tum a Domino." The distinction between the Clergy and Laity he considers a Church-distinction: "Differentiam inter Ordinem et Plebem constituit Ecclesia." Grotius writes thus:

66

"Tertullian (in his 'Soldier's Crown') would have the "Eucharist administered by Presbyters or rather Bishops, "whom Justin calls poeσT@Tes, presidents-not on account of any command of Christ, but only for order "sake. For after having shewn, that there had been a "variation in many things from the first usage, on account "of peace and better government-he subjoins these 66 words, 'The Sacrament of the Eucharist which 66 was committed by our Lord to all, and at meal-times, we now receive even before day-break, and from no "other hands than those of our presidents.' He affirms here, That the Eucharist was appointed by our Lord to "be at the ordinary time of repast, which was at Supper, "and that it was not committed to a certain Order of people, but to all Christians in common. And while he "asserts this rite to be thus instituted by Christ, he in"timates its having been so celebrated by the first Chris

66

66

tians; the truth whereof, were it pertinent, I could de"monstrate by many testimonies out of the Antients; and 66 some footsteps of this custom remained even in the 66 very Anniversary (Good Friday) of the Institution of "the Supper, down to the very times of St. Augustin." "Nor was this Tertullian's private opinion only, but common to all the Christians of that age; else we must "take him for a very weak disputant, who would build

66

66

an argument upon what he knew they would not grant "him. Therefore he says, Tinguis, Offers,' 'thou bap"tizest, thou offerest; that is, it is your custom so to do.' "But the truth of this is evinced by the practice even of "later times." Grotius then relates the history of Frumentius, given by Theodoret. He refers also to the ancient Author of the Martyrology.

(Grot. An. Sacr. &c.)

Grotius supports himself in this view (which is fatal to the Divine origin of the Sacramental System, and the value of the Apostolic Succession) by the expressed opinion of the celebrated Erasmus, writing to Bishop Tonstall.

What will the Archbishop reply to two such distinguished scholars and divines, as Grotius and Erasmus, on a point of Ecclesiastical History?

Tertullian's Montanism is nothing to the purpose. The question is not concerning his ascetic opinions, but a matter of fact. He appeals to what was generally known in his time. That he drew a dubious inference from it against Second Marriage on the part of the Laity, is of no consequence. His plain words, as regards the matter of fact, are: "Digamus tinguis? Digamus offers ?" If you marry a second time, will you dare to baptize? will you dare to offer?' Bishop Kaye and Dr. Waterland, the one in his "Tertullian," the other in his "Letters to Mr. Kelsall," do not doubt, that "offerre" means to pronounce the words over the elements;'-though Bingham does.

It is enough for us to have shewn, that the prohibition to which Deacons were finally sub

jected, was not so early as the Archdeacon represents it; and that when it was established, it does not prove his point.

§ 25. RESERVING THE ELEMENTS.

He discerns in another matter of practice a testimony to the truth of his view, that the Act of Consecration is that which gives validity to the Eucharist. That practice was the early one of Reserving the Elements. We allow the fact, that this was an early custom,-and a foolish and superstitious one it was-retained, as all superstitious customs have been, in the Church of Rome, but rejected by our own. Granting it, however, to do no credit to the early Christians, it might arise, and probably did arise, from nothing more than the principle of association of ideas-from which principle the excessive veneration for relics arose, and the visiting of the martyrs' tombs, and other practices of a like kind. Our Author makes too much of this, as he does of the preceding practice. It shews that the Ancient Christians did not look upon the consecrated elements as common bread and wine. No more do we.

§ 26. IMPUTED BIAS OF OUR DIVINES.

Our Author is aware, that our English divines did not draw the conclusions he does, from the two practices we have just considered --the only ones which he brings as incidental evidence of the importance attached by the Early Church to the act of Consecration; he therefore deems it expedient to suggest a reason for their failing to do so. It is not a generous one-and we think that it is not a just one. There is no occasion, from the preceding statements, to have recourse to any explanation of the fact that they do not see with his eyes, except that of their common sense. However, he chooses to speak as follows:

"Our English divines have dwelt very little on the importance of Consecration, and its validity has not been "understood by our people to be the circumstance on "which the efficacy of the Sacrament depends. The reason may probably be found in the popular unwillingness to break altogether with the Foreign Protestants." (p. 19.)

This is a very sweeping and convenient charge. That our divines had a friendly feeling towards their brother-Protestants abroad, we willingly confess-we should be ashamed

of them, if they had not had it. In the last words of this extract we have a pretty plain intimation that a rupture, such as he speaks of, would not be disagreeable to the Archdeacon. Let us, therefore, remind him of the language of Archbishop Wake, who did his utmost to bring about a reunion between the Churches of England and Rome, could it have been effected without the sacrifice of essential Scriptural Truth on the part of our Church,— which he found it could not be. He thus speaks of the Foreign Protestants :

66

"I cordially embrace the Reformed Churches, though "in some things differing from the Anglican. God forbid, that I should be of such an iron mind, as on ac"count of a deficiency of this kind to think that any of them should be cut off from our communion, or, with (6 some furious writers among us, pronounce them devoid "of the Sacraments." (Archbishop Wake.)

Let us also remind the Archdeacon, that Bishop Cosin, who is one of the few English bishops whom he tolerates, advised his enquiring friend, who was going abroad and consulted him, always to worship with the Foreign Protestants, in preference to the Roman Catholics. We allude to the Bishop's Letter to Mr. Cordel, in which he examines the proposition, on which a doubt was raised as to the propriety of communicating in the