or worship of the Host; whereas the practice is manifestly superstitious and idolatrous, and consequently at variance both with the spirit and the doctrine of Holy Writ.

14. What is the derivation and meaning of the word Host?

The word is, in fact, an abbreviation of the Latin hostia, 'a victim;' and it is employed to convey the idea that Christ is offered up anew, as a propitiatory sacrifice, at every celebration of the Eucharist.

15. When was the doctrine of Transubstantiation first mooted; how was it received; and may not its erroneous tendency be thence argued?

In the first ages of the Church it seems to have been universally believed that the body and blood of Christ were really present in the Lord's Supper, but the nature of that presence gave rise to no serious discussion, prior to the publication of a treatise on the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,' by Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, in the year 831. Nor indeed did this treatise attract any great degree of attention until, fourteen years afterwards, it was presented, in an enlarged and amended form, to Charles the Bald. Radbert maintained that, after consecration, nothing remains of the bread and wine except their outward appearance; and that the body of Christ which then becomes really and locally present, is the same identical body which was born of the Virgin, which suffered on the cross, and which rose from the dead. Charles disapproved of the work; and, in order to settle the question, directed two of his ablest writers to examine the arguments on which it rests. Thus not only does the late origin of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but the manner in which it was received, make strongly against its truth; though, without the warranty of Scripture, it must have been equally rejected as an error, even if it had dated from the earliest times.

16. To whom was the examination of the new doctrine particularly entrusted; how did they execute their task; and in what light was the worship of the elements regarded?

John Scott, an Irishman, and Ratram, a monk, were the persons selected by Charles to investigate the opinions of Radbert. The work of the former, which seems to have been a concise and perspicuous exposition of the symbolic and commemorative import of the rite, is unfortunately lost; while the real opinions of the latter are, perhaps intentionally, concealed in a maze of perplexing subtleties. Others also engaged in the dispute, among whom was Rabanus Maurus, the most learned divine of the ninth Century; and it is worthy of remark that the worship of the elements is not mentioned by any of the writers on either side of the question.

17. Did the Anglo-Saxon Church hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

It appears from the Canons of Elfric that no such belief was entertained by our Saxon ancestors; for he uses language not only irreconcileable with a belief in Transubstantiation, but has made great use of Ratram's treatise against it. Neither was any profession of belief then required from the Clergy at ordination, or any enquiry made with respect to it.

18. Give a brief view of the history of the doctrine in its subsequent stages.

Before the end of the ninth century the controversy had subsided; on its revival in the eleventh, it was opposed by the celebrated Berenger; in the twelfth century, however, it was very generally received as a doctrine of the Church, though the word Transubstantiation, which the Trent Catechism ascribes to the wisdom of our 'forefathers,' was only first stamped upon the doctrine by the fourth Council Lateran (A. D. 1215.), having been then recently invented by Bishop Steven of Arles, with the sanction of Pope Innocent III.; and at length the Council of Trent enrolled both the name and the doctrine among the peculiar tenets of the Romish communion.

19. What doctrine was substituted by Luther for Transubstantiation; and by what arguments is it shewn to be untenable?

ARTICLE XXIX.

Of the Wicked which eat not | De Manducatione Corporis the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.

THE Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth, as Saint Augustine saith, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ; but rather to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign, or Sacrament, of so great a thing.

Christi, et impios illud non manducare.

IMPII, et fide viva destituti, licet carnaliter et visibiliter, ut Augustinus loquitur, corporis et sanguinis Christi Sacramentum dentibus premant, nullo tamen modo Christi participes efficiuntur: sed potius tantæ rei-Sacramentum, seu symbolum, ad judicium sibi manducant et bibunt.

1. WHY is this Article introduced in this place; and upon what principle does it rest?

The teaching of this Article follows necessarily from that of the preceding, and seals the testimony of our Church against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If the sacramental elements be really changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood, and all communicants, whether bad or good, are equally partakers thereof: but if, on the other hand, Christ is only received in a spiritual manner by means of faith, the wicked, who have no true faith, do not receive him.

2. What is the error against which the Article is directed ?

Romanists are not only compelled to admit that the wicked are partakers of Christ's body, but they assert,and they are only consistent in so doing,-that Sacramental grace follows the act of receiving ex opere operato, without respect to the character of the recipient. It is against this fearful position that this Article seems to have been directed.

3. Whence does it appear that the wicked do not partake of Christ in receiving the Lord's Supper?

As Sacraments are federal rites, those who receive them without caring to perform the covenanted conditions, are in no wise partakers of Christ, by reason of their joining in the external ceremony. The outward act without the inward devotion of the heart is mere hypocrisy, and a profanation of the institution; so that instead of partaking of the benefits of the death of Christ,' he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not considering the Lord's body' (1 Cor. xi. 29.). To this effect also writes St. John:-'If we say that we 'have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, ' and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ 'his Son cleanseth us from all sin' (1 John i. 6, 7.).

་

4. Will scruples as to receiving the Sacrament unworthily justify a person in abstaining from it. altogether?

The fear of receiving unworthily is no excuse for not receiving at all. Indeed the very fact of not communicating is a most grievous sin. It is a wilful disobedience to the dying command of the Redeemer, and a refusal to ratify our Christian covenant as he has appointed. Those who are fearful of receiving unworthily, must repent and ' amend,' and so come to the Lord's Table. There are other ways of working out our own condemnation, besides 'eating and drinking' it.

6

5. How do you understand the caution given by St. Paul against eating and drinking unworthily? See Questions on the Liturgy, sect. IX. qu. 38.

6. Give at length the passage from Augustine cited in this Article, with a reference to the treatise in which it occurs.

The passage occurs in the 26th Tract on St. John (c. 18.), and is to the following effect:-'In order to dwell in Christ,

N

and that he may dwell in us, we must eat that food, and drink that drink and he who by this means does not dwell in Christ, and Christ in him, neither spiritually eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, though he carnally press 'with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and blood of 'Christ. Rather to his own condemnation, he eats and 'drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing, because he has presumed to come impure to the Sacraments of Christ, which none receive worthily, but they who are pure in heart (Matt. v. 8.).'

7. Adduce the testimonies of Origen and Jerome to the same effect.

Origen, in his Comment. on Matt. xv., speaks thus:Christ is the true food: whosoever eats him, shall live for ever; and of him no wicked person can eat for if it were possible that any, who continue in sin, should eat the Word that was made flesh, it had never been written, Whoso eats this bread shall live for ever. Thus also Jerome (Comment. in Isai. lxvi.):-The good eat the living bread which came down from heaven: but the wicked eat dead bread, which is death. And again:-They that are not holy in body and spirit, do neither eat the flesh of Christ, nor drink his blood; of which he said, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life.

ARTICLE XXX.

Of Both kinds.

THE Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

est

De utraque Specie.

CALIX Domini laicis non denegandus: utraque enim pars Dominici Sacramenti, ex Christi institutione et præcepto, omnibus Christianis ex æquo administrari debet.

1. WHAT is the practice of the Church of Rome