doubtless, he would have stigmatised as gross idolatry: and, again, when Andrews says to Bellarmine, 'We believe a true presence no less than you'-without one word about the elements—this is paraphrased:-'We fully agree with you, that Christ's body is actually present in the Sacramental elements.' 2 Similarly, Cranmer and Ridley are boldly cited in behalf of doctrines, for the denial of which they were burnt: and the Roman doctrine of the substantial or essential presence is upheld by the pretended authority of Bishop Hall, author of 'No Peace with Rome;' and of Jeremy Taylor, and Bishop Beveridge also and a multitude of Anglican doctors, bishops, and fathers of the Reformation are unfairly introduced as links in long catenæ, for the support of doctrines which they denounced: while they, at the same time, not the less maintained, that in the administration of the Holy Communion, as in Morning Prayer, Christ is spiritually present; and that His blessed Body and Blood are verily and indeed received through faith spiritually, i.e. as before said, by His ubiquitous Godhead personally united to His glorified body; and by His spirit which Jesus, being by the right hand of God exalted, sheds forth; and by His grace, whereby God is also said to come among us.' And such a spiritual presence or reception involves no absolute impossibility, or direct contradiction: nor is it above all, or any, of the laws of nature; but manifestly, within the laws of the divine nature, as well as the purposes of divine mercy.

But I must now add a few examples of the dexterous quotation of ancient fathers for novel doctrines, viz. :— Cyril of Jerusalem observes that Christ's Body is given év TÚTO άρTOU, 'under the type, i. e. the figure, of bread.' ἐν τύπῳ

This Bellarmine translates sub specie panis, 'under the form of bread.'

Again, Augustine, after mentioning the virtue of the Sacrament, exclaims, after a full stop. Quam multi'How many receive from the altar the Sacrament, and die.' A Roman doctor, however, to prove reception of the inward grace by the wicked, alters the stop, and makes the quam to agree as a relative with virtutem, and so Augustine is made to say, 'Which virtue many receive, and die!'

Again it was said that in Ambrose the words Corpus Christi significatur were quoted by Bellarmine as Corpus Christi est. Lately, again, Ambrose has been rightly quoted, but twice wrongly translated-as saying 'The Body of Christ is implied.'1

Again, Augustine having met in his Old Testament a badly translated text, saying2 that 'David was carried in his own hands-instead of stumbled,' or feigned himself mad in their hands '-in order to expound the imagined difficulty, he makes David a type of Christ; and first shows that Sacramentally, by making the bread His body, Christ was carried in His own hands:' but in next page he explains himself, by adding the words quodam modo, i.e. after a certain manner'-or in the way of a Sacramental sign-Now here, as in the last passage, the father has been recently twice quoted, as saying that 'Christ was carried in his own hands; '3 but no allusion whatever is made to the quodam modo following; which words explain the orthodox meaning of Augustine, if it could be for a moment doubtful.

The conclusion is, that no caution can be too great with respect to quotations from the fathers, and arguments built thereon, when copied from authors who

1 Wilberforce on Euchar. pp. 63 and 229.
3 Wilberforce on Eucharist, p. 54.

21 Sam. xxi. 13.

admit the principles of pious fraud, and that 'oaths against the advantage of the Church are perjuries:' nor need we be surprised that, in his controversy, Jewel charges his adversary in his first two volumes with exactly 255 untruths, and in the last two with apparently a greater number.1 And there appears much ground for suspecting the quotations—many possibly taken on trust-of a late archdeacon before he became a Roman Catholic; for in an examination of but two days I found a full fourth of his citations to have been answered by bishops of the Reformed Anglican Church above 250 years ago and two days more would probably have enabled me greatly to increase the number. But of the said answers by bishops of the Reformation, he did not take notice in a single instance.

I do not wish to close this chapter without referring merely to the principal heads of a singularly learned treatise on the testimony of the ancient Church respecting the Eucharist, by Rev. Mr. Patrick-found in Bishop Gibson's 'Preservative against Popery '2-the learned author proves therein, by quotations not easily numbered, that the ancient fathers clearly deny

1st. That a body, or its substance, can exist without accidents, or accidents without substance:

2ndly. That an organical body can become impalpable and invisible, or occupy no space, or be multipresent, or be whole in any one part:

3rdly. That Christ's body can be substantially or essentially present in more places than one:

4thly. That Christ's body can be eaten except spiritually: and—

5thly. That it can be eaten by the wicked.

He also proves that the fathers teach :

1 Jewel, Parker edit.

2 Vol. ii. tit. vii. p. 176.

6thly. That reliance may be placed on the senses with respect to Christ's body, as to any other body: and

7thly. That the only change in the elements by consecration is that, having been common, they become thereby Sacramental.

The learned author also mentions

8thly. Certain practices of the fathers, which prove that they did not believe the essential presence of Christ's body in the elements: and

9thly. Certain modern practices consequent on this novel faith, which did not exist formerly.

All of which are good arguments for disbelieving an endless series of invisible miracles, and absolute impossibilities, resting on no proof whatever except garbled extracts from the councils or fathers-most frequently the latter and all of them unfairly quoted; as will be further illustrated in the chapters following.

CHAPTER VI.

ON BISHOP JEWEL.

'The worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for some hundreds of years.'-HOOKER, Eccles. Pol. b. ii. s. vi.

To remind us, that the fact that such teaching (of the "Charge") is the teaching of the ancient fathers has ever been considered a proof, that it is the very doctrine of the Church of England,' the saying is quoted of Bishop Jewel-'If any man alive were able to prove any of these articles, by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of the Scriptures, or of the old doctors, or of any general council, or by any example of the Primitive Church, I promised then, that I would give over and subscribe unto him.'1

The quotation might lead an ordinary reader to conclude, that Jewel felt such unbounded reverence for the old doctors, that he would feel bound to subscribe to any clear or plain clause or sentence, in any of their works, in favour of any Sacerdotal or Papal doctrine.

But the scope of Jewel in his celebrated challenge2 was altogether different. His object was simply to deny, that any one sufficient sentence could be found in any one father of the Primitive Church, or in any general council, during the first 600 years, or in the Scriptures, affirming 'that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, or naturally in the Sacraments; or that His body is or may 2 Jewel, in the Brit. Reformers, pp. 14, 15.

1 Charge, pp. 69, 70.