up a system of priestcraft, which makes those who ought to be "ministers" and our "servants for Christ's sake," "lords over God's heritage," if not wolves to the flock. I cannot here omit to notice, how unsatisfactory any doctrinal conclusion must be which should be drawn from the names and titles given by the Fathers to the elements used in the ordinances. of religion. It is manifest that they followed not only where sound reason and judgment led in this matter, but also where the most unlimited fancy invited. It must not be supposed that the Fathers are censurable for this: they spoke in like manner of everything in which they were concerned. It is, however, absolutely necessary for us to be able to distinguish between the conclusions of sober and enlightened judgment and the bold flights of oriental imagination. In respecting the former, the Fathers of the English Church in the sixteenth century brought back the Church to the Scriptural model as we now have it; while the divines of the Romish communion, by following the latter, have fallen into such heresies as totally eclipse the sun of righteousness, and virtually excluding Christ and his finished work from His own revealed religion. But another proof that the consecration of the Eucharistic bread and wine is a consecration sui generis, is given by the Archdeacon in the following imaginary distinction between the two sacraments. This distinction he fully sets out as follows: "It will throw further light upon this subject, if we compare the Holy Eucharist with that, which in many respects possesses a corresponding character-the sacrament of baptism. Both of these ordinances were instituted by Christ Himself; and both have an immediate connexion with those blessings, which he bestows upon His mystical Body. In both there is an inward grace and an outward sign. both the union of form and matter is necessary to the completeness of that which is outward and visible. But in baptism the inward part consists only of the benefit bestowed, whereas in the Holy Eucharist, as our catechism reminds us, the thing signified is distinct from the In benefit by which it is attended. Baptism, that is, implies two parts only, the outward symbol, and the inward gift; but the Holy Eucharist implies three-the outward sign, the inward part or thing signified, and the accompanying blessing. In baptism, therefore, the outward sign has no permanent relation to the inward grace, since the rite has no existence save in the act of administration; but in the Holy Eucharist the outward sign has something more than a momentary connexion with the thing signified. As respects baptism, therefore, Our Lord used no words which imply that any particular portion of the element employed is invested with a specific character: it was not this water, but the element at large which was sanctified to be a pledge of the "mystical washing away of sin." And the Church has always acted upon this principle. It is orderly and decent that the water should be set apart with prayer, and that the ceremony should be performed by Christ's minister; but the absence of these conditions does not invalidate the act, either according to the belief of the ancient Church, or according to the existing law of the Church of England. For the setting apart of the element confers only a relative holiness; it is not necessary to the validity of the sacrament; the inward grace is associated with the act, and not with the element; and does not require that the outward part should be brought into an abiding relation with any inward part or thing signified. And for the same reason, the intervention of the minister, however desirable, is not essential. A deacon, in the priest's absence, is as much authorized to baptize as a priest. No doubt it might have pleased God to assign the same limitations in the case of baptism which obtained in regard to the Holy Eucharist; but such limitations are not expressed in Scripture, nor has the thing been so understood by the Church. The priestly office, indeed, is essential to the validity of baptism, because without it there can exist no living branch of Christ's Church, into which new members may be engrafted; but its relation to this sacrament is general, and not specific, because baptism depends upon an act which all Christians may perform, and not upon any consecration which requires a special commission. "Now the reverse of all these things is true of the Holy Eucharist. Here it is not the element at large which is spoken of, but this bread, and this cup. The intervention of the minister is not matter of decent ceremonial; it is essential to the validity of the ordinance. For valid baptism is that which is ministered to a competent receiver, but a valid Eucharist is that which is received after consecration by an authorized priest. It is obvious, then, that consecration is the essential characteristic of this sacrament, since, but for it, the inward part and the E outward part cannot be brought together. And this fact is testified by that law of our Church, which renders the services of the priest indispensible in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, as it was testified by the practice and assertions of antiquity."-Doct. of H. Euch. pp. 13-15. Now in this extract there are two things which specially claim our attention. It is asserted-(1.) "That baptism implies two parts only-the outward symbol and the inward gift; but the Holy Eucharist implies three-the outward sign, the inward part or thing signified, and the accompanying blessing." (2.) That "it is orderly and decent that the water should be set apart with prayer, and that the ceremony should be performed by Christ's minister; but the absence of these conditions does not invalidate the act, either according to the belief of the ancient Church, or according to the existing law of the Church of England;" but in the Holy Eucharist, "the intervention of the minister is not matter of decent ceremonial; it is essential to the validity of the ordinance." We will proceed to inquire, what foundation there is for these distinctions in Scripture and in the writings of divines, ancient and modern, when, if I mistake not, we shall find that they are purely imaginary; having no authority but that of the Church of Rome, while they are wholly inconsistent with Scripture and the recorded opinions of the first theologians of the early and the later churches. CHAPTER III. THERE IS NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SACRAMENTS, BAPTISM AND THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Two the "How many parts are there in a sacrament? outward visible sign and the inward spiritual grace." Such is the instruction which the Church of England gives to her children, as consonant with and derived from Scripture. She, at all events, makes no such distinction as that which we have alluded to-i.e., that baptism has two parts and the Eucharist three. But as we are not required by the Church of which we are members, to believe anything but what Scripture warrants, we will turn our attention to the foundation of her teaching, and judge for ourselves whether or not we are furnished with instruction, consistent with the word of God. Let me bespeak the reader's steady attention to the following passages. They are a selection of those which mention, in combination, the "outward and visible sign" and "the inward part or thing signified" in baptism. The relation is both apposite and natural:-"I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire;" "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him."-(Matt. iii., 11, 16.)* "He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom See also Mark i., 8; Luke iii., 16. |