descent of the Holy Spirit, and the latter in the words of institution. A solution at length was thought on, namely, that the descent or illapse of the Holy Ghost, spoken of in the Greek Liturgies, should not be understood to make the symbols Christ's body, &c. (being made such before in consecration, by the words, This is my body, &c.) but to make the reception of the body and blood beneficial and salutary to the communicants. Many of the learned Latins, at the Council of Florence, and after, embraced the solution with some eagerness. Bessarion also then, and Arcudius afterwards, (two Latinized Greeks,) set themselves to defend it, and did it with good learning and judgments. It appears to be true, that they justly interpreted the intent and meaning of that invocation, by the beneficial effect of the illapse of the Spirit upon the communicants in the use of the symbols, and not by the Spirit's making the symbols absolutely the body and blood: and we are so far obliged to them, for pleading unawares on the Protestant side, and thereby giving up the most plausible colours which all antiquity could afford for the novel doctrine of transubstantiation.

It must however be owned, that the later and shrewder Romanists, observing how their friends were caught in their own snare, have been very solicitous to retract that occasional concession, and to condemn Bessarion, Arcudius, and others, for giving into it. Lequien is one of those who endeavour to recall the grant"; and Renaudot is another; and Touttée a thirdy. They are justly sensible,

• See particularly Arcudius de Concord. Eccles. Occident. et Orient. 1. iii. cap. 33. p. 287, &c.

t See Dr. Covel's Account of the Gr. Church, p. 54, &c. Lequien in Notis ad Damascen. tom. i. p. 269.

u

X Quod aiunt Bessarionis et Arcudii imitatores totam orationem referri ad fructuosam mysterii susceptionem, ferri non potest.Unde sequeretur nullam esse transmutationem erga indigne communicantes, quæ germanissima est Protestantium doctrina.--Si hæc ad solam fructuosam communionem referantur, nulla magis commoda Protestantium causæ interpretatio excogitari poterat. Renaudot. Liturg. Orient. tom. ii. p. 93.

y Verba hæc detorquere ad effectus Eucharistiæ in nobis postulandos, eccle

how their most specious pretences from the ancients are at once taken from them, and that the Protestant cause is now triumphant, in that article, even upon their own concessions. Their perceiving it with such concern does not at all abate the force of what Bessarion, and Arcudius, and many more of their friends very learnedly and justly pleaded for the original meaning of that form. All circumstances show, that the true and ancient intent of that part of the service was not to implore any physical change in the elements, no, nor so much as a physical connection of the Spirit with the elements, but a moral change only in the elements, as to relations and uses, and a gracious presence of the Holy Spirit upon the communicants.

One argument of it may be drawn from the style of the prayer, super nosa, et super hæc dona, begging the descent upon the communicants first, and then upon the elements; that is to say, upon the communicants in the use of those now holy or consecrated symbols. Renaudot would persuade us, that the super nos relates to the consecrators, or to the officiating clergy. But what I have before cited from St. Cyril, as understanding the descent of the Spirit to be upon the communicants in general, is a sufficient confutation of every such surmise.

Another argument of what I am here pleading for may be drawn from the restriction to us, inserted in that form, in several Liturgies; particularly in the Gregorian Sacramentary, and from thence derived to the Canon of the Mass. I have shown the meaning of it before, and need not here repeat.

But the clearest and strongest argument of all may be

siam luculentissimo, antiquissimo, et constantissimo transubstantiationis testimonio privare est. Touttée Cyrillian. Dissertat. iii. p. 238.

z Vid. Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. ii. cap. 9, 10.

a See the Liturgies in Fabricius, 68, 84, 85, 98, 204, 205, 243, 298, 300; or in Renaudotius, tom. i. p. 16, 31, 46, 48, 68, 105. tom. ii. p. 118. 143, 313, 325.

b Renaudot. Liturg. Orient. tom. i. p. 340.

с

Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus quæsumus benedictam-facere digneris, ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat, &c.

drawn from the like form of invocation in the Baptismal Offices; where it is certain that it could mean only a moral change of the water as to use and office, not a physical change of its substance. Why should the illapse of the Holy Spirit be supposed to work any greater, or any other change in the elements of the Eucharist, than in the waters of Baptism d?

Renaudot, being aware of this difficulty, offers a kind of salvo for it; namely, that though the Spirit is invited to come down upon the waters in Baptism, yet he comes not to change the waters into Christ's body and blood, but to give regeneration and remission to the persons. He observes likewise, that when the Spirit is invoked upon the oil, or chrism, or persons to be ordained, or whatever else is to be consecrated, it amounts only to a petition for the grace of the Spirit upon the parties concerned; which is quite another thing from changing the symbols in the Eucharist into the body and bloode. But this appears to be begging the question, or rather to be giving up the main thing: for what we assert is, that the ancients supposed the like illapse of the Spirit, and like change wrought in the waters of Baptism, and in the oil, and chrism, &c. as in the elements of the Eucharist; and therefore if in those it amounted only to a moral or spiritual change, it cannot, upon their principles, amount to more in this.

a Compare what Mr. Pfaffius has well urged on this head, p. 76, &c. Though it must be said, that his own hypothesis will no more clear this article, than the Popish one can; for the invocation in Baptism draws down nothing but what is spiritual.

e Invocatur quoque ut mittat Spiritum Sanctum super aquas baptismales, ut in illis baptizati accipiant regenerationem, omniumque peccatorum remissionem: super oleum, et chrisma, ut gratiam baptizatis novam conferant : super ordinandos, ut accipiant sanctimoniam et potestatem ad sacra ministeria sancte exercenda: super oleum infirmorum, ut ejus unctio prosit infirmis ad salutem animæ et corporis.Verum in Eucharistia consecranda, aliud quiddam se petere designant, nempe illapsum efficacem Spiritus Sancti in dona proposita, ut mutentur et transferantur in corpus et sanguinem Domini: quod de aqua, chrismate, oleoque, aliisque Sacramentis, nunquam postulasse orientales reperiuntur. Renaudot. tom. i. p. 196, 197.

Cyril of Jerusalem, as before quoted, plainly makes those several cases so far parallelf; and so does Gregory Nysseng after him: therefore Mr. Renaudot's concessions turn upon himself, and recoil upon his own hypothesis. It is not indeed said, that the Holy Ghost in Baptism converts the water into body and blood; neither is it said, that the Holy Ghost in the Eucharist converts the symbols into water of life, or into a celestial garment: each Sacrament has its distinguishing style and title, proper to the symbols of it, and to the resemblance intended in it. For though they exhibit the same graces, yet they do it not under the same types, figures, or symbols: and that is the sole reason of the different style here and there. There is the same change wrought in both, and by the same Divine power, and to the same salutary purposes. There is the same kind of prayer in both, for the same kind of illapse or presence of the Spirit, and for the same kind of grace, virtue, and efficacy, whether upon the symbols or recipients. If we feed upon Christ in the Eucharist, we put him on in Baptism, which comes to the same thing in the main. If we are partakers of the spiritual lamb there, so are we also here. If we drink his blood there, we are dipped in his blood here, which is tantamount. Nay, we are partakers of the body and blood in both, according to the principles of the ancient writers. Testimonies to that effect have often been collected by learned Protestants: and therefore, for the avoiding of prolixity, I choose rather to

f See above, chap. vii. p. 177. Compare Bingham, book xi. ch. x. sect. 4. 8 Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptismo Christi, tom. ii. p. 801, 802. edit. Paris. 1615. Dr. Covel has observed the same at large, with respect to the later rituals, in his Account of the Greek Church, p. 53, &c. And though he intended the instances there given, only to shew, that such forms implied no physical change in the things so consecrated, yet they really prove more, viz. that the Holy Spirit was supposed to rest upon the persons in the use of the symbols, and not upon the symbols themselves, in strictness of speech. I may note also, that in p. 56, 57, he has fully confuted the most specious pretence which the Romanists commonly make from some corrupt copies of Basil's Liturgy, by producing a truer reading out of a different copy, near six hundred years old.

referh, than to repeat. Such being the certain doctrine of the ancients, it is a vain attempt, to strain any expressions of theirs concerning the illapse of the Spirit in the Eucharist, beyond what they admitted in the other Sacrament. The substance of what they taught is the same with respect to both, only in different phrases, as the difference of the symbols required: for Baptism is not the Eucharist, though it exhibits the same graces, and does the same thing, and by the same powers, that the Eucharist does.

From the account here given, I may take notice, by the way, of the wisdom of our first Reformers, who, while they thought of inserting any prayer at all for the illapse of the Spirit, resolved to do it equally and indifferently in both the Offices; as well in the Office of Baptism, as in the Office for the Communionk: for there is, undoubtedly, as much reason and as great authority for it with respect to the former, as there is with respect to the latter. Indeed they were both thrown out afterwards, upon. prudential considerations, and at the instance chiefly of two learned and judicious foreigners, whom Archbishop Cranmer called in to assist at the review of our Liturgy in 15511. It was thought, perhaps, as there was no express

h Bishop Moreton on the Sacrament, p. 568, &c. Albertinus, p. 223, 426. Bingham, book xi. chap. 16. sect. 4.

i In King Edward's first Prayer-Book, A. D. 1549. "O most merciful "God our Saviour Jesu Christ—upon whom being baptized in the river of "Jordan, the Holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a dove, send down, "we beseech thee, the same thy Holy Spirit, to assist us, and to be present "at this our invocation of thy holy name. Sanctify this fountain of Bap"tism," &c.

"Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech thee, and with thy Holy Spi"rit and Word, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts, and creatures "of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy "most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ."

N. B. If it should be asked, how they are so unto us, if they be not first absolutely so? Answ. They are said to be so unto us, when the beneficial effect goes along with them. See Cranmer and Thorndike, cited above, p. 295.

I See Wheatly on the Common-Prayer, p. 26. Collier, Vindic. of Reas. and Def. p. 150.