66

administration, of the sacraments or for their religious administration, is not decided by these words. The acts of the council of Florence (or rather pope Eugenius) affirm, that "after the words of the con"secration of the body have been repeated by the priest, with the intention of consecrating, the bread "is transubstantiated into the very body of Christ"." But this passage occurs in a decree for the Armenians, which was made after the council of Florence had been broken up, and therefore is denied by eminent Romanists to form part of its decrees . And even the words themselves do not prove the absolute necessity of intention; for although a certain effect is here said to follow the repetition of the words of consecration, with an intention of consecrating, there is no direct assertion, or necessary consequence, that the same effect does not follow without that intention.

I reply, secondly, that the right intention of the minister is not absolutely requisite to the valid administration of the sacraments, when they are celebrated for the benefit of the church. For it is not the minister who confers the graces of the sacraments, but the supreme God, by whose commission he acts in the Christian church. The minister is the instrument by whom God chooses, in the ordinary course of his providence, to convey certain benefits to the faithful. But that infinite power, wis

P Decretum pro Armenis. Concil. Florentini, pars iii. Labbe, tom. xiii. col. 1211. "Dummodo enim panis substantia maneat, nullatenus dubitandum est, quin post præfata verba consecrationis cor

poris, a sacerdote cum intentione conficiendi prolata, mox in verum Christi corpus transubstantietur."

9 Le Brun, Explication de la Messe, &c. tom. v. p. 226.

dom, and love, which devised the means of grace, will doubtless make them effectual to those for whom they are ultimately intended, although the ordinary instrument be ill regulated; for otherwise all would be punished for the fault of one. And further, if an intention of doing what the church requires be essential, we should never know whether the consecration had taken place, and consequently could never approach the holy table but with a doubtful and troubled mind.

I reply, thirdly, by asserting, that there is as much intention to consecrate in the minds of our clergy, as there can be in any others whatsoever; and who shall prove the reverse?

FOURTH. The English priests, when they pronounce the words of our Lord, have no regard to the force of the expression, or the sacramental solemnity'.

This I deny. The English clergy have the same regard to these words which their predecessors had in the apostolical age; they esteem them to have great efficacy in the consecration.

FIFTH. There is no petition put up to God for the purpose of consecrating the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

I reply, that there is as valid a prayer for this purpose in the English liturgy, as there is in the Roman for the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which Assemani declares to be essential. If, then, the

Bp. Scott, cited by Collier, vol. ii. p. 428.

s Scott, ut supra. Schultingius, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, tom. iv. pars 2.

t Assemani objects to the

English liturgy, because it does not contain the invocation of the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. Codex Liturgicus, tom. vi. p. xcvi.

English prayer for consecration is invalid and illegitimate, so is the Roman. For a more full view of this subject, see section XIX. of the following chapter. SIXTH. The wine of the eucharist is not mixed with water".

I reply, that even if we were to admit this custom to be of apostolical antiquity, it is yet not essential to consecration by the admission of Zaccaria and Bona, who say that "no one will contend that it is necessary," and that "the opinion of theologians is "fixed that it is not "." But the church of England has never condemned this custom, as will be hereafter seen.

66

SEVENTH. It is objected that there is no oblation, at least no truth and certainty of oblation, in the English liturgy, and therefore it is illegitimate*.

I reply, that every oblation recognised by the Christian church is contained in the English liturgy. There are the offerings of prayers and alms, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the oblation of God's creatures of bread and wine, the reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, unto God. There is the whole rational, unbloody and spiritual service, including the commemoration of the sacrifice once offered by Christ, of his body pierced, and his blood shed, for mankind. All this holy service is offered to the honour and glory of God, and infinitely surpasses the bloody and typical sacrifices of the Law. And it is as validly

and effectually administered by the English liturgy, as by any other in existence. It is absurd in Romanists to object, that the English liturgy is devoid of the service offered in commemoration of that sacrifice which Christ once completed: for some of their own doctors teach, that this oblation is effected by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, which they know to exist in the English liturgy. Not indeed that we admit this doctrine of theirs, for there is no proof that the memorial of Christ's sacrifice is performed by consecration alone, and not by the whole service which he has enjoined.

EIGHTH. The body of Christ is not appointed to be venerated and adored by the English liturgy, therefore it is unlawful'.

Answer. If so, then the sacramentaries of Gelasius and Gregory, the liturgies of Mark, James, and many others, must also be illegitimate, for none of them contain any direction to venerate the body of Christ. But although the church of England gives no such direction in her liturgy, and protests against the idea of adoring "sacramental bread and wine," and abjures the imputation of worshipping "any "corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and "blood";" as if she believed the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation; yet she believes in the mysterious presence of that Redeemer, whose "body and "blood" she declares are “verily and indeed taken "and received by the faithful "." And to signify her

y Scott, ut supra.

z "No adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of

Christ's natural flesh and blood." Declaration at the end of the communion service.

a Catechism in the English Ritual, or Book of Common Prayer, &c.

d "

"humble and grateful acknowledgment of the bene"fits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, "and for the avoiding of such profanation and dis"order in the holy communion as might otherwise "ensue "," she directs all her children to receive the sacrament kneeling; that is, in an attitude of humble devotion. If the priest places the consecrated elements on the table, it is to be done "reverently." If any of them remain after the communion, the priest and others shall "reverently eat and drink the same These things shew plainly, that the church of England is careful to express her humble devotion to Christ when mystically present at the holy communion, and to prevent any profanation of the sacred symbols: and such was the discipline of the primitive church. But the church of England certainly does not prescribe the elevation of the sacrament for the purpose of adoration, which was not practised in the Christian church for eleven hundred years after Christ, and was then introduced chiefly by those who were supporters of the evil doctrine of the corporal presence, or transubstantiation.

NINTH. The English liturgy does not contain prayers for the departed, which occur in all ancient liturgies. It is therefore illegitimate.

b Declaration quoted above. с "When all have communicated, the minister shall return to the Lord's table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth." Rubric after the form of communion.

e Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum, lib. ii. c. 13. § 2. Muratori says it is confessed by all the learned Romanists, that the elevation of the sacrament prevailed in the Roman catholic church after the heresy of Berengarius, Liturgia Romana Vetus, tom. i. p. 227. See also Bingham, Antiquities, book xv.

d Rubric at the end of the chap. 5. sect. 4. communion service.

fBp. Scott, cited by Col