evidence of their possessing that antiquity which the writers of the Oxford Tracts are disposed to ascribe to them. It is positively asserted by Faber that, “not one of the old Liturgies, as it is well known, was committed to writing until the Fifth Century. Previous to that period, whatever of the old Liturgies was in existence floated only in the memories of the Priesthood, or partially at least might be caught up by the imperfect recollection of the Laity."-Appendix to Difficulties of Romanism, p. 518.

But, whatever may be their antiquity, it is manifest that some of the expressions which were employed in reference to the Eucharist, being destitute of any scriptural authority, however they might be sanctioned by tradition, tended to the introduction of all those corruptions of this sacred ordinance which have been systematized by the Church of Rome, and imposed upon the credulity of its members. It is true that Faber has with much acuteness and success vindicated the ancient Liturgies from the Popish construction put upon them by his antagonist. Since, however, they are obviously liable to such a construction, the wisdom of our Reformers has been conspicuously displayed in studiously refraining from the use of terms which are not only capable of perversion, but actually have been perverted to the most mischievous purposes. Instead of the word "altar," which implies a sacrifice, and a sacrificing Priest, the word "table" is invariably made use of, both in the rubrics, and in the prayer before consecration. The term "sacrifice" is never employed in reference to any thing like a "sacrificial oblation of the Eucharistic bread and wine." It is once employed, in the prayer of consecration, in its proper scriptural connexion with the death of the Lord Jesus Christ" upon the cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world." And it occurs three times in the

prayer which follows the Lord's prayer in the post-communion services but in each of these instances it refers either to the "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," or to that of "ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto God," in conformity to the affectionate entreaty addressed by St. Paul to the Christians at Rome, in Romans xii. 1.

The following extracts from Archbishop Cranmer's elaborate "Defence of the true and Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ," will at once serve to illustrate some parts of our communion service, and to evince the scrupulous care with which he adheres to the language of scripture, and refrains from the use of those terms in the ancient Liturgies, of which the writers of the Oxford Tracts appear to be so enamoured, and to which Dr. Trevern appeals with so much triumph. "But lest they" (viz., the Romanists) "should have nothing to say for themselves, they allege St. Paul, in the eleventh to the Corinthians, where he saith, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning the Lord's body.

But St. Paul in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, and not of the corporal eating of Christ's flesh and blood, as it is manifest to every man that will read the text: for these be the words of St. Paul: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning the Lord's body.

In these words St. Paul's mind is, that forasmuch as the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper do represent unto us the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ, by his own institution and ordinance; therefore, although he sits in heaven at his Father's right hand, yet should we come to this mystical bread and wine with faith, reverence, purity, and fear, as we

would do, if we should come to see and receive Christ himself sensibly present. For unto the faithful, Christ is at his own holy table present with his mighty Spirit and grace, and is of them more fruitfully received, than if corporally they should receive him bodily present. And therefore they that shall worthily come to this God's board, must after due trial of themselves consider, first who ordained this table, also what meat and drink they shall have that come thereto, and how they ought to behave themselves thereat. He that prepared the table is Christ himself. The meat and drink wherewith he feedeth them that come thereto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh, and blood. They that come thereto must occupy their minds in considering, how his body was broken for them, and his blood shed for their redemption. And so ought they to approach to this heavenly table with all humbleness of heart, and godliness of mind, as to the table wherein Christ himself is given. And they that come otherwise to this holy table, they come unworthily, and do not eat and drink Christ's flesh and blood, but eat and drink their own damnation; because they do not duly consider Christ's very flesh and blood, which he offered there spiritually to be eaten and drunken, but despising Christ's most holy Supper, do come thereto as it were to other common meats and drinks, without regard of the Lord's body, which is the spiritual meat of that table."-The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D.D. Archbishop of Canterbury. Collected and arranged by the Rev. Henry Jenkyns, M.A. Fellow of Oriel College., vol. ii. p. 437.

"And that all men may the better understand this sacrifice of Christ, which he made for the great benefit of all men, it is necessary to know the distinction and diversity of sacrifices.

One kind of sacrifice there is, which is called a propitiatory or merciful sacrifice, that is to say, such a sacrifice as pacifieth God's wrath and indignation, and obtaineth mercy and forgive

ness for all our sins, and is the ransom for our redemption from everlasting damnation.

And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices called by that name, yet in very deed there is but one such sacrifice whereby our sins be pardoned and God's mercy and favour obtained, which is the death of the Son of God our Lord Jesu Christ; nor never was any other sacrifice propitiatory at any time, nor never shall be.

This is the honour and glory of this our High Priest, wherein he admitteth neither partner nor successor. For by his one oblation he satisfied his Father for all men's sins, and reconciled mankind unto his grace and favour. And whosoever deprive him of this honour, and go about to take it to themselves, they be very Antichrists, and most arrogant blasphemers against God and against his Son Jesus Christ whom he hath sent.

Another kind of sacrifice there is, which doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of them that be reconciled by Christ, to testify our duties unto God, and to shew ourselves thankful unto him; and therefore they be called sacrifices of laud, praise, and thanksgiving.

The first kind of sacrifice Christ offered to God for us; the second kind we ourselves offer to God by Christ.

And by the first kind of sacrifice Christ offered also us unto his Father; and by the second we offer ourselves and all that we have, unto him and his Father.

And this sacrifice generally is our whole obedience unto God, in keeping his laws and commandments. Of which manner of sacrifice speaketh the prophet David, saying, A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart. And St. Peter saith of all Christian people, that they be an holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable unto God by Jesu Christ. And St. Paul saith, that alway we offer unto God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ."-Cranmer's Remains, vol. ii. p. 448.

No. 5.

It would form a subject of interesting and important investigation, deserving the attention of any individual, gifted with a vigorous, comprehensive, and philosophical mind, rich stores of erudition, and an extensive acquaintance with the writings of the ancient Fathers, to trace the successive stages by which the mystery of iniquity was gradually unfolded, till it reached its plenitude and consummation, in the complete revelation of the man of sin. The abuse of tradition, and the injurious effects of placing it upon a level with the inspired volume, as materially contributing to this developement, or rather, as furnishing the basis upon which the vast superstructure of popish error, imposture, and superstition rested, would constitute a most essential branch of this enquiry.

For the right use of tradition, the reader may consult with advantage a sermon on "The Doctrine of Tradition as maintained by the Church of England, and the Primitive Church, by the Rev. George Pearson, Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge," to which reference has already been made in a note to the Charge. For instances of the abuse of it, he may examine some of the Oxford Tracts. Two remarkable specimens of its perversion to the ends of superstition will be found in No. 34. of the first volume; although they are there adduced for a directly opposite purpose, viz., in order to shew the value and importance of tradition in sanctioning usages, for which no vestige of authority can be found in scripture. One of these extracts is taken from the writings of Tertullian, who flourished about A. D. 200.; the other from those of Basil, who lived in the fourth century. They are here presented to the reader, that he may form his own judgment of their merits, and see whether they aid in warranting one of the conclusions which the writer of the Tract has deduced jointly

M