Church of England would have compelled him to recant at St. Paul's cross, or have sent him to the stake in Smithfield. The grounds on which he attempts to justify the separation of the two churches would have convicted him of heresy, even among those whom he professes to defend.

Perhaps it may be said, that the right reverend Prelate alludes to the separation, which was effected, not in the reign of Henry, but under his daughter Elizabeth. Yet, even in this supposition, I contend that the title of the Bishop's publication is inaccurate. The separation at that period was made, not on doctrinal, but on political grounds. The marriage of Henry with Ann Boleyn had been pronounced invalid by the Roman see: and Elizabeth, the fruit of that marriage, could not be a member of the Catholic church, without virtually, at least, acknowledging her own illegitimacy, and resigning all claim to hereditary succession. A separation, therefore, from the Roman church, became expedient to her interests: and an act of parliament was procured, re-annexing to the crown all that ecclesiastical pre-eminence and jurisdiction, which had been assumed by her father, and renounced by the late queen, her sister. A separation was thus effected: but that separation was, in its origin, merely political, and in its progress, and conclusion, was the act not of the clergy, but of a lay tribunal. It was opposed by all the bishops except one: by both universities, and by both houses of convocation.* But the spiritual was unequal to the temporal power. The principal of the clergy were deprived of their benefices: the Church of England was dissolved: and a new church, professing new doctrines, and governed by a new polity, was established in its place. That this church did not join in communion with the see of of Rome, I willingly admit: but at the same time, I contend that it did not separate from it. They never were united, and of course could never be separated.

* Fuller, Ecclsesias. Hist. I. ix. p. 54. 56.

For these reasons, I submit, that, whether the Bishop of Durham succeed or not in attempting to convict us of blasphemy, sacrilege, and idolatry, in our doctrine respecting the eucharist, he still cannot be justified in representing such doctrine as the ground of the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome.

REMARKS

ON THB

DOCTRINE OF THE BISHOP OF DURHAM,

WITH RESPECT TO

THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

ACCORDING to the Catholic belief, the bread and wine in the sacrament of the eucharist, are made verily and indeed, the body and blood of Christ. This doctrine is grounded on the express words of our blessed Lord in the institution of the sacrament: This is my body. This is my blood. The natural import of these words is so very obvious, that I shall content myself with only one observation; that if Christ had wished. to inculcate the Catholic doctrine, he could not have done it in terms better adapted to the purpose: and if he meant to inculcate the doctrine of the Church of England, he could hardly have selected words more likely to lead his disciples into error.

In opposition to this statement, the Bishop of Durham contends, that the words of Christ are to be taken not in their literal, but in a figurative sense:* now to

Lest the reader should ascribe to the right reverend Prelate the merit of this figurative discovery, I must inform him that it belongs to

me it appears, that the presumption is in favour of the literal meaning. If, as our adversaries maintain, it be from the scriptures, that each individual is to cull the articles of his creed, it is but reasonable to conceive, that the Holy Spirit will have delivered these articles in the sacred volumes, in terms the most natural and intelligible. To have described the more important points of christian belief and christian practice, in figurative or metaphorical language, susceptible of a thousand different meanings, would have been to sow the seeds of disunion, and to perplex the mind of the sincere inquirer. We may therefore lay it down as a canon of scriptural interpretation, that the literal should be considered as the true meaning, unless there be the clearest evidence of the contrary. The neglect of this canon has opened a door to every species of religious innovation. It has enabled men to explain away all the

66

Zuinglius. The method by which that apostle came to the knowledge of it, is so very curious, that I shall transcribe the account from his own words in his book De Subsidio Eucharistiæ. After informing us that he had been disputing on the sacrament with little success, before the magistrates of Zurich, he proceeds thus: "Early in the morning of the "thirteenth of April, (I speak the truth, though unwillingly. For I "know I shall be laughed at: but my conscience forces me) early in "the morning, I seemed in my sleep to be disputing with much difficulty against my adversary and to be struck dumb, so that I could not "defend what I knew to be the truth.-Then, most opportunely, a "monitor seemed to be present (whether he were white or black I do "not remember, for I relate a dream) who exclaimed, why, you blockhead, answer what is written Exod. xii. It is the pasch, that is, the passover of the Lord. As soon as I had seen this phantasm, I awake, leap out of bed, examine the passage, and by means of it dispel every difficulty from the minds of my audience. Visus est monitor adesse: (ater fuerit an albus, nihil memini : somnia enim narro:) qui diceret ; quin, ignare, respondeas ei quod Exod. xii. scribitur: est enim Phase, hoc est, transitus Domini, &c." The colour of this supernatural teacher is still a problem. The Bishop, probably, with Hospinian (Hist. Sacram. par. 2. fol. 26.) may think it a divine revelation: the infallible Luther is, however, of opinion, that it was an illusion of the devil; and therefore declares that Zuinglius, and all who follow his doctrine, are insatanized, supersatanized, and persatanized; and have the devil infused, perfused, and transfused into them. (See the Tigurine Divines, Contra Confessionem Lutheri, tract iii. p. 61.) However, the doctrine of Zuinglius has been confirmed by act of parliament; and this must satisfy the conscience of every orthodox churchman.

66

mysteries of christianity; and even to justify a subscription to the truth of doctrines, which at the same time, they suspect, perhaps believe, to be false.

It should moreover be observed, that the doctrine which maintains the literal meaning of the words, this is my body; this is my blood, is not of recent invention, or confined to the breasts of a few individuals. It was the uniform belief of the whole christian church at the time of the reformation. It had been the belief of the whole church for several centuries, according to the confession of our adversaries: according to our opinion, it had been so from the time of the apostles. At the present day, it is the belief of the great majority of christians. It is believed by the Church of Rome, and all the western churches in communion with her. It is believed by all the Lutheran churches, though they are separated from her. It is believed by all the oriental churches, whether they admit, or reject her communion. Now it cannot be from any partiality to the Roman church, that the Lutherans profess this doctrine. They are the first born of the reformation, the lineal descendants of the great patriarch, Luther. Neither can we suppose, that it has been adopted by the eastern churches since their separation from those of the west. The jealousy with which religious sects view each other, excludes such an idea. This doctrine then must have been universally adopted before the disunion of the western and eastern churches: and, as this disunion can, in some instances, be traced back to the fifth century, it will follow, that the literal meaning has the testimony of almost fourteen ages in its favour. Certainly an opinion of such antiquity, and such almost universal diffusion in the christian church, is deserving of respect, and should not be abandoned, but on the strongest grounds. We will therefore examine the grounds on which the Bishop of Durham builds his opposition to it.

"Our Saviour said," (they are the words of the right reverend Prelate)" This is my body which is broken "for you. But at the institution of the sacrament his body was not broken; and therefore the literal mean