It is hard to decide which predominates in these quotations, daring blasphemy or degraded filth. That the sons of the illustrious William Wilberforce should have abandoned their father's faith for such prurient obscenities, is not only a blot upon their "perilous inheritance" of a great name, but a disgrace to the age in which we live. I cannot conclude this chapter without noticing the fact, that no more emphatic condemnation of the opinion, that the wicked eat the body of Christ, in the sacrament, is needed, than is acknowledged in the "Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist," and partly in notice of the passages which have been here quoted. Origen's addiction to the Platonic philosophy would naturally lead him to undervalue any facts opposed to its spiritualizing tendency; so that he is a peculiarly unsafe witness respecting the Holy Eucharist. This circumstance destroys his authority, when he seems, though but uncertainly, to indicate, in opposition to the common judgment of antiquity, that none but devout receivers partake of the real body of Christ."* "In the sequel, Origen speaks of our Lord's body as the true food which no bad man is able to eat." Nor does the quotation against Celsus, "We eat the bread, which is made a certain sacred body by prayer, and which sanctifies those who with good intent use it,"‡ militate against, but rather strongly confirm, this view, notwithstanding the Archdeacon's comment upon it; for had Origen had the idea that it was Christ's real body, he could not have said a certain sacred body, while he strictly confines the true reception to those who use it "with good intent." And of St. Augustine it is remarked, "when he says, indeed, that Judas eat the bread of the Lord,' while the other disciples 'eat the Lord who was bread, '§ he was only expressing the truth, that a personal relation to our Lord, who gives His body for our ventre et stomacho, vel vomitu, et quocunque alibi, quamdiu species manent, sicut substantia conversa mansisset. Et si species incorruptæ evomuntur, vel egrediuntur, est ibi vere corpus Christi. * Doct. H. Euch. p. 248. + Orig. Com. in Matth. § In Joan. lix. 1, p. 663. L food in this sacrament, is not dependent on the mere partaking of that food, but is reserved for its devout participants. And the same may have been his purpose, when he says that the sacramentum is given to some to life, to others to destruction,' but that the thing itself, of which it is the sacramentum, is given to every man to life, who is a partaker of it.'* He could not mean to deny that the inward part is present by virtue of consecration, and that all communicants receive it, because he says, in express words, that the body and blood of Christ are received even by those who do not profit by them."+ The remark about personal relation, &c., is simply "explaining away." If the bread had been the Lord in Mr. Wilberforce's sense, Judas must have eaten Him as well as the rest; and as for what we are told Augustine "could not mean to deny," he does deny it, most emphatically and often. Nor is this any contradiction to what is quoted from his epistle; for it is well known that the sacramental emblems commonly received the name of that which they represented. I quite agree with the sentiment, "we are justified in explaining St. Augustine's lax and general assertions by his more systematic statements." * In Joan. xxvi. 15, p. 500. + Epis. 140, sec. 65. Epist. 23. Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non haberent, quarum sacramenta sunt, omninò sacramenta non essent. Ex hac antem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. CHAPTER V. THE ANCIENT FATHERS DID NOT WORSHIP CHRIST IN THE ELEMENTS," NOR DID THEY CONSIDER THESE, NOR CHRIST IN THEM, A PROPITIATORY OFFERING FOR THE SINS OF THE LIVING AND THE DEAD. THE Archdeacon proposes two tests by which to judge of the opinion of the primitive Church, as to the real-i.e. corporeal— presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are the paying it divine honors by the highest act of adoration, and by attributing to its celebration the full virtue of a propitiatory sacrifice. That there may be no mistake, he shall state his own case, after which we will consider his proofs, and enquire of the Fathers for ourselves their opinion of his doctrine. "First," then, says the Archdeacon, "the plainest proof which men can give that they suppose Christ to be really present in the Holy Eucharist, is to render Him divine honour. So much seems to be allowed both by those who admit the real presence and by those who reject it. Luther, as being of the former number, retained the elevation of the host when he drew up a service for Wittenberg.* Calvin† rests his assertion that our Lord ought not to be worshipped in the Holy Eucharist, on the ground of His absence; and affirms distinctly, that if our Lord were really present there, He ought to be adored. Bishop Andrewest employs the same argument: but since he admits the real presence, he draws a contrary conclusion. "Christus ipse sacramenti res, in et cum sacramento; extra et sine sacramento, ubi ubi est, adorandus est." On this principle it was that the posture of kneeling for the reception of the elements was so warmly objected to by the ZuingloCalvinistic party. And its retention by the Church of England, in * Hospinian, vol. ii. 19. + Calvin adv. Heshus, works, viii. 727. Andrewes' Resp. ad Bellarminum, viii. p. 266. opposition to the repeated demands of the Puritans at home, as well as to the example of foreign Protestants, is a fact of great moment, by which she is allied to the ancient faith. This fact is not neutralized by the somewhat ambiguous rubric which was affixed to the communion office in 1662." Now, here we have an instance of the very great caution which should be exercised before we either give or withhold our assent to a proposition. That of the Archdeacon above-viz., "the plainest proof which men can give that they suppose Christ to be really present in the Holy Eucharist, is to render Him divine honour" -is one to which no man, rightly instructed in Christian truth,. would object; for who would not say, with Bishop Andrewes, "Christ must be adored wherever He is, whether in the sacrament or out of it?" That Luther and Calvin should say the same is, therefore, not to be wondered at. But what use does the Archdeacon make of this concession on the part of those divines? Why, that as we must worship Christ wherever He is, we may and ought to worship Him in the guise and within the bounds of the sacramental elements. Does it follow, then, because the Deity is everywhere, and should everywhere be worshipped, that, therefore, we may circumscribe Him within any definite locality and given shape? It certainly is a perfect non sequitur that, because theology allows the Deity to be everywhere, and in all things, therefore we may fix Him where we please as to place, matter, and form. But it may be replied, "it is not the Deity, as such, that is thus circumscribed, but the Deity in conjunction with the humanity of Jesus; nor do we circumscribe Him, He is pleased to do this Himself." But surely it is of the very essence of idolatry to worship the Deity under a form, or as confined to a given place. The mind can conceive the Supreme Being present in all His perfections everywhere, and able and willing to hear the petitions of His creatures, and to relieve their wants; but if from this any one should begin to limit, and to say that because God was in His house, that, therefore, he was specially in the chancel and on the communion table, and in the bread upon it, and that under this form and in that place we should worship Him -I ask, would not this be idolatry? If not, I have no definite idea of what idolatry is; for even the ignorant heathen must be very debased indeed before they can imagine the very stone or wood before their eyes, which they see and feel to be lifeless and lumpish, to be the very Deity of their adoration. Perhaps they have no definite idea at all: but that it is against the will of heaven to worship in such a manner, with whatever feelings, the second commandment clearly shews, and they who presume thus to approach the Most High, must not be surprised if they meet with His frown instead of a smile. "I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God," is a fearful sanction to the prohibition of worshipping even the true God under any guise whatever. And what is it but that which I have described to worship Christ in that bread? This theory of sacramental substitution provides a sensible object for adoration, of which the word of God gives no example, but which it most emphatically prohibits. Nor am I misrepresenting the Archdeacon. For although, in reply to the question, "Whether is our Lord present in this ordinance under a definite form, and in any particular place?" he says, "We have no reason, therefore, to suppose that form and outline belong to it; because these are the conditions through which things become an object to the senses of men."* "And yet," he continues, as if he hardly knew his own mind on the subject, "there is one way in which our Lord's body may be said to be present with form and place in the Holy Eucharist. For there is a connexion between the sacramentum and res sacramenti, and form and place belong to the first, though they do not belong to the second. So that though the res sacramenti, in itself, has neither place nor form, yet it has them in a manner through the sacramentum, with which it is united. Christ's body, therefore, may be said to have a form in this sacrament, namely, the form of the elements, and to occupy that place, through which the elements extend."† The devout worshipper, therefore, according to the "Doctrine |