Ex Libris 
 C. K. OGDEN 
 
 _
 
 '*' 
 
 ; 
 
 X \ 
 
 : ^ 
 
 ii/) 
 
 -. I 
 
 ^ \.
 
 A REVIEW 
 
 OP THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST 
 
 WATERLAND
 
 Pontoon 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF 
 xforfc
 
 A REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST 
 
 WITH 
 
 FOVE CHARGES TO THE CLERGY OF MIDDLESEX 
 CONNECTED WITH THE SAME SUBJECT 
 
 BY 
 
 DANIEL WATERLAND, D. D. 
 
 Forming parts of Vols. IV. and V. of his Collected "Works 
 
 WITH A PREFACE 
 
 BY THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN 
 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 M.DCCC.LXVIU
 
 PEEFACE. 
 
 THIS volume has been issued at the request of 
 the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with the 
 view of placing within the reach of those who may 
 not be able to procure the collected Works of Dr. 
 Waterland, and especially of candidates for Holy 
 Orders, a treatise which was once considered almost 
 as the text-book of the Church of England on the 
 subject of the Eucharist, but which, in common 
 with many of the works of the great Anglican 
 Divines, has been somewhat cast into the shade 
 by the lapse of time and the rapid issue of 
 modern theological literature, and is, there is 
 reason to fear, far less known at present than it 
 deserves. 
 
 Though suggested probably, on the one hand, 
 by the publication of Mr. Johnson's 'Unbloody 
 Sacrifice,' and by Dr. Brett's ' Discourse Concern- 
 ing the Necessity of Discerning the Lord's Body,' 
 and, on the other, by the Socinianising tracts of 
 Bishop Hoadley on the Lord's Supper, and by an
 
 VI PREFACE. 
 
 amicable controversy in which the Author had 
 been engaged with Dr. Zachary Pearce, yet the 
 'Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist/ as 
 Bishop Van Mildert has observed, 'has little the 
 aspect of a polemical work, although so large a 
 portion of it may be applied as a corrective, or a 
 preventive, of error. With scarcely any personal 
 reference to the living authors of his time who 
 entertained different views of the subject from 
 that which he supported, Dr. Waterland has so 
 conducted his train of reasoning and investiga- 
 tion, as to meet all their diversities of opinion in 
 their full force ; stating them with candour and 
 fairness, and controverting them with no less 
 moderation than ability and decision/ 
 
 And the three Charges to the Clergy of Mid- 
 dlesex which defend and supplement his former 
 treatise, that ' On the Christian Sacrifice' (with 
 its Appendix in reply to Johnson), that ' On 
 the Sacramental Part of the Eucharist/ and 
 that ' On the Distinctions of Sacrifice/ occasioned 
 though they were by ' Some Remarks on the 
 Review' by Dr. Brett, are equally devoid of 
 controversial acrimony, nor are they of merely 
 local or personal application. They form, together 
 with the ' Review/ a body of teaching on the 
 doctrine of the Eucharist, especially with reference 
 to the various opinions on this vital subject which 
 have been maintained within our own Church,
 
 PREFACE. Vll 
 
 almost equally applicable to all times, and having a 
 peculiar interest and importance in our own. The 
 wide and intimate acquaintance which Waterland 
 possessed, not only with the Christian Fathers but 
 with the Romish Theologians and the writings of 
 the foreign Reformers, the perfect fairness with 
 which he, almost invariably, states and meets the 
 views and reasoning which he controverts, and the 
 singular simplicity, clearness, and vigour of his 
 style, have placed him among the most trust- 
 worthy and instructive of our own Divines : and 
 while asserting and defending, as the true doctrine 
 of the Eucharist, the via media between two ex- 
 tremes, which, though not excluded by the tolerant 
 moderation of our Articles and formularies, have 
 each too facile a tendency to pass into serious 
 error, he will be found, even by those whom he 
 does not convince, to leave them in no doubt as 
 to the meaning of his language and the bearing 
 of his arguments ; and by others, and especially 
 by students in divinity, a safe and perspicuous 
 guide to those tenets on the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper which, as a matter of fact, have 
 been held by the great majority of the ablest and 
 most learned Theologians of the Reformed Church 
 of England. 
 
 J. L.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as laid down in Scripture 
 and Antiquity ... ... ..... i 
 
 An Introduction, first briefly shewing the Design of the Treatise, 
 and next premising some Considerations : viz. 
 
 I. That Scripture is our only Rule 3 
 
 II. That for the right understanding of Scripture, it is of great 
 moment to know what the most eminent Writers before us 
 have taught, and what they have agreed in ... 3 
 
 1. More particularly, Ancients first . . . 5 
 
 2. And then Moderns 6 
 
 III. That of the two Extremes, Profaneness and Superstition, 
 
 the latter is the safest for any one to lean to .8 
 
 IV. That it is injuring and degrading the Sacraments to call 
 them Positive Duties, rather than Religious Rites . . 1 1 
 
 1. The Eucharist not merely a Duty, but a sacred Rite, 
 wherein God bears a Part . . . . . .11 
 
 2. That Part of it which is Duty, is not a single Duty, 
 
 but more . . . . . . . . 1 3 
 
 CHAP. I. Explaining the most noted or most considerable Names 
 of the Holy Communion . . . . . . . .16 
 
 1 . Breaking of Bread . . . . . . . .16 
 
 2. Communion . . . . . . . . .18 
 
 3. Lord's Supper . . . . . . . . .19 
 
 4. Oblation . . . . . . . . . .21 
 
 5. Sacrament .......... 26 
 
 6. Eucharist .......... 29 
 
 7. Sacrifice . . 30 
 
 8. Memorial . . ; .- . . ..." .-."-''. 32 
 
 9. Passover . . . . . . . .. -. . 34 
 
 10. Mass -. 37
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAP. II. Considering the Institution of the Holy Communion, 
 
 as recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul 38 
 
 It came in the place of the Jewish Passover . . . .41 
 
 I. Resembling it in several Circumstances . . -42 
 
 2. Deriving its Forms and Phrases from it . . .43 
 
 CHAP. III. Concerning the Commemoration of Christ, in the 
 
 Holy Communion 46 
 
 1. Remembering him as God-Man . . . . . . 48 
 
 2. Commemorating him as such . . . '.;--. 54 
 
 3. Celebrating his Memorial ... ... ; 58 
 
 CHAP. IV. Concerning the Commemoration of the Death of 
 
 Christ . . . ... . . . .62 
 
 1. As an expiatory Sacrifice . . . . . . 63 
 
 2. Which is applied in the Eucharist . . . . 69 
 
 CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Elements . . " . 74 
 
 1. In what sense they are blessed or consecrated ... 74 
 
 2. By whom they are blessed . . . . . -77 
 
 3. What the Blessing amounts to . . . 79 
 
 CHAP. VI. Of Spiritual Feeding according to John vi. . .89 
 
 1. The Sense of the Ancients on that head . . . .99 
 
 2. The Sentiments of Moderns . . . . . .123 
 
 CHAP. VII. Of Sacramental, Symbolical Feeding in the Eucha- 
 rist ' . . .' . . . 129 
 
 1. The Sentiments of the Ancients on that head . . .141 
 
 2. The Sentiments of Moderns . . . . . .163 
 
 CHAP. VIII. i Cor. x. 16 explained, and vindicated from 
 
 misconstruction . . . . . . . . 175 
 
 Objections answered ........ 194 
 
 CHAP. IX. Remission of Sins conferred in the Eucharist . 210 
 
 Proved from Scripture 218 
 
 From Antiquity . 220 
 
 Judgment of the Reformers, and of the Church of England . 225 
 
 Objections removed . 228
 
 CONTENTS. XI 
 
 CHAP. X. Sanctifying Grace conferred in the Eucharist 
 Proved from i Cor. x. 16 
 Proved from John vi. ....... 
 
 Proved from Analogy ....... 
 
 Proved from i Cor. xii. 13. 
 
 The Judgment of the Ancients hereupon .... 
 
 The Sentiments of Moderns on the same .... 
 
 CHAP. XI. The Eucharist considered as a Federal Rite . 
 
 Argued from the Nature of Communion .... 
 
 From the Custom of drinking Blood in Covenants 
 
 From the Words of Institution 
 
 From the Analogy between that and Sacrifices, or Sacrificial 
 Feasts . 289 
 
 Objections to Dr. Cudworth's Notion considered and con- 
 futed .......... 291 
 
 CHAP. XII. The Eucharist considered in a Sacrificial View . 306 
 Some Account of Dr. Grabe's Sentiments .... 307 
 The Eucharist a spiritual Sacrifice, how . . . .310 
 
 The Judgment of the Ancients on that head . . -312 
 
 The Judgment of Moderns ....... 349 
 
 CHAP. XIII Of the Preparation proper for the Holy Com- 
 munion . . . . . . . . . -351 
 
 1. Baptism . . . . . . . . . .352 
 
 2. Competent Knowledge . . . . . . '353 
 
 3. Sound Faith 353 
 
 4. True Repentance ........ 354 
 
 Consisting chiefly in Restitution ..... 358 
 
 Readiness to forgive . . . .362 
 Peaceableness ..... 366 
 Charity to the Poor .... 366 
 
 CHAP. XIV. Of the Obligation to frequent Communion . . 369 
 How stated in the several Ages of the Church : 
 
 First Century , . 371 
 
 Second . . 372 
 
 Third 374 
 
 Fourth 374 
 
 Fifth .386 
 
 Sixth 389 
 
 Seventh 390 
 
 Eighth 390
 
 Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Doctrinal Use of the Christian Sacraments considered : in a Charge 
 delivered to the Middlesex Clergy, May i2th, 1736 . . . 395 
 
 The Christian Sacrifice Explained, in a Charge delivered in part to 
 the Middlesex Clergy at St. Clement-Danes, April the aoth, 1 738. 
 To which is added an Appendix . . . . . . . 413 
 
 The Sacramental Part of the Eucharist Explained, in a Charge deli- 
 vered in part to the Clergy of Middlesex, at the Easter Visita- 
 tion, 1739 -4 8 5 
 
 Distinctions of Sacrifice ; set forth in a Charge delivered in part to 
 the Clergy of Middlesex, at the Easter Visitation, 1740 . . 543
 
 A REVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE EUCHAKIST, 
 
 AS LAID DOWN IN 
 
 SCRIPTURE AND ANTIQUITY. 
 
 Ut autem literam sequi, et signa pro rebus quae iis significantur accipere, 
 servilis infirmitatis est ; ita inutiliter signa interpretari, male vagantis 
 erroris est. 
 
 Augustini de Doct. Christ, lib. iii. cap. 9. p. 49.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 IN the latter part of the sixth chapter, I have followed the 
 common opinion of learned Protestants, (Mr. Bingham, Dr. 
 Wall, &c.) in relation to Infant Communion, as prevailing in 
 the fifth century, under a notion of its strict necessity, built 
 upon John vi. 53. Though I had some scruple about it; as 
 may appear by my manner of expressing myself, and by the 
 reference to Thorndike in noteK 
 
 Having since looked somewhat deeper into that question, I 
 think it now just to my readers to advertise them, that I 
 apprehend that common opinion to be a mistake ; and that 
 though the practice of giving Communion to children at ten 
 or at seven years of age (or somewhat sooner) was ancient, 
 and perhaps general, yet the practice of communicating mere 
 infants, under a notion of its necessity, and as built upon John 
 vi, came not in before the eighth or ninth century, never was 
 general ; or however lasted not long in the West, where it 
 first began. My reasons for this persuasion are too long to 
 give here : but I thought this short hint might be proper, 
 to prevent misconceptions as to that Article.
 
 THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 MY design in this work is to treat of the Sacrament of the Holy 
 Communion, according to the light which Scripture and right 
 reason afford, making use of such helps and means for the in- 
 terpreting Scripture, as God's good providence, in former or 
 later ages, has furnished us with. The subject is of very great 
 weight in itself, and of near concern to every Christian ; and 
 'therefore ought to be studied with a care proportioned to the 
 importance of it : that so we may govern both ourselves and our 
 people aright, in a matter of such consequence ; avoiding with 
 great caution the extremes on both hands, both of excessive 
 superstition on one hand, and of profane neglect on the other. 
 We are now visibly under the extreme of neglect ; and therefore 
 we ought to study by all means possible to inspire our people 
 with a just respect for this holy institution, and to animate 
 them to desire earnestly to partake often of it ; and in order 
 to that, to prepare themselves seriously, to set about it with 
 reverence and devotion, and with those holy purposes, and 
 solemn vows, that ought to accompany it a .' 
 
 But before I enter upon the main subject, it may not be 
 improper here to throw in some previous considerations, in 
 order to prepare my readers for what they will find in this 
 treatise, that they may the more easily form a true and sound 
 judgment of the subject-matter of it. 
 
 I. The first consideration is, that Scripture alone is our com- 
 plete rule of faith and manners, 'containing all things necessary 
 to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be 
 proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should 
 be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or 
 necessary to salvationV 
 
 Whatever Scripture contains, either in express words rightly 
 understood, or by consequence justly deduced, is Scripture 
 doctrine, and ought to be religiously believed and obeyed ; 
 allowing only for the different degrees of importance belonging 
 to different Scripture truths, or Scripture precepts. 
 
 II. For the right understanding of Scripture, it is of great 
 
 Bp. Burnet on Article XXX f. p. 484. b Article VI. 
 
 B 2
 
 4 The Introduction. 
 
 moment to know what the most eminent writers or teachers, 
 ancient and modern, have thought before us on the same 
 subject ; and more especially to observe what they unanimously 
 agreed in. For, as they had the same Scriptures before them, 
 and the same common reason to direct them, and used as much 
 care and diligence, and were blessed with as great integrity as 
 any of us now can justly pretend to, their judgment is not to be 
 slighted, nor their instructions to be despised. The 'responsa 
 prudentum,' the reports, precedents, and adjudged cases are 
 allowed to be of considerable weight for determining points of 
 law : and why should they not be of like weight, ordinarily, for 
 the determining points of theology? Human law there, and 
 Divine law here, is properly the authentic rule of action : but 
 the common reason of mankind is properly the rule of interpre- 
 tation in both cases : and that common reason shines out the 
 brightest, and appears in greatest perfection, in the united ver- 
 dict of the wisest and most excellent men. It is much easier for 
 one, or for some few fallible interpreters to be deceived, than for 
 many, other circumstances supposed equal. Nothing less than 
 very clear Scripture, or as clear reason, ought to weigh any- 
 thing against the concurring sentiments of the Christian world : 
 and even in such a case, some fair account ought to be given, 
 how it came to pass, that such, clear Scripture or clear reason 
 had hitherto escaped the notice, or missed of the acceptance of 
 the wisest and best of men. 
 
 A very judicious writer of our own has observed, that 
 'variety of judgments and opinions argueth obscurity in those 
 things whereabout they differ ; but that which all parts receive 
 for truth, that which, every one having sifted, is by no one 
 denied or doubted of, must needs be matter of infallible 
 certainty .' This he applies to the general doctrine of the Holy 
 Communion, as being ' instrumentally a cause of the real 
 participation of Christ, and of life in his body and blood d .' 
 And it is of this that he says, ' that all sides at length, for 
 aught he could see, were come to a general agreement : all 
 approve and acknowledge to be most true, as having nothing in 
 it but that which the words of Christ are on all sides confessed 
 to enforce ; nothing but that which the Church of God hath 
 always thought necessary ; nothing but that which alone is 
 sufficient for every Christian man to believe concerning the use 
 and force of this Sacrament : finally, nothing but that wherewith 
 the writings of all antiquity are consonant, and all Christian 
 confessions agreeable 6 .' Thus wrote that excellent person in 
 
 c Hooker, b. v. p 310. d Compare p. 306. e Page 306.
 
 The Introduction, 5 
 
 the year 1597. The Zuinglians by that time had corrected, or 
 more clearly explained their principles : and Socinus was scarce 
 yet known on this side the water, or had made no figure 
 with respect to this subject, or none worth the mentioning, 
 in opposition to a prescription of fifteen hundred years before 
 him, and to the united voice of all the churches in his time. It 
 is a maxim of prudence, as in all other matters, so also in the 
 interpreting Scripture, to consult with the wise, and to take to 
 our assistance the most eminent lights we can anywhere find, 
 either among ancients or moderns. To be a little more par- 
 ticular, I may here observe something distinctly of each. 
 
 i. As to ancients, some lived in the very infancy of the 
 Church, had personally known our blessed Lord in the flesh, or 
 conversed with the Apostles, and afterwards governed their 
 respective churches, as venerable bishops, many years, often 
 administering the Holy Communion, and at length dying 
 martyrs. Is it at all likely, that such men as they were should 
 not understand the true Scripture doctrine concerning the 
 Sacraments, or that they should affect to delude the people 
 committed to their charge, with superstitious conceits, or fond 
 expectations 1 A man must be of a very odd turn of mind, who 
 can deliberately entertain so unworthy a thought of the apo- 
 stolical Fathers, or can presume to imagine that he sees deeper 
 into the use or force of those sacred institutions than those holy 
 men did. It is reasonable to conceive, that the New Testament 
 was penned with a very particular view to the capacities of the 
 first readers or hearers ; not only because it was natural to 
 adapt the style to the then current language and customs, but 
 also because much depended upon making the Gospel plain and 
 intelligible to the first converts, above all that should come 
 after. If the earliest Christians, after the Apostles, could not 
 readily understand the religion then taught, how should it be 
 handed down with advantage to others of later times ] But if the 
 Scripture doctrine should be supposed comparatively obscure to 
 those that come after, yet so long as the earlier Christians found 
 it perfectly clear, and left behind them useful memoirs whereby 
 we may learn how they understood it, there will be sufficient 
 security against any dangerous mistakes in succeeding ages, by 
 looking back to the sense of the most early interpreters. Great 
 regard therefore ought to be paid to the known sense and 
 judgment of the apostolical Fathers f . The later Fathers, of the 
 second, third, and fourth centuries, have their weight also, in 
 proportion to their known integrity, and abilities, and fame in 
 
 f Of this see more in Abp. Wake's Apostolical Fathers, Introd. chap. x.
 
 6 The Introduction. 
 
 all the churches ; and more especially in proportion to their early 
 standing, their nearness to the fountain-head S. 
 
 2. As to moderns of best note, they agree with the ancients 
 in the main things, and may be usefully consulted on the present 
 subject. Some of them have been eminently skilled in Jewish 
 antiquities, and others in ecclesiastical. Some have excelled in 
 criticism and the learned languages : others in clearness of 
 conception and accuracy of judgment : all are useful in their 
 several ways, and may suggest many things which upon due 
 inquiry will be found to be right, and which no single writer, 
 left to himself, and without consulting them, would ever have 
 thought on. A man that affects to think by himself will often 
 fancy he sees that in Scripture which is not there, and will 
 overlook what there really is : he will run wide in his con- 
 jectures, criticize in a wrong place, and fall short in most things, 
 for want of compass, and larger views, or for want of a due 
 consideration of consequences here or there. Truth is of wide 
 extent, and is all over uniform and consistent : and it may- 
 require many eyes to look out, and search round, that every 
 position advanced may agree with all truths, natural and 
 revealed, and that no heterogeneous mixture be admitted to 
 deform and deface the whole system. How often does it happen, 
 that a man pleases himself with a thought, which strikes him at 
 first view, and which perhaps he looks upon as demonstration : 
 and yet further inquiries into other men's labours may at length 
 convince him that it is mere delusion, justly exploded by the 
 more knowing and judicious. There are numberless instances 
 of that kind to be met with among men of letters : which should 
 make every writer cautious how he presumes too far upon his 
 own unassisted abilities, and how he opposes his single judg- 
 ment to the united verdict of wise, great, and good men. It 
 requires commonly much pains and care to trace a notion quite 
 through ; to run it up to its first principles, and again to 
 traverse it to its remotest consequences, and to clear it of all just 
 objections, in order to be at length rationally satisfied, that it is 
 sound and good, and consistent throughout. Different churches, 
 or parties, have their different interpretations of the same texts, 
 and their different superstructures built upon the same prin- 
 ciples. They have respectively their several, pleas, pretences, 
 arguments, solutions, for the maintaining a debate either in the 
 offensive or defensive way. A subject thus comes to be narrowly 
 scanned, and minutely viewed on every side ; and so at length a 
 
 This argument is considered at large in my Importance of the Doc- 
 trine of the Trinity Asserted, vol. iii. ch. vii. pp. 601 666.
 
 The Introduction. 7 
 
 consistent chain of truth may be wrought out, by a careful hand, 
 from what the finest wits or ablest heads among the several 
 contending parties have happily supplied. 
 
 But perhaps it may here be asked ; Is then every man obliged 
 to look deep into religious controversies'? Are not the Scriptures 
 alone sufficient for any plain and sincere Christian to conduct 
 himself by, whether as to faith or manners 1 I answer : i. Com- 
 mon Christians must be content to understand Scripture as they 
 may, under the help of such guides as Providence has placed 
 over them, and in the conscientious use of such means as are 
 proper to their circumstances: which is all that ordinarily can 
 be required of them. 2. Those who undertake to direct and 
 guide them are more particularly obliged to search, into religious 
 controversies, and to ' prove all things' (as far as lies in their 
 power) in order to lead others in the right way. 3. Those 
 guides ought, in their inquiries or instructions, to pay a proper 
 regard and deference to other guides of eminent note, ancient 
 and modern, and not lightly to contradict them, or vary from 
 them ; remembering always, that themselves are fallible, and 
 that new notions (in religion especially) are not comparable, 
 generally speaking, to the old, proved, and tried. 4. If any 
 man interpreting Scripture in a new sense, pretends that his 
 doctrine at least is old, being Scripture doctrine ; he should be 
 told, that his interpretation however is new, and very suspicious, 
 because new, and so not likely to be Scripture doctrine. The 
 novelty of it is itself a strong presumption against it, and such 
 as nothing can overbalance but very clear and plain reasons on 
 that side. The judgment of ten thousand interpreters will 
 always be of considerable weight against the judgment of some 
 few, who are but interpreters at best, and as fallible as any 
 other : and it must argue great conceitedness and self-suffi- 
 ciency, for a man to expect to be heard, or attended to, as a 
 scripturist, or a textuary, in opposition to the Christian world ; 
 unless he first fairly considers and confutes what the ablest 
 writers have pleaded for the received construction, and next as 
 fairly proves and enforces his own. That there is very great 
 weight and force in the united voice of the Christian world, is a 
 point not to be denied by any : and indeed those that affect to 
 set up new notions are themselves aware of it, and tacitly, at 
 least, confess the same thing. For they value such authorities 
 as they are any way able to procure, or even to torture so far as 
 to make them speak on their side : and they pride themselves 
 highly in the number of their disciples, (as often as they chance 
 to succeed,) thinking it a great advantage to their cause, if but
 
 8 The Introduction. 
 
 the multitude only, or the vulgar herd, approve and espouse the 
 same thing with them. Socinus, for instance, while he slighted, 
 or pretended to slight, the concurring judgment of all churches, 
 ancient and modern, yet felt a very sensible pleasure in the 
 applauses of some few individuals, whom he had been able to 
 deceive : and he looked upon their approbation as a confirming 
 circumstance that his sentiments were true and right. This 
 kind of natural logic appears to be common to our whole species : 
 and there are few, I believe, so sanguine, (unless disordered,) 
 as to confide entirely in their own judgment, or not to suspect 
 their own best reasonings, however plausible they may at first 
 appear, if they have nobody else to concur with them and sup- 
 port them. Therefore again I conclude as before, that it is of 
 great moment to know and consider what others have thought 
 before us, and what the common reason of mankind approves : 
 and the more numerous or the more considerable the persons 
 were or are who stand against us in any article, the less 
 reason, generally, have we to be confident of our own private 
 persuasions. 
 
 I shall only add, that in subjects which have already passed 
 through many hands, and which have been thoroughly sifted 
 and considered by the ablest and best heads, in a course of 
 seventeen hundred years, there appears to be a great deal more 
 room for judgment than for invention; since little new can now 
 be thought on that is worth notice: and it is much wiser and 
 safer to take the most valuable observations of men most eminent 
 in their several ways, than to advance poor things of our own, 
 which perhaps are scarce worth the mentioning in comparison. 
 
 III. I must further premise, in relation to our present subject, 
 that as there may be two extremes, viz. of superstition on one 
 hand, and of profaneness on the other, it appears to be much safer 
 and better to lean towards the former extreme, than to incline 
 to the latter. Where there is room for doubt, it is prudent to err 
 rather on that side which ascribes too much to the Sacrament, 
 than on that which ascribes too little. i. Because it is 
 erring on the side of the precepts : for Scripture gives us express 
 cautions 1 " against paying too little regard to this holy Sacrament, 
 but never cautions us at all, or however not expressly, against 
 the contrary extreme. 2. Besides, since we attempt not, and 
 desire not to carry the respect due to the Sacrament at all higher 
 than the ancient churches, and the primitive saints and martyrs 
 have carried the same before, it will be en-ing on the humble, 
 modest, pious side, if we should happen to run into an extreme, 
 
 h i Cor. xi. 27, 29.
 
 The Introduction, 9 
 
 after such bright examples. And this again is much safer (for 
 who would not wish that his lot may be amongst the saints ?) 
 than it can be to deviate into the contrary extreme of irreverence, 
 and to come so much the nearer to the faithless and unbelieving, 
 who have their portion in this life. 
 
 It may be pleaded perhaps, that a person does no harm, or 
 risks no danger, by erring on the lessening side, because God will 
 certainly perform what he has really promised of the Sacraments 
 to every worthy receiver, whether believed or no. But then the 
 question is, how a man can be thought a worthy receiver, who, 
 without sufficient grounds, disbelieves the promises, much more 
 if he confidently rejects them, and teaches others also to do so. 
 Schlictingius pleads in this case, that the effect of the Sacrament 
 will be the same to every one that receives, though he disbelieves 
 the doctrine of its being a mean of grace i, or the like : as if he 
 thought that the outward act of receiving were all, and that the 
 inward qualification of faith were of no moment. But that was 
 his great mistake. They Avho disbelieve and openly deny the 
 inward graces of the Sacrament are unworthy receivers for that 
 very reason, and ordinarily forfeit all right and title to the 
 promised graces. 
 
 It may be further pleaded, on the same side, that the notion 
 of the Sacraments, as means of grace, (supposing it erroneous,) 
 is apt to lead men to rely upon the Sacraments more than upon 
 their own serious endeavours for the leading a good life, or 
 to rest in the Sacraments as sufficient without keeping God's 
 commandments. But this is a suggestion built upon no certain 
 grounds. For suppose AVC were deceived (as we certainly are 
 not) in our high conceptions of the use and efficacy of this 
 Sacrament ; all that follows is, that we may be thereby led to 
 frequent the Sacrament so much the oftener ; to come to it with 
 the greater reverence, and to repeat our solemn vows for the 
 leading a good life, by the assistance of Divine grace, with the 
 more serious and devout affections. No divines amongst us, 
 
 1 'Articulus de coena Domini et necesse est.' Schlicting. adv. Balthas. 
 
 baptismo (si vera est vestra sen- Meisn. p. 6. Conf. Socin. de Coena, 
 
 tentia, qua coenam Domini et bap- torn. i. p. 767. 
 
 tismum media esse statuitis per quae To which Abr. Calovius well an- 
 
 Deus spirituales efFectus in animis swers : ' Negare nos, sacramenta 
 
 hominum operetur) exprimit quidem talia media esse quae illico efFectus 
 
 causam salutis instrumentalem : sed aequatur, etiamsi fides non accedat : 
 
 tamen ignoratus aut repudiatus salu- fides autem locum habere nequit 
 
 tern non adirnit, dummodo quispiam in iis qui negant et impugnant 
 
 coena Domini et baptismo utatur ; directe media salutis divinitus iii- 
 
 adhibitis enim istis divinitus ordi- stituta. ' Abr. Calov. contr. Socin. 
 
 natis instrumentis effectum sequi torn. i. part 2. p. 251.
 
 io The Introduction. 
 
 that I know of, ever teach that the use of the outward Sacrament 
 is of any avail without inward faith and repentance, or entire 
 obedience. Our Church at least, and, I think, all Protestant 
 churches have abundantly guarded against any one's resting in 
 the bare outward work. The danger therefore on this side is 
 very slight in comparison. For what if a man should erroneously 
 suppose that upon his worthy receiving he obtains pardon for 
 past sins, and grace to prevent future, will not this be an 
 encouragement to true repentance, without which he can be no 
 worthy receiver, and to watchfulness also for the time to come, 
 without which the Divine grace can never have its perfect work] 
 Not that I would plead for any pious mistake, (were it really a 
 mistake,) but I am answering an objection ; and shewing, that 
 there is no comparative force in" it. Were the persuasion I am 
 pleading for really an error, reason good that it should be 
 discarded : religion wants not the assistance of pious frauds, 
 neither can it be served by them. But as we are now supposing 
 it doubtful on which side the error lies, and are arguing only 
 upon that supposition, it appears to be a very clear case, that 
 religion would suffer abundantly more by an error on the left 
 hand, than by an error on the right ; and that of the two 
 extremes, profaneness, rather than superstition, is the dangerous 
 extreme. 
 
 Add to this, that corrupt nature generally leans to the 
 diminishing side, and is more apt to detract from the burden 
 of religion than to increase the weight ; and therefore the 
 stronger guard ought to be placed there. Men are but too 
 inclinable of themselves to take up with low and grovelling 
 sentiments of Divine things: and so there is the less need of 
 bending Scripture that way, when the words are fairly capable 
 of an higher meaning, yea, and require it also, as shall be 
 shewn in the sequel. 
 
 If it should be asked, what temptation any serious Christian 
 can have to lessen the promises or privileges belonging to the 
 Sacraments 1 I answer, that pure good-nature and mistaken 
 humanity may often tempt men to be as easy and indulgent as 
 possible, in their casuistry, for the relieving of tender consciences, 
 and for the quieting the scruples of their brethren. The guides of 
 souls are sometimes apt to be over-officious that way, and much 
 more than is proper ; like as indulgent parents often ruin their 
 children by an excessive fondness, considering their present 
 uneasiness more than their future well-being. When Epicurus 
 set himself to take off the restraints of religion, no doubt but he 
 thought he was doing the most humane and the best-natured
 
 The Introduction. n 
 
 office imaginable. It had the appearance of it, in some respects, 
 (though upon the whole it was altogether the reverse,) and that 
 was his chief temptation to it. It is not improbable that the 
 same kind of good-nature, ill directed, has tempted many other- 
 wise learned and valuable guides to be too indulgent casuists, 
 and to comply too far with the humour of the world. Strict 
 notions of the Sacraments require as strict observance of the 
 same Sacraments, which demands the more intense care, and 
 greater abstraction of thought ; all which is irksome and pain- 
 ful to flesh and blood : there lies the temptation to low and 
 diminishing conceptions of the Sacraments, both in clergy and 
 people. 
 
 But are there not temptations likewise to an over-scrupulous 
 severity 1 Undoubtedly there are. Sometimes education, temper, 
 prejudice ; sometimes indiscreet zeal, or a spice of enthusiasm : 
 but in the general, and for the most part, the making religion 
 bend to the humours and fashions of the world is the sin which 
 most easily besets us ; and therefore there it is that we ought to 
 appoint the double guard. To conclude this article, all extremes 
 are wrong, and it may require some care and good discernment 
 to observe in every instance the golden mean : but still there 
 may be greater sin and danger on one side than on the other ; 
 and I have thought it of some moment to determine thus briefly, 
 to which of the extremes we may, in our circumstances, most 
 securely and wisely lean. 
 
 IV. There is another consideration very proper to be hinted 
 here in the entrance, relating to the prejudice often done to our 
 venerable Sacraments, by representing them under the detracting 
 or diminishing name of positive duties : as if they were to be 
 considered as duties only, rather than religious rites in which 
 God bears a part ; or as if that part which belongs to us, and is 
 really duty, were a single duty, and not rather a band and cement 
 of all duties, or a kind of sponsion and security for the present and 
 future performance of the whole duty of man. How this matter 
 stands will be seen distinctly in the sequel. But it is proper to hint 
 something of it here beforehand, lest the reader, by attending 
 to a false light, should set out under a mistake of the main 
 question. Let it be previously understood, what it is that we 
 assert and maintain, for the removing of prejudices, and for the 
 preventing any wrong suspicion, either of our exalting a bare 
 external duty above faith, hope, and charity, or of our recom- 
 mending any single duty in derogation to the rest. 
 
 i. In the first place therefore, let it be carefully noted, that it 
 is not merely a duty of ours, but a sacred rite, (in which God
 
 12 The Introduction. 
 
 himself bears a part,) that we are labouring to exalt, or rather 
 to do justice to. The doctrine of our Church, and of all Chris- 
 tian churches, early and late, is much the same with what our 
 Homilies teach us : namely, that ' in the Sacraments God em- 
 braces us, and offereth himself to be embraced by us ; ' and that 
 they ' set out to the eyes, and other outward senses, the in- 
 ward workings of God's free mercy, and seal in our hearts the 
 promises of God k .' 
 
 A learned writer observes and proves, that a sacrament relates 
 to that which ' flows from God to us ; ' and he adds, that ' it is 
 a thing neither denied nor forgotten by any, but is evident from 
 what the Scriptures teach concerning Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper 1.' Indeed, the Socinian way is to exclude God, as it 
 were, out of the Sacraments, and to allow him no part in them, 
 but to reduce all to a bare human performance, or positive duty : 
 but we have not so learned Christ. We are so far from thinking 
 the sacramental transaction to be a bare duty of ours, that we 
 conceive there is great use and efficacy in a sacrament, even 
 where the recipient performs no duty at all, nor is capable of 
 any, as in the case of infants receiving Baptism. It is further 
 observable, that Baptism is frequently mentioned together with 
 repentance, in the New Testament, as distinct from it ; though 
 repentance alone, as it signifies or implies entire obedience, fully 
 expresses all that is properly and merely duty on our part. 
 A plain sign that Baptism, as a sacrament, carries more in the 
 idea of it than the consideration of bare duty, and that it comes 
 not, in its whole notion, under the head of duties, but of rites, 
 or contracts, or covenants, solemn transactions between God 
 and man. God bears his part in it, as well as we ours : and 
 therefore it is looked upon as distinct from bare duties, and 
 spoken of accordingly. 
 
 I suppose it might be on these and the like considerations, 
 that some Divines have conceived, that a sacrament, properly, 
 is rather an application of God to men, than of men to God. 
 Mr. Scandret, distinguishing a sacrament, according to its pre- 
 cise formality, from a sacrifice, observes, that it is ' an outward 
 visible sign of an invisible grace or favour from God to man m .' 
 
 k Hoinily on the Common Prayer esse quasi manus Dei quibus is nobis 
 
 and Sacraments. offert et confert quod a fide nobis 
 
 1 Towerson on the Sacraments, p. petitur et accipitur.' Voss. de Sa- 
 
 12. Vossius, to the same purpose, cram. Vi et Effic. p. 252. vol. vi. 
 
 says : ' Quemadmodum fides est quasi Opp. 
 
 manus nostra, qua nos quaerimus et m Scandret, Sacrifice of the Divine 
 
 accipimus : sic verbum et sacramenta Service, p. 54.
 
 The Introduction. 13 
 
 And Dr. Eymer takes notice, that, according to our Church 
 Catechism, ' a sacrament is not supposed, in its most essential 
 part, an application made by men to God, but one made by 
 God to man. . . A gracious condescension of God's, by which he 
 converses with men, and exhibits to them spiritual blessings, 
 &c. . . God's part is indeed the whole that is strictly and pro- 
 perly sacramental : the outward and visible signs exhibited 
 are in effect the voice of God, repeating his promise of that 
 inward and spiritual favour 11 .' Dr. Towerson long before had 
 observed, that there is a difficulty as to ' shewing that a sacra- 
 ment relates equally to that which passeth from us to God, 
 and that it imports our duty and service .' He conceived no 
 difficulty at all, as to God's part in a sacrament ; that was 
 a clear point : but he thought it not so easy to prove, that 
 the strict and proper sense of the word sacrament includes 
 man's part at all. However, it is very certain that the whole 
 transaction, in the case of adults, is between two parties, and 
 that the application is mutual between God and man. And 
 this must be acknowledged particularly in the Eucharist, by 
 as many as do allow of a Consecration-prayer, and do admit 
 that service to be part of our religious worship, as also to be 
 a federal rite. But from hence may appear how widely they 
 mistake who consider a sacrament as a bare human performance, 
 a discharge of a positive duty on man's part, and nothing more, 
 throwing out what belongs to God, and what is most strictly 
 sacramental. It is sinking or dropping the noblest and most 
 essential part of the idea, and presenting us with a very lame 
 and insufficient account of the thing. But a more minute 
 explication of this matter, together with the proofs of what 
 we maintain, will come in hereafter : all I intended here was 
 only to give the reader some previous conception of the state 
 of the main question, that he may understand the more clearly 
 what we are about. 
 
 2. Next, I must observe, that that part in a sacrament which 
 is really ours, and which, so far as concerns adults, is properly 
 duty, is yet such a duty as is supposed to comprehend, one way 
 or other, all duty : for receiving worthily (as shall be shewn in 
 its place) implies present repentance, a heart turned to God 
 and to universal obedience, and a serious resolution so to abide 
 to our life's end. It has been thought somewhat strange, by 
 those who have imbibed wrong notions of the case, that all 
 Christian privileges should be supposed to follow a single duty, 
 
 11 Eymer, General Representation of Revealed Religion, pp. 286, 287. 
 Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 12.
 
 14 The Introduction. 
 
 when they really belong to the whole system of duties. But 
 when it is considered, that these privileges are never conceived 
 to be annexed to this single duty, in any other view, or upon 
 any other supposition, but as it virtually carries in it (or in the 
 idea of worthy reception) all duty, the main difficulty will 
 vanish ; for it may still be true, that those Christian privileges 
 go along with the whole system of duties, and with nothing 
 short of it. We never do annex all Christian privileges to 
 this single duty, but as this duty is conceived, for the time 
 being, to contain all the rest ; for that we take to be implied 
 in receiving worthily. Whether we are right in interpreting 
 worthy reception in so comprehensive a sense, is not now the 
 question, but may be considered in its place : all I am con- 
 cerned with here is to ward off a charge of inconsistency, with 
 respect to our doctrine on this head. 
 
 But to shew the weakness of the charge yet more plainly, let 
 the same objection be urged in a very common case of oaths 
 to a government, or of subscription to articles, to which many 
 State-privileges and Church-privileges are ordinarily annexed. 
 What, may some say, shall all those privileges be given, merely 
 for the labour of repeating an oath, or of writing a name 1 No, 
 certainly : the outward work is the least and the lowest part 
 of what the privileges are intended for, if it be any part 
 at all, in a strict sense. The privileges are intended for persons 
 so swearing, or so subscribing, upon a presumption that such 
 oath carries in it all dutiful allegiance to the sovereign, and 
 that such subscription carries in it all conformity in faith and 
 doctrine to the Church established. Of the like nature and 
 use are our sacramental ties and covenants. They are supposed, 
 when worthily performed, to carry in them all dutiful allegiance 
 to God, and a firm attachment to Christ ; a stipulation of a 
 good conscience, and, in a word, universal righteousness, both 
 as to faith and manners P : all which is solemnly entered into 
 for the present, and stipulated for the future, by every sincere 
 and devout communicant. To be short, repentance, rightly 
 understood, and a due attendance on the Sacraments, taken 
 
 P What Tertullian observes of the audientis intinctio est, metus integer, 
 
 sacrament of Baptism is justly ap- deinde quoad Dominum senseris, 
 
 plicable to both Sacraments : ' La- fides sana, conscientia semel poeni- 
 
 vacrum illud obsignatio est fidei, tentiam amplexata. Ceterum, si ab 
 
 quae fides a poenitentiae fide in- aquis peccare desistimus, necessitate, 
 
 cipitur et commendatur. Non ideo non sponte innocentiam induimus.' 
 
 abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, Tertull. de Poenit. cap. vi. p. 125. 
 
 sed quia desiimus, quoniam jam Kigali, 
 corde loti sumus. Haec enim prima
 
 The Introduction. 15 
 
 together, do in our account make up the whole system of 
 Christian practice for the time being : therefore in annexing 
 all Gospel-privileges to worthy receiving, we do not annex 
 them to one duty only, but to all, contained, as it were, or 
 summed up (by the supposition) in that one. All the mistake 
 and misconception which some run into on this head, appears 
 to be owing to their abstracting the outward work from the 
 inward worthiness supposed to go along with it, and then calling 
 that a single duty, which at best is but the shell of duty in 
 itself, and which, in some circumstances, (as when separate 
 from a good heart,) is no duty at all, but a grievous sin, a 
 contempt offered to the body and blood of Christ, and highly 
 provoking to Almighty God. 
 
 Thus far I have taken the liberty of premising a few things 
 in the entrance ; not for the anticipating what I am hereafter to 
 prove, but for the removing those prejudices which appeared 
 to lie in the way. And now I proceed, with God's assistance, 
 to what I intend upon the subject of the Eucharist, otherwise 
 styled the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or the Holy 
 Communion.
 
 1 6 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Of tJie most noted or most considerable Names under which the 
 Holy Communion hath been anciently spoken of. 
 
 BEFORE I come directly to treat of the thing, it may be 
 proper to observe something of the names it has anciently 
 gone under : which I shall endeavour to range in chronological 
 order, according to the time when each name may be supposed 
 to have come up, or first to have grown into vogue. 
 
 A. D. 33. Breaking of Bread. 
 
 The oldest name given to this holy ceremony, or religious ser- 
 vice, seems to have been that of ' breaking bread,' taken from what 
 the disciples saw done by our Lord in the solemnity of the insti- 
 tution. I choose to set the date according to the time of the first 
 clear instance a we have of it, rather than according to the time 
 when St. Luke related it in his history ; because very probably 
 he followed the style of those who then celebrated it. St. Luke 
 in his history of the Acts, speaking of the disciples, says : ' They 
 continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, 
 and in breaking of bread, and in prayersV The circumstances 
 of the text plead strongly for interpreting, it of the Holy Commu- 
 nion : and the Syriac version (which is of great antiquity) renders 
 it ' breaking of the Eucharist c ;' which is some confirmation 
 of the same construction. A little lower, in the same chapter, 
 
 a I said, first clear instance ; be- yet since it is a disputed construc- 
 
 cause though Luke xxiv. 30, 35 tion, and such as cannot be ascer- 
 
 has been understood of the Eucha- tained, I call that instance not clear, 
 
 rist by some ancients, and more but pass it off as none, because it is 
 
 moderns, (Romanists especially,) and doubtful. 
 
 I see no absurdity in the interpre- b Acts ii. 42. 
 
 tation, nor anything highly im- c The same phrase occurs in the 
 
 probable, or that could give just Recognitions, lib. vi. n. 15 : ' Euclia- 
 
 advantage to the Romish cause with ristiam frangens cum eis.' 
 respect to communion in one kind ;
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 17 
 
 mention is again made of the disciples, as ' continuing daily in 
 the temple, and breaking bread from house to house d ;' or 
 rather ' in a house,' set apart for holy uses 6 . 
 
 St. Luke a third time takes notice of the ' breaking of bread :' 
 where also the Syriac version renders as before, ' breaking of 
 the Eucharist.' The circumstances confirm it : it was on the 
 ' first day of the week/ and St. Paul is observed to have 'preached 
 unto them.' St. Paul also himself seems to allude to this 
 name, when speaking of this Sacrament he says, ' The bread 
 which we break, is it not the Communion f V &c. They who 
 would see more concerning this name may consult, besides com- 
 mentators, the authors referred to at the bottom of the page?. I 
 may just observe, by the way, that scruples have been raised 
 against the construction here given ; and some have thought 
 that the texts might possibly be interpreted either of a love- 
 feast, or else of a common meal. I think, very hardly, and not 
 without some violence. However, even Whitby and Wolfius, 
 who appear to hesitate upon Acts ii. 42, 46, yet are positive 
 enough with respect to Acts xx. 7, as relating to the Eucharist : 
 and since there is no ground for scruple, excepting only that the 
 Romanists make an ill use of this construction, and that may 
 easily be obviated a better way n , I look upon the construction 
 here given as sufficiently supported. And it is some confirmation 
 of it, that Ignatius, of the apostolical times, makes use of the 
 same phrase of ' breaking bread,' where he is plainly speaking of 
 this holy Sacrament 1 . 
 
 d Acts ii. 46. Our translation in f I Cor. x. 16. 
 
 the phrase ' from house to house' f Casauboii. ad Annal. Eccles. 
 
 (KOT' olKov) follows Beza, who renders Exerc. xvi. p. 378, alias p. 528. 
 
 ' domatim, ' and has been found fault Buxtorf de Coena Domini, pp. 312, 
 
 with by Scaliger, Mede, Beveridge, 313. Suicer. Thesaur. in voc. KKaais, 
 
 and Cave, referred to in Wolfius Cur. p. 105. Julian. Vorstii Philolog. 
 
 Crit. pag. 1048. Compare Johnson's Sacr. part. ii. p. 200. Towerson on 
 
 Unbloody Sacrifice, vol. ii. p. 98. the Sacraments, p. 166. 
 
 e ' Erant autem privata ilia virfpfa u Vid. Casaubon. ad Annal. 
 
 loca a Judaeis semper sacris usibus Eccl. Exercit. xvi. n. 48. p. 
 
 destinata ; saltern ex quo Daniel 379. 
 
 propheta ascendisse in coenaculum ' "Ei/a apron K\uvTes. Ignat. ad 
 
 ad orandum diceretur.' Pearson, Ephes. cap. xx. p. 19. 
 Lect. in Act. Apost. p. 31.
 
 1 8 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 
 
 A. D. 57. Communion. 
 
 * 
 The name of Communion has been long famous, and was 
 
 undoubtedly taken from St. Paul's account of this Sacrament, 
 where he teaches that the effect of this service is the Communion 
 of the body and blood of Christ k . He does not indeed directly 
 call the Sacrament by that name, as others have done since he 
 was signifying what the thing is, or what it does, rather than how 
 it was then called 1 . But as his account gave the first occasion 
 for the name of Communion, I thought it not amiss to date it 
 from thence. I find not that this name became frequent in the 
 earlier centuries : the Canons called apostolical are of doubtful 
 age. The Roman clergy, in a letter to the clergy of Carthage, 
 make use of the name Communion in the time of St. Cyprian m , 
 that is, about the middle of the third century. But in the age 
 next following, it became very common, both in the Greek and 
 Latin Fathers. The Spanish Fathers, in the Council of Elvira, 
 (A.D. 305), make use of it more than forty times : the Councils 
 of Aries and of Ancyra (in 314 and 315) made use of the same. 
 The Council of Nice, in the year 325, speaks of the same Sacra- 
 ment under the name of Communion 11 , in their thirteenth Canon. 
 Hilary, about the middle of the same century, styles it sometimes 
 the Communion of the Holy Body, sometimes the Sacrament of 
 the Holy Communion, sometimes the Communion of the everlast- 
 ing Sacraments . A little later in the same century, Basil some- 
 times has the single word Communion P to denote the Eucharist : 
 at other times he calls it the Communion of the good Thing, or of 
 
 k i Cor. x. 16. Cyprian. Epist. ii. p. 8. Bened. 
 
 1 'Non appellat Paulus Coenam ed. 
 
 Domini Communionem tanquam pro- n Koivuvtas ird\iv T\>x<i>v. Concil. 
 
 prio ejus nomine ; sed vim et effica- Nicaen. can. xiii. p. 330. Harduin. 
 ciam Sacramenti hujus exprimens, Hilarius Pictavens. pp. 169, 223, 
 
 ait earn esse communionem, sive 740. edit. Bened. 
 participationem corporis Christi.' P Koivtaviav oticoi KaTtx ovrfs > fy>' 
 
 Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. 47. p. eavruiv f*f.Ta.\a.n$d.vov<nv. fv > AA|oj'- 
 
 361. Spia 8e Kal tv Alyvirrcf eicaffTos teal 
 
 m ' Si qui in hanc tentationem in- rwv iv \aa> reAoiWcop, &>s M -rb 
 
 ciderunt, coeperint apprehendi infir- irXfiarov, ex.fi Koivwv'iav ev T< olicta 
 
 mitate, et agant poeiiitentiam facti avrov, /cat ore ftov\tTai fisraAa^Saj'et 
 
 sui, et desiderent communionem, 81' tavrov. Basil. Epist. xciii. p. 
 
 utique subveniri eis debet ' &c. Apud 187. edit. Bened.; alias Epist. 289.
 
 CH. I. the Holy Communion. 19 
 
 the 'Sovereign GoocK I need not descend to lower Fathers, 
 amongst whom the name became very frequent : Suicer r has col- 
 lected their testimonies, observing withal the several accounts 
 which they gave of the name, all reducible to three, i. The Sacra- 
 ment is so called because of the communion we therein hold with 
 Christ and with each other. 2. Because we are therein made part- 
 ners of Christ's kingdom. 3. Because it is a religious banquet, 
 which we partake of in common with our fellow Christians. 
 
 A. D. 57. Lord's Supper. 
 
 I am willing to set down the name of Lord's Supper as a 
 Scripture name, occurring in St. Paul's Epistles 8 ; which appears 
 to be the most prevailing opinion of learned Protestants. Not 
 that I take it to be a clear point at all, or so much as capable of 
 being proved : but I incline rather to those, both ancients and 
 moderns, who interpret that place of the love-feast, kept in imi- 
 tation of our Lord's Last Supper, which was previous to the 
 original Eucharist. Thus much however is certain, that in the 
 apostolical times the love-feast and the Eucharist, though distinct, 
 went together, and were nearly allied to each other, and were 
 both of them celebrated at one meeting. Without some such 
 supposition as that, it was next to impossible to account for 
 St. Paul's quick transition, in that chapter, from one to the 
 other. Whether, therefore, Lord's Supper in that chapter sig- 
 nifies the love-feast only, or the Eucharist only, or both together, 
 one thing is clear and unquestionable, that they were both but 
 different parts of the same solemnity, or different acts of the 
 same meeting : and there is no occasion to be scrupulously nice 
 and critical in distinguishing to which of the parts the name 
 strictly belongs *. 
 
 i Kotveevia rov ayadov. Epist. tius inquirere non est opus : sive 
 
 Canon, prima ad Amphiloch. p. enim Christianomm Agapae, sive 
 
 272. Epist. secuncla, p. 293. ipsa Eucharistia significetur, nil in- 
 
 r Suicer. Thesaur. in Koivdivia. terest, dummodo concedatur (quod 
 
 Conf. Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. iiulla prorsus ratione iiegari potest) 
 
 47. p. 361, &c., alias 504, &c. EucharistiaecelebrationemcumAga- 
 
 8 i Cor. xi. 20. pis esse conjunctam.' Sam. Basnag. 
 
 1 ' Quid rei sit coena haec, accura- Annal. torn. ii. p. 296. 
 
 C 2
 
 2O The Ancient Names of CH. i. 
 
 Maldonate, the Jesuit, in his Contents upon Matt. xxvi. 26, 
 took upon him to reproach the Protestants in an unhandsome 
 manner, for speaking of the Eucharist under the name of a 
 Supper ; Avhich he thought irreverent, and not wan-anted by 
 Scripture, antiquity, or sound reason u . The learned Casaubon 
 some time after appeared in behalf of the Protestants x , and 
 easily defended them, as to the main thing, against the injurious 
 charge. Albertinus, long after, searched with all diligence into 
 ancient precedents and authorities for the name, and produced 
 them in great abundance y, more than sufficient to confute the 
 charge of novelty, rashness, or profaneness on that head. The 
 truth of the matter seems to be. that though there is no clear 
 proof that the name of Supper is a Scripture name, yet some 
 Fathers (as high as the fourth century) thought that it was, so 
 understanding i Cor. xi. 20. And many interpreters of good 
 note have followed them in it. Indeed it does not appear that 
 the text was so construed before the latter end of the fourth 
 century, or that the name of Lord's Supper was much in use as 
 a name for the Eucharist. Irenaeus once has the name of God's 
 Supper, but means quite another thing by it z . Tertullian has 
 the same a for Lord's Table, referring to i Cor. x. 22, not to 
 i Cor. xi. 20. He has also the phrase of Lord's Banquet b , [or 
 Lord's Day Banquet,] and Banquet of God c , meaning the love- 
 feasts then in use, which he elsewhere styles the Supper of 
 Christians d . But St. Basil very plainly interprets Lord's Supper 
 in that text of the Eucharist 6 : which even Fronto Ducaeus, in 
 
 u ' Calvinistae sine Scripturae auc- c ' Convivium Dei.' Tertull. de 
 
 toritate, sine veterum auctorum ex- Virgin. Vel. cap. viii. p. 172. 
 
 emplo, sine ratione, nullo judicio, d ' Coena nostra de nomine ratio- 
 
 coenam vocant.' Maldouat. p. 556. nem sui ostendit : id vocatur quod 
 
 x Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. 32. dilectio apud Graecos. ' Tertull. 
 
 p. 368, alias 513. Apoll. cap. 39. 
 
 y Albertinus de Eucharistia, lib. i. e "na-irep oi>Sev Koivbv cr/ceCos eVwpe- 
 
 cap. I. trot 6 \6yos eiffcpepeffOat fls TCI ayia, 
 
 1 ' Coena Dei.' Iren. lib. iv. cap. ovrias oi'/Se ra ayta els Kotvbv olitov 
 
 36. p. 279. ed. Bened. en-ire A.tVr#o. . . . /U^JTS rbv Koivbv Se'tir- 
 
 a 'NonpossumuscoenamDeiedere, vov fv Kn\T]aia eafltetv /cat Trivetv, 
 
 et coenam daemoniorum.' Tertullian. /J-^re rb KvpiaKbv Sflirvov fv olnia 
 
 de Spect. cap. xiii. p. 79. Ka6v&pttiit. Basil. Regul. Brev. p. 
 
 b 'Convivium Dominicum.' Ter- 310, p. 525. ed. Bened., alias 657. 
 
 tull. ad Uxor. cap. iv. p. 168. Conf. Theodorit. in i Cor. xi. 20.
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 21 
 
 his notes upon the place, confesses ; endeavouring at the same 
 time to bring off Maldonate as fairly as the matter would bear, 
 while, in reality, he yields the main thing, with respect to the 
 Fathers, at least. However, it must be owned that Basil is the 
 first who directly so interprets the text, and that the Fathers 
 were not all of a mind about it, and that the appellation of Supper 
 was not very common till after the fourth century ; and that even 
 in the later centuries the name of Lord's Supper was a name for 
 that supper which our Lord made previous to the Eucharist. 
 The third Council of Carthage (A. D. 418) speaks of 'one day 
 in the year in which the Lord's Supper was celebrated f :' where 
 it is plain that Lord's Supper does not mean the Eucharist, but 
 the supper proper to Maundy-Thursday, kept in imitation of our 
 Lord's Paschal Supper, previous to the Eucharist. And the like 
 is mentioned in the Trullan Council (A. D. 683), in their 2Qth 
 Canon?. So that Lord's Supper was not then become a familiar 
 name, as now, for the Eucharist, but rather eminently denoted 
 the supper previous to it ; either our Lord's own, or that which 
 was afterwards observed by Christians as a memorial of it, being 
 a kind of love-feast. I shall only add further, that Hilary the 
 Deacon (A. r>. 380, or nearly) in his comment upon i Cor. xi. seems 
 to dislike the name of supper 1 ', as applied to the Eucharist, and 
 therefore could not interpret the text as Basil of that time did. 
 
 A. D. 96. Oblation. 
 The name of oblation may, I think, be fairly carried up as 
 high as to Clemens of Rome, who upon the lowest computation 
 wrote his famous Epistle as early as the year 96. The more 
 common date is 70, or thereabout : but a learned and considerate 
 writer', who very lately has re-examined the chronology of that 
 Epistle, has with great appearance of probability brought it down 
 to A. D. 96 : and there I am willing to rest it. 
 
 f Miaj T7jeria$ % (if pas ev fj TO Kvpia- rium Eucharistiae inter coenandum 
 
 Kbv Sflirvov firirf^t'irai. Concil. Car- celebratum, non coenam esse : medi- 
 
 thag. Can. xliv. p. 567. Bevereg. edit, cina enim spiritalis est, quae cum 
 
 s Mias eTTjffiou ^iifpas, tv 77 -rb reverentia degustata, purificat sibi 
 
 iivpiaK^v SeiTrvoc fimt\f7rai. Concil. devotmn.' Pseud. Ambros. in loc. 
 
 Trull. Can. xxix. p. 188. * Lardner, Credibility of Gospel 
 
 k 'Ostendit [Christus] illis myste- Hist, part ii. vol. i. pp. 5062.
 
 22 " The Ancient Names of CH. i. 
 
 Clemens speaks of the oblations and sacred functions of the 
 Church, referring, very probably, to the Eucharistical service k : 
 neither can he without some violence be interpreted to mean any- 
 thing else. In another place, he still more plainly refers to the 
 same, where he says ; ' It would be no small sin in us, should 
 we cast off those from the episcopal function, who holily and 
 without blame offer the gifts 1 .' Here he expressly speaks of 
 gifts offered, (that is, of oblation,) and by sacerdotal hands. The 
 gifts were brought to the altar, or communion table, by the 
 people, and were recommended to God's acceptance by the offici- 
 ating bishop, or presbyter. So there was first a kind of lay 
 oblation, and next a sacerdotal oblation of the same gifts to God. 
 Those gifts consisted partly of alms to the poor, and partly of 
 oblations, properly so called, to the Church ; and out of these last 
 was usually taken the matter of the Eucharist, the bread and 
 wine m . The oblation, as I before hinted, was twofold ; hence 
 the whole service of the Eucharist came to be called the oblation : 
 and to communicate, or to administer, in Church language, was 
 to offer. There was a third kind of oblation which came up 
 afterwards, in the third century : or, to speak more accurately, 
 the commemoration, which was always a part of the Eucharistical 
 service, came by degrees to be called an oblation, (but not within 
 the two first centuries, so far as I can find,) and then commenced 
 a kind of third oblation : not a new thing, but an old service 
 under a new name. 
 
 k Hdvra rc|ej iroietv 6<f>ti\ofj.fv , . . KOVTO.S ra ScSpo, rijx ftrta-KOTrrjs airo/Bd- 
 
 rds re irpoo-Qopas Kal \firovpyeias ^TTI- \tanev. c. xliv. p. 178. Compare 
 
 re\f7ffdai . . . ol o$v -rots trpoffrtray- Johnson's Unbl. Sacrifice, part i. 
 
 fJ.l"US KCUpOlS TTOlOWTfS TOS TTpO<T<pOpaS pp. 75, 78, &C. 
 
 avriav, evTrp6a5eKToi elffi Kal na.K<ipioi. m See Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. b. 
 
 Clem. Rom. Ep. c. xl. p. 164. edit. xy. ch. i. sect. I, 2. Deylingius, 
 
 Cant. Observ. Miscellan. p. 301. Consti- 
 
 "V'itringa, upon these words, allows tut. Apostol. lib. viii. c. 27, 30. 
 
 that they refer to the Eucharist. L'Arroque, Hist, of the Eucharist, 
 
 'Preceshauddubieintelligunturcum part i. ch. iv. p. 30, &c. 
 sacris Eucharistiae, quibus Clemens n Of the third oblation, or three- 
 
 statas horas, ad exemplum sacrorum fold oblation, see L'Arroque, Hist. 
 
 templi, definiri vult.' Vitring. de of the Eucharist, part i. c. 8. Sam. 
 
 Vet. Synag. p. 1115. Conf. Basnag. Basnag. Annal. torn. i. p. 371. 
 
 Annal. vol. i. p. 371. Pfaffius, Dissert, de Oblat. Vet. 
 
 1 'Anapria yap ov fjLiKpa r]fuv corral, Eucharist, pp. 283, 293. 
 ecic TOVS amtniTTus Kal daicas
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 23 
 
 Justin Martyr, though he does not directly call the Eucharist 
 by the name of oblation, yet he does obliquely, where he says that 
 the oblation of fine flour, under the law, was a type of the bread 
 of the Eucharist ; and where he speaks of the Eucharistical ele- 
 ments as being offered to GodP. Elsewhere he speaks plainly of 
 the lay offering, brought by the people to the administrator Q: and 
 I presume he is to be understood of an offering to be presented 
 to God, by the hands of the Minister, brought to the Minister in 
 order to be recommended by him to the Divine acceptance. 
 
 Irenaeus, of the same century, makes frequent mention of the 
 oblation of the Eucharist, understanding by it the whole service 
 as performed by clergy and people, according to their respective 
 parts or provinces r . He supposes the oblation made to God, 
 made by the Church, in and by the proper officers : and though 
 the oblation strictly speaking, according to its primary significa- 
 tion, means only one part of the service, or two (viz. the people's 
 bringing their offerings to the altar, and the administrator's 
 presenting the same to God), yet from this part or parts of the 
 service, the whole solemnity took the name of the oblation at that 
 time, and such name became very common and familiar after- 
 wards. For since the very matter of the Eucharist was taken 
 out of the oblations received from the people, and solemnly offered 
 up afterwards to God by the Ministers, it was very natural to 
 give the name of oblation to the whole solemnity. 
 
 Tertullian speaking of the Devil, as imitating the mysteries of 
 
 'H rris ffffj.tSd\ces irpoffipopa ... r ' Novi Testament! novam docuit 
 TiVo? -fiv rov aprov TTJS evxaptffrias. oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apo- 
 Just. Dial. p. 119 Jebb, 22oThirlby. stolis accipiens, in universe mundo 
 
 P Hpoff(l>epo/J.evtav avrqi Qvaitav, rov- offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis 
 
 rt<rrt rov aprov TTJS fvxapio-rias, ft:a ' praestat, primitias suorum munerum' 
 
 rov TTorTjpiov 6(j.oi<as rrjs iv^apiffrias. &c. Iren. lib. iv. c. 17. p. 249. edit. 
 
 Just. Dial. p. 1 20 Jebb, alias 220. Bened. ' Ecclesiae oblatio, quam 
 
 1 "Eireira irpofffpfperai ry irpoe- Dominus docuit offerri in universe 
 (Tram riav ao'f\tp{ai' &pros teal ifOT^piov mundo, purum sacrificium repertum 
 u'SaTos Kal Kpd[i.a.ros, ical ovros AaiScbf, est ' &c. ' Non genus oblationum 
 atvov Kal 56av r$ irarpl &c. reprobatum est : oblationes enim et 
 
 "Apros irpoffQeperat, Kal olvos Kal illic, oblationes autem et hie.' p. 250. 
 
 uSoip. Kal o irpofffrlas eii^as opo'icas ' Hanc oblationem Ecclesia solam 
 
 Kal fvxapHrrlas, O'CTTJ Suva/j-ts avrtf, puram offert fabricator!, offerens ei 
 
 avaTre/j.irfi, Kal 6 \abs '?reii!f)rj / u?, Ae- cum gratiarum actione, ex creatura 
 
 ytav rb 'A^v. Just. Mart. Apol. i. ejus.' p. 251. 
 pp. 96, 98.
 
 24 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 
 
 the Church, takes notice, among other things, of his instructing 
 his votaries to baptize and to celebrate the oblation of bread 8 : as 
 much as to say, that they also had their Eucharist in their way; 
 oblation being here the name for the whole service. In another 
 place he uses the single word 'offer, 'for the whole action of admi- 
 nistering and receiving the Communion * Elsewhere he makes 
 mention of oblations for the dead ; and at the anniversaries of 
 the martyrs u : and by oblations he could intend nothing but the 
 Eucharistical solemnities celebrated on those days*. 
 
 We have seen proofs sufficient of the name of oblation for the 
 two first centuries. But it is observable, that all this time we 
 meet only with oblation of gifts, or first fruits, or of bread, 
 wine, or the like : no oblation of Christ's body, or blood, or of 
 Christ absolutely, as we shall find afterwards. Hence it is, that 
 some very learned men have thought that, according to the 
 ancients, the oblation was considered always as previous to con- 
 secration, and that the elements were offered in order to be con- 
 secrated y : which indeed is true according to that sense of oblation 
 which obtained for two centuries and a half ; but a new sense, 
 or new application of the word, or name, came in soon after, and 
 so it will here be necessary to distinguish times. 
 
 I shall now pass on to Cyprian, to shew how this matter stood, 
 upon the change of language introduced in his time. We shall 
 find him plainly speaking of the offering Christ's body and blood 2 . 
 
 'Tinguit et ipse quosdam.. .. most ancient Church-writers, not as 
 
 celebrat et panis oblationem.' Ter- consecrated, but as presented, and 
 
 tull. de Praescript. c. xl. p. 216. offered (whether by the people, as 
 
 * ' Ubi ecclesiastic! ordin is non est the custom was, to him that minis- 
 consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et tered, or by him that ministered, to 
 sacerdos es tibi solus.' Tertull. de God) to be consecrated.' Thorn- 
 Exhort. Cast. c. vii. p. 522. Conf. dike, Relig. Assembl. p. 379. 'Con- 
 de Veland. Virg. c. ix. p. 178. secrationi autem oblationem prae- 
 
 u 'Oblationes pro defunctis, pro positam olim fuisse. adeo perspi- 
 
 natalitiis annua die facimus.' Ter- cuum ex veterum dictis, liturgiisque 
 
 tun, de Coron. c. iii. p. 102. Conf. antiquissimis, maxime Graecis. esse 
 
 de Exhort. Cast. c. xi. p. 523. arbitramur, ut nihil clarius esse pos- 
 
 T See Bingham, book xxiii. ch. 3. sit.' Pfaff. Fragm. Iren. in praefat. 
 sect. 12, 13. Deylingius, Observat. * ' Obtulit [Dominus] hoc idem 
 
 Miscellan. p. 95. quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est 
 
 y ' It is manifest, that it is called panem et vinum, suum scilicet cor- 
 
 an oblation, or sacrifice, in all litur- pus et sanguinem.' Cyprian. Ep. 
 
 gies, according to the style of the Ixiii. p. 105. edit. Bened. 'Unde
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 25 
 
 This must be understood of an oblation subsequent to consecration, 
 not in order to it : for Christ's body and blood, -whether real or 
 symbolical, are holy, and could want no sanctifi cation or consecra- 
 tion. He further seems to speak of offering Christ himself 8 , in 
 this Sacrament, unto God, but under the symbols of consecrated 
 bread and wine. That may be his meaning : and the meaning is 
 good, when rightly apprehended ; for there was nothing new in 
 it but the language, or the manner of expression. What the 
 elder Fathers would have called, and did call, the commemorating 
 of Christ, or the commemorating his passion, his body broken, or 
 blood shed ; that Cyprian calls the offering of Christ, or of his 
 passion, &c., because, in a large sense, even commemorating is 
 offering, as it is presenting the thing or the person so com- 
 memorated, in the way of prayer and thanksgiving, before God. 
 I do not invent this account for the clearing a difficulty, but I take 
 it from Cyprian himself, whose own words shew that the Eucha- 
 ristical commemoration was all the while in his mind b , and that 
 that was all he meant by the oblation which he there speaks of, 
 using a new name for an old thing. I shall shew in due time, 
 that the later Fathers who followed Cyprian's language in this 
 particular, and who admitted this third oblation (as some have 
 called it) as well as he, yet when they came to explain, inter- 
 preted it to mean no more than a solemn commemoration, such 
 as I have mentioned. 
 
 I must further observe, that though Cyprian sometimes ad- 
 vances this new kind of language, yet elsewhere he follows the 
 more ancient way of speaking, and understands oblation as other 
 
 apparet sanguinem Christi non of- 109. ' Quia passionis ejus mentionem 
 
 ferri, si desit vinum calici ' &c. p. in sacrificiis omnibus facimus (passio 
 
 107. est enim Domini, sacrificium quod 
 
 a ' Nam si Jesus Christus Dominus offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod 
 
 et Deus noster ipse est summus sa- ille fecit, facere debemus.' p. 109. 
 cerdos Dei Patris, et sacrificium b ' Calix qui in commemorationem 
 
 Patri seipsum primus obtulit, et [alias, commemoration e]e jus offertur.' 
 
 hoc fieri in sui commemorationem p. 104. 'Quotiescunqueergo calicem 
 
 praecepit, utique ille sacerdos vice in commemorationem Domini et pas- 
 
 Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod sionis ejus offerimus, id quod con- 
 
 Christus fecit, imitatur, et sic inci- stat Dominum fecisse, faciamus.' p. 
 
 piat offerre secundum quod ipsum 109. 
 Christum videat obtulisse.' Ibid. p.
 
 26 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 
 
 Fathers before him. had done. Thus, when he speaks of the sacrifice 
 offered in the Eucharist by the poor , he means it of the lay obla- 
 tion which was previous to consecration; as also when he speaks of 
 the clergy's presenting the oblations of the people d , he is to be 
 understood of the first and second oblations, both of them previous 
 to consecration. And when he observes, that an oblation cannot 
 be sanctified" where the Spirit is not given 6 , he uses the word 
 oblation for what was antecedent ; and it amounts to the same 
 as if he had said, that such an oblation could not be consecrated, 
 could not be made the body and blood of Christ. But enough 
 hath been said of the name of oblation in this place : the thing 
 will be more distinctly considered hereafter. 
 
 A. D. 104. Sacrament. 
 
 The name of Sacrament, as applied to the Eucharist, though 
 no Scripture name, yet certainly is of great antiquity. The 
 younger Pliny, in his Letter to the Emperor Trajan, will afford 
 us a good argument of it, in what he reports of the Christians, 
 and from the Christians, as meeting on a certain day (the Lord's 
 Day) and binding themselves by a 'Sacrament' to commit no 
 wickedness, but to lead good lives f . As Pliny there reported 
 what the Christians had told him, it is reasonable to judge, 
 that they had made use of the word Sacrament to him, which 
 they understood in the Christian sense, however Pliny or Trajan 
 might take it : and so this testimony will amount to a probable 
 proof of the use of the name of Sacrament among the Christians 
 of that time. That the name, as there used, is to be understood 
 
 c 'Partem de sacrificio quod pau- quasi Deo dicere secum invicem : 
 
 per obtulerit, sumis.' Cypr. de Op. seque sacramento non in scelus ali- 
 
 et Eleem. p. 242. quod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne 
 
 d ' Qui communicando cum lapsis, latrocinia, ne adulteria committe- 
 
 et offerendo oblationes eorum' &c. rent, ne fidem fallerent, ne tleposi- 
 
 Ep. xxviii. p. 38. turn appellati abnegarent : quibus 
 
 c ' Nee oblatio illic sanctificari pos- peractis, morem sibi discedendi fu- 
 
 sit, ubi Spiritus Sanctus non est.' isse, rursusque coeundi ad capien- 
 
 Ep. Ixiv. p. 112. dum cibum, promiscuum tamen et 
 
 f ' Adfirmabant autem, hanc fuisse innoxium.' Plin. Epist. xcvii. lib. 
 
 summani vel culpae suae, vel erroris, x. p. 819. ed. Amstel. Conf. Ter- 
 
 quod essent soliti, stato die, ante tullian. Apol. c. ii. pp. 24, 25. 
 
 lucem convenire, cannenque Christo Lugd.
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 27 
 
 of the Eucharist, is a very clear case, from all the circumstances 
 of the account. I know not how a late learned and judicious 
 writer came to understand it of the Sacrament of Baptism". The 
 generality of the best learned men h interpret it of the Eucharist, 
 and with very good reason : for the account refers to what the 
 whole assembly were wont to do, at the same time ; they could 
 not all come to receive Baptism, though they might to receive 
 the Eucharist. Then the mention of the Sacrament, as taken in 
 the 'antelucan' meetings, tallies exactly with Tertullian's account 
 of the Eucharist, as we shall see presently : besides that the 
 hint given of the love-feast, as following soon after, confirms the 
 same thing*. 
 
 I go on then to Tertullian, who makes express mention of the 
 Sacrament of the Eucharist, as received in his time, but with 
 some difference, as to the circumstances, from the original Eu- 
 charist of our Lord's own celebrating k . For that (he observes) 
 was after supper, this before daylight, fasting : in that, the com- 
 pany helped one another, or every man took his part from the 
 table 1 ; in this, the Bishop or Presbyter in person gave the bread 
 and cup to each communicant. But what I have principally to 
 take notice of here is the use of the phrase, Sacrament of the 
 Eucharist, conformable to the like phrases, which the same 
 author makes use of to denote Baptism, calling it the Sacrament 
 of water 111 , and Sacrament of sanctifi cation 11 . In the same cen- 
 tury, Cyprian calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of the cup ; 
 and elsewhere, the Sacrament of the Lord's passion and of our 
 redemption!'. 
 
 B Dr. Wall, Inf. Bapt. part ii. praesidentium sumimus.' Tertull. de 
 
 chap. ix. p. 396, third edition. Coron. c. iii. p. 102. 
 
 h Vid. Bevereg. Vindic. Can. p. ' Luke xxii. 1 7. See Archbishop 
 
 199. Tentzel. Exercit. Select, part. Potter on Ch. G. p. 259, edit. 3rd. 
 ii. p. 127. Vitringa, de Vet. Syna- m ' Sacramentum aquae.' Tertull. 
 
 gog. p. 1116. Renaudotius Liturg. de Bapt. c. i. p. 224. c. xii p. 
 
 Orient, torn. i. pp. 5, 6. Bingham, 229. 
 xv. 7. 8. n ' Sacramentum sanctificationis.' 
 
 1 See Bingham, book xv. c. 7. Ibid. c. iv. p. 225. 
 sect. 8. o 'Sacramentum calicis.' Cyprian. 
 
 k ' Eucharistiae Sacramentum, et de Lapsis, p. 189. 
 
 in tempore victus, et omnibus man- P 'Sacramentum Dominicae passio- 
 
 datum a Domino; etiam antelucanis nis, etredemptionisnostrae.' Cyprian. 
 
 coetibus,nec de aliorum manu quam Ep. 63.
 
 28 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 
 
 If it should now be asked, in what precise meaning the name 
 of Sacrament was thus anciently applied to the Eucharist ; as the 
 word Sacrament is of great latitude, and capable of various sig- 
 nifications, (some stricter and some larger,) I know of no certain 
 way of determining the precise meaning of the name, as here 
 applied, but by considering what was meant by the thing. Gerard 
 Vossiusl has perhaps given as clear and accurate an account of 
 the word Sacrament as one shall any where meet with : but after 
 all, I am of opinion, that it is not the name which can here add 
 any light to the thing, but the thing itself must be first rightly 
 understood, in order to settle the true and full import of the 
 name. When it is applied to Baptism and the Eucharist, it must 
 be explained by their common nature, being a general name 
 for such a certain number of ideas as go to make up their general 
 nature or notion. A collection of those several ideas is put 
 together in the definition given in our Church Catechism. The 
 like had been endeavoured before, in our Twenty-fifth Article : 
 and that is again digested into a more technical form, by Bishop 
 Burnet in his Exposition 1 ". His definition may be looked upon 
 as a good summary account of what our Church, and the Pro- 
 testant churches abroad, and the primitive churches likewise, 
 believed concerning Baptism and the Eucharist in common : the 
 particulars of their faith, so far, is therein collected into one large 
 complex idea, and for conveniency is comprised in the single word 
 Sacrament. And yet it must be observed, that this word Sacrament, 
 as applied to those two religious rites, admits of a threefold accep- 
 tation in Church writers : sometimes denoting barely the outward 
 sign of each, sometimes the thing signified, and sometimes both 
 together, the whole action, service, or solemnity s . 
 
 The Socinians, observing that the received sense of the word 
 Sacrament is against their whole scheme, have often expressed 
 their dislike of it. Smalcius particularly complains of it, as an 
 unscriptural name, and besides, barbarous Latin, and leading to 
 superstition and idolatry ; and therefore he moves to have it 
 
 <i Vossius de Sacram. Vi et Efficacia. Opp. torn. vi. p. 247, &c. 
 
 r Burnet on Art. XXV, pp. 268, 269. 
 
 6 Vid. Lamb. Danaeus. Isag. part. iv. lib. 5. p. 441.
 
 CH. I. the Holy Communion. 29 
 
 totally laid aside*. He was offended, it seems, at the name, be- 
 cause it served to keep up the sense of something mysterious, or 
 mystical, of a sign and somewhat signified, viz. grace &c., to which 
 he had an aversion. Volkelius, more complaisant with respect to 
 the name, turns all his resentment upon the thing, flatly denying 
 that the Eucharist is a Sacrament 11 : his reason is, because it 
 neither exhibits nor seals any spiritual grace. His master Soci- 
 nus had intimated as much before*. The sum is, that the strict 
 sense of the Sacrament, as implying an outward sign of an in- 
 ward grace, can never suit with their schemes, who allow of no 
 inward grace at all. 
 
 I may here note by the way, that while the Socinians reject the 
 invisible grace, the Romanists destroy the visible sign, and both 
 run counter to the true notion of a Sacrament, by their opposite 
 extremes: from whence it is manifest, of what moment it is to pre- 
 serve the word Sacrament, and to assert to it its true and full sense. 
 For though the word, as here applied, is not in Scripture, yet 
 the notion is there, and the general doctrine is there : and the 
 throwing that notion, or that general doctrine, under the name of 
 Sacranient,is nothing more than collecting several Scripture ideas, 
 or Scripture truths, and binding them up together in a single word, 
 for the better preserving them, and for the ease and conveniency 
 of speech. But as to the proof of those doctrines or those truths, 
 I cannot enter into it now, but must reserve it for a more proper 
 place, and proceed in the account of ancient names. 
 
 A. D. 107. EucJiarist. 
 
 Another name, as famous as any, is the name Eucharist, signi- 
 fying properly thanksgiving or blessing, and fitly denoting this 
 
 1 ' Vox sacramenti, in hac signifi- u ' Satis constat nee alteram appel- 
 
 catione, bavbara, vel saltern sacris lationeni, nimirum sacramentum cor- 
 
 literis incognita est ; ab hominibus poris Christi, veram esse. Si enira 
 
 vero otiosis (qui ceremoniis liujus- haec actio ne sacramentum quidem 
 
 modi nescio quid praeter sacram est, quo pacto, quaeso, corporis 
 
 Scripturamsuperstitiosum.aut etiam Christi sacramentum erit ?' Volkel. 
 
 idololatricum ex parte, tribuere non de Ver. Relig. lib. iv. cap. 22. p. 
 
 sunt veriti) ad tegendum dolum usur- 678. 
 
 pata : praestat igitur aliis nominibus x Socinus de Baptism. Aquae, cap. 
 
 appellari in Christi coetu hanc cere- xiv. 
 moniam.' Smalcius o. Frantz. p. 347.
 
 30 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 
 
 holy service, considered as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. 
 I set the date no higher than Ignatius's Epistles, because there 
 it first certainly occurs : though one can make no doubt of its 
 having obtained in the apostolical age, when it is considered how 
 familiarly Ignatius makes use of ity. Some have thought that 
 St. Paul himself led the way as to this name, i Cor. xiv. 16. But 
 that construction of the text appears too conjectural to build 
 upon, and is rejected by the generality of interpreters ; I think, 
 with good reason, as Estius in particular hath manifested upon 
 the place. I content myself therefore with running up that 
 name no higher than Ignatius's time. 
 
 After him, Justin Martyr 2 , Irenaeus a , Clemens of Alexandria b , 
 Origen c , and others, make familiar use of that name, as is well 
 known. One may judge how extensive and prevailing that name, 
 above any other, anciently was, from this consideration, that it 
 passed not only among the Greeks, but among the Orientalists 
 also, (as may be seen in the Syriac version before mentioned,) 
 and likewise among the Latins ; who adopted that very Greek 
 word into their own language ; as is plain from Tertulliaud and 
 Cyprian 6 in many places. 
 
 A. D. 1 50. Sacrifice. 
 
 Justin Martyr is the first I meet with who speaks of the 
 Eucharist under the name of sacrifice or sacrifices. But he does 
 it so often, and so familiarly f , that one cannot but conceive, that 
 
 y Ignatius, Epist. ad Sinyrn. c. 7> THLGIV ratv tdvaiv irpoatyfpofjifwv avrw 
 
 8. ad Philadelph. c. 4. Ovffiuv, Tovretm TOV Itprov TTJS eiixa- 
 
 z Justin. M. Apol. 96. Dialog, pp. piffrias, KOI TOV iroTrjpiov o^o'nas TTJS 
 
 2 2O, 386. Thirlby. ev^apitrrias, irpo\(yei r&re. Just. 
 
 a Irenaeus, pp. 251, 294, 341, 360, Dialog, p. 220, edit. Lond. 
 ed. Bened. dvvias &s TrapeScaKfv 'iTjaoOs 6 
 
 b Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. Xpurrbs ytvevdai, TOVTCO-TIV tvl TTJ 
 
 1. p. 178. ed. Oxon. fvxaptffriq TOV Uprou /col TOV irorr)- 
 
 c Origen. contr. Gels. lib. viii. sect. piov. Ibid. p. 386. 
 57. p. 784. ed. Bened. ori fity ovv teal filial ical evx<t- 
 
 d Tertullian. pp. IO2, 135, 215, pur-riai, virb TWV d|iax/ yii>6/j.fi/a.i, re- 
 
 22O, 562, 570. Kigalt. Aticu p.6va.L (coi tlzpfaroi tlffi rf e<j3 
 
 e Cyprian. Tract, pp. 132, 147, 2.3.C. Buariai, no! avr6s <t>i)fJ.i' ravra yap 
 
 Ep. pp. 34, 37, 38, 39, 117, Il8, 125, n.6va KOI XpiffTiavo'l irapeAajSoi' irotfty, 
 
 190, 191, 223. Ox. edit. nal CTT' a.va.jj.vi}(rti St rrjs Tpo<pr)s avruv 
 
 f Ufpl Se ruv iv iravri r6ir<f v<p' ypas re ical vypas. Ibid. p. 387.
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 31 
 
 it had been in common use for some time before : and it is the 
 more likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin 
 to it) certainly was, as we have seen above. 
 
 Irenaeus of the same century mentions the sacrifice of the Eu- 
 charist more than once ", either directly or obliquely. Tertullian, 
 not many years later, does the like h . Cyprian also speaks of 
 the sacrifice in the Eucharist, understanding it, in one particular 
 passage, of the lay oblation i. This is not the place to examine 
 critically what the ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrifices 
 of the Eucharist : it will deserve a distinct chapter in another 
 part of this work. But, as I before observed of oblation, that, 
 anciently, it was understood sometimes of the lay offering, the 
 same I observe now of sacrifice ; and it is plain from Cyprian. 
 Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a prin- 
 cipal one, which was conceived to go along with the Eucharistical 
 service, and that was the notion of spiritual sacrifice, consisting 
 of many particulars, as shall be shewn hereafter : and it was 
 on the account of one or both, that the Eucharist had the name 
 of sacrifice for the two first centuries. But by the middle of the 
 third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a sacrifice, on 
 account of the grand sacrifice represented and commemorated in 
 it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified. 
 In short, the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as 
 well as an oblation : and it had a double claim to be so called ; 
 partly as it was in itself a spiritual service or sacrifice, and partly 
 as it was a representation and commemoration of the high tre- 
 mendous sacrifice of Christ God-man. This last view of it, being 
 
 'Ecclesiaeoblatio.quamDominus Tertull. de Orat. c. xiv. pp. 1.35, 136. 
 
 docuit offerri in universe murido, pu- ' Aut aacrificium offertur, aut Dei 
 
 rum sacrificium reputatum est apud sermoadministratur.' DecultuFem. 
 
 Deum' &c. ' Sacrificia in populo, sa- lib. ii. c. n. 
 
 criticia et in ecclesia.' Iren. lib. iv. ' 'Locuples, et dives es, et Dorni- 
 
 c. 18. p. 250. ' Omni autem loco sacri- nicum celebrare te credis, quae cor- 
 
 ficium offeretur ei, et hoc purum." ban omnino non respicis, quae in 
 
 Lib. iv. c. 17. p. 249. Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, 
 
 11 ' Non putant plerique sacrificio- quae partem de sacrificio quod pau- 
 
 rumorationibusinterveniendum. . . . per obtulerit sumis.' Cyprian, de 
 
 Accepto corpore Domini et reser- Op. et Eleemos. p. 242. Bened., 
 
 vato, utrumque salvwn est, et par- alias 223. 
 ticipatio sacrificii, et executio oSicii.'
 
 32 The Ancient Names of CH. I. 
 
 of all the most awful and most endearing, came by degrees to be 
 the most prevailing acceptation of the Christian sacrifice, as held 
 forth in the Eucharist. But those who styled the Eucharist a 
 sacrifice on that account, took care, as often as need was, to ex- 
 plain it off to a memorial of a sacrifice rather than a strict or 
 proper sacrifice, in that precise view. Cyprian, I think, is the 
 first who plainly and directly styles the Eucharist a sacrifice in 
 the commemorative view, and as representing the grand sacrifice^. 
 Not that there was anything new in the doctrine, but there was 
 a new application of an old name, which had at the first been 
 brought in upon other accounts. I shall endeavour to set that 
 whole matter clear in a chapter below : for the present these few 
 hints may suffice, and so I pass on. 
 
 A. D. 1 50. Commemoration, Memorial. 'Ai/d/u^o-tj, MI/JJ/*?/. 
 
 Justin Martyr, if I mistake not, once names the Eucharist a 
 commemoration or memorial ; where he takes notice, that the 
 Christians offered up spiritual sacrifices, prayers and lauds, in 
 the memorial of their food dry and liquid J , that is, in the Eucha- 
 rist of bread and wine. I know not how otherwise to construe 
 dvdnvrja-is there, but as a name of the whole service. It was 
 natural enough, because many of the other names which have been 
 used to denominate the whole service, (as breaking bread, obla- 
 tion, sacrifice, and Eucharist,) manifestly took their original from 
 some noted part of the solemnity, and were at first but partial 
 conceptions of it. Now since the commemoration or memorial 
 was always a considerable part of the solemnity, (as the learned 
 well know,) it is reasonable to suppose, that that also might be 
 made use of in like manner, as a name for the whole service. 
 
 I am aware that our excellent Mr. Mede gives a very different 
 turn to that passage of Justin, translating it thus : ' In that 
 thankful remembrance of their food both dry and liquid, wherein 
 also is commemorated the passion which the Son of God suffered 
 
 k ' Passionis ejus raentionein in sa- ' 'ETT' avafj.vf](rei 5e -rfjs rpoQrjs av- 
 
 crificiis omnibus facimus : passio est TJOV frpas re teal vypas, tv y /cat rov 
 
 enim Domini sacrificium quod offeri- irdQovs & Wiroi/fle 5j' avrov 6 &tbs rov 
 
 mus.' Cyprian. Ep. Ixiii. p. 109. &fov nfftvijrcu. Just. Dial. 387. 
 Bened.
 
 CH. I. the Holy Communion. 33 
 
 by himself.' He interprets it of agnizing God as the ' giver of 
 our food both dry and liquid m .' But that construction must 
 needs appear harsh and unnatural. Justin nowhere else does 
 ever speak of the remembrance of our food, but constantly under- 
 stands the Eucharistical remembrance or commemoration to refer 
 to Christ only, his incarnation and passion, his body and blood 11 : 
 nor do I know of any one Father who interprets the memorial of 
 the bodily food. Besides, it suits not well with our Lord's own 
 account in his institution of the Sacrament, which speaks of the 
 remembrance of him, not of the remembrance of our bodily 
 food. Add to this, that were the sense of the place such 
 as Mr. Mede imagined, Justin would rather have expressed 
 it by a thankful remembrance of the Divine goodness in 
 giving us our food, than by a thankful remembrance of our 
 food, which appears flat and insipid in comparison. Seeing 
 then that Mr. Mede's construction of that place in Justin is 
 far from satisfactory, I choose to acquiesce in the sense which I 
 before mentioned, till I see a better ; understanding the memo- 
 rial of food, as equivalent to memorial of Christ's passion, made 
 by food, viz. by bread and wine. The word also refers not there 
 to memorial, as if there were two memorials, but to the lauds ; 
 besides which there was also a memorial of the passion. 
 
 Origen has a passage relating to the Eucharistical memorial, 
 where he appears to denominate the whole service by that emi- 
 nent part of it . Eusebius styles the Eucharist the memorial 
 of our Lord's body and blood P, and also simply a memorial : 
 which he observes to have succeeded in the room of sacrifice <J. 
 He calls it also the memorial of the sacrifice r , and memorial of 
 
 m Mede, Christian Sacrifice, b. ii. propitium facit hominibus Deum.' 
 
 ch. 5. p. 460. Orig. in Levit. Horn. xiii. p. 255. 
 
 n Vid. Justin Mart. Dial. pp. ed. Bened. 
 
 220, 290. P ToC ff<&fj.aros avrov Kal rov a'1/j.a.- 
 
 ' Si referantur haec ad mysterii ros r^v inr6fj.vn(riv. Euseb. De- 
 
 magnitudinem, invenies commemo- monst. Evangel, lib. i. cap. to. 
 
 rationem istam habere ingentis pro- p. 27. 
 
 pitiationis effectum Si respicias 1 MCTJ/UTJV Kal rifiti 1 irapaSovs, avrl 
 
 ad illam commemorationem de qua Ova-las rep < Snji/eK&s irpo<r<j>fpfii/. 
 
 dicit Dominus, hoc facite in meam Ibid. p. 38. Cp. Apost. Const, lib. vi. 
 
 commemorationem, invenias quod cap. 23. 
 
 ista est commemoratio sola, quae r Tovrov Srjra rov dv/j.a,ros r 
 
 D
 
 34 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 
 
 the grand sacrifice s . I need not descend lower, to fetch in more 
 authorities for the use of this name : only, I may just give a hint 
 that all those Fathers who interpreted the name sacrifice, as 
 applied in such a particular view to the Eucharist, by a memorial 
 of a sacrifice, may as reasonably be understood to call the Eucha- 
 rist a memorial, as to call it a sacrifice. Those Fathers were 
 many, and Chrysostom may be esteemed their chief : who while 
 he follows the ordinary language in denominating the Eucharist 
 a sacrifice, (considered in its representative view,) yet intimates 
 withal, that its more proper appellation, in that view, is a memo- 
 rial of a sacrifice *. I may further take notice, that St. Austin 
 comes very near to what I have been speaking of, where he calls 
 the Eucharist by the name of the sacrament of commemoration, 
 or sacramental memorial . To conclude this article, let the 
 reader observe and bear in mind, that the names of oblation and 
 sacrifice, as applied to the Eucharist in one particular point of 
 view, do both of them resolve into the name memorial : and so 
 far they are all three to be looked upon as equivalent names, 
 bearing the same sense, pointing to the same thing. This obser- 
 vation will be of use, when we come to consider the Eucharist in 
 its sacrificial view under a distinct chapter below. 
 
 A. D. 249. Passover. 
 
 The name of Passover has been anciently given to the Eu- 
 charist, upon a presumption that as Christ himself succeeded 
 to the paschal lamb, so the feast of the Eucharist succeeded 
 in the room of the paschal feast. Christ is our Passover, 
 as the name stands for the lamb x : the Eucharist is our 
 
 MV e'jrl Tpairefyi fKTf\f~iv, Sia <rvfj.p6- in Hebr. cap. x. Hesychius, in 
 
 \(av TOV re <ra>,uaTos avrov, teal TOV Levit. p. 31. Eulogius. apud Phot. 
 
 (Turnpiov OUHO.TOS. Ibid. p. 30. cod. 280. p. 1609. Fulgentius. de 
 
 s T)II> n.vfifi.i)v TOV (JifyaAov OV/JLUTOS. Fide ad Petr. cap. Ix. p. 525. 
 
 Ibid. p. 40. Fragm. 618. Oecumenius, in Hebr. 
 
 1 Ilpoo-tpfponev /j.ei>, oXA* a.vd^.vT}ffiv x. p. 846. Theophylact. in Hebr. 
 
 Trotov/j-eda TOV OOVO.TOV avTov. . . . T^V x. I. p. 971. 
 
 aurV Ovcrtav del iroiov/jitv, fM\\6v Te u ' Sacramentum memoriae." Au- 
 
 a.vap.vriciiv epyadfjif6a. Qu<ria.s. Chry- gustin. contr. Faust, lib. xx. cap. 21. 
 
 sost. in Epist. ad Hebr. cap. x. Horn. p. 348. Compare L'Arroque, Hist, of 
 
 17. p. 856. Compare Theodorit. in the Eucharist, part i. chap. 8. pp. 
 
 Hebr. viii. 4. p. 433. Pseud-Am- 88, 89. 
 bros. in Hebr. cap. x. Primasius, * I Cor. v. 7. John i. 29.
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 35 
 
 Passover, as that same name stands for the feast, service, 
 or solemnity. 
 
 Origen seems to have led the way ; and therefore I date the 
 notion from his time : not that he speaks so fully to the point 
 as some that came after, neither had he precisely the same 
 ideas of it ; but he taught more confusedly, what others after 
 him improved and cleared. Origen takes notice, that 'if a 
 man considers that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, 
 and that he ought to keep the feast by feeding upon the flesh 
 of the Logos, he may celebrate the Passover all his life long, 
 passing on to Godwards in thought, word, and deed, abstracted" 
 from temporal things v.' I give his sense, rather than a literal 
 rendering. Here we may observe, that the Christian Pass- 
 over feast, according to him, consists in the eating of the flesh 
 of the Logos ; which is certainly done in the Eucharist by 
 every faithful receiver, as Origen everywhere allows : but then 
 Origen's common doctrine is, that the flesh of the Logos may 
 be eaten also out of the Eucharist ; for the receiving spiritual 
 nutriment any way, is with him eating the flesh of Christ 2 . 
 So that this passage which I have cited from him does not 
 make the Eucharist, in particular, or solely, to be the Christian 
 paschal feast : but the taking in spiritual food, be it in that 
 way or any other, that is the keeping our Passover, according 
 to his sense of it. Hilary, of the fourth century, seems directly 
 to give the name of Passover to the Christian Eucharist a . 
 Nazianzen, a great admirer of Origen, improves the thought, 
 applying it directly and specially to the Eucharist, in these 
 words : ' We shall partake of the Passover, which even now 
 
 y 'En Se 6 vo-fiffas, on rb ira.ffx.a. z 'Bibereautemdiciinur sanguinem 
 
 Tiniav inrfp r]fj.cav erufJTj Xpurrbs, Kal Christi, non solum sacramentorum 
 
 XP$) fopTafit> effdlovra rfjs ffapitbs -rov ritu, sed et cum sermones ejus reci- 
 
 A.6yov OVK fffriv foe ov iroieT rb irdar- pimus, in quibus vita consistit. Sicut 
 
 Xa, oirtp epfj-yvevfrat Sia&ar-fipta., 810- et ipse dicit, Verba quae locutus 
 
 fiaivtav a.fl ry \o-ytfffj.y Kal iravrl \6yq sum, spiritus et vita est.' Orig. in 
 
 KOI -navy irpd^fi airb rSiv rov j8iou Num. Horn. xvi. p. 334. ed. Bened. 
 TTp3.yiJia.riav (ir\ -rbv tbv Kal firl TT]V a 'Judas proditor indicatur, sine 
 
 ir6\iv avjov ffitffovtv. Orig. contr. quo pascha, accepto calice et fracto 
 
 Gels. lib. viii. p. 759. ed. Bened., pane, conficitur. ' Hilar. in Matt, 
 
 alias p. 392. cap. xxx. p. 740. ed. Bened. 
 
 D 2
 
 36 The Ancient Names of CH. i. 
 
 is but a type, though much more plain than the old one : for 
 I am bold to say, that the legal Passover was an obscurer type 
 of another typeV 
 
 St. Jerome, who was once Nazianzen's scholar, follows him in 
 the same sentiment, styling the Eucharist the true sacrament of 
 the Passover, in opposition to the old one . But no one dwells 
 more upon that thought, or more finely illustrates it, than the 
 great St. Chrysostom in divers places. He asks why our Lord 
 celebrated the Passover ] And his answer is, because the old 
 Passover was the figure of the future one, and it was proper, 
 after exhibiting the shadow, to bring in the truth also upon the 
 table d : a little after he says, 'it is our Passover to declare the 
 Loi-d's death 6 ,' quoting i Cor. xi. 26. And he adds, that who- 
 ever comes with a pure conscience, celebrates the Passover, as 
 often as he receives the communion, be it to-day, or to-morrow, 
 or at any time whatever f . And he has more in the same place, 
 to the same purpose. In another work he speaks thus : ' When 
 the sun of righteousness appeared, the shadow disappeared : . . . . 
 therefore upon the self -same table both the Passovers were 
 celebrated, the typical and the reals.' A little lower, he calls 
 the Eucharist the spiritual Passover 11 . Isidorus Pelusiota 
 afterwards styles it the Divine and true Passover 1 . And 
 St. Austin observes, that the Jews celebrate their Passover in 
 a lamb, and we receive ours in the body and blood of the 
 
 b Mtra\rfif/6fi.0a Sf TOW Tacrxa vvv d Chrysost. torn. i. Orat. contr. 
 
 fj.fv rvvtKus erj, ical t ToD 7raAacoD Jud. 3. P- 610. ed. Bened. 
 
 yvfj.v&r(pov rb yap vofJUKov ird<Tx a > e Tldcrxa 8e fan, TO r'bv 6d.va.Tov 
 
 ToA.jUa> Kal Ae'-yw, T'tnrov rinros ?iv xarayy f \\eiv. Ibid. p. 6ll. 
 
 a/j.v5p6r(pos. Nazianz. Orat. Hi. p. f Tldirxa iriT\e?, K'UV aijfj.fpov, K&C 
 
 692. afipiov, /c&v dirortpovv fjLfrdffXfl TTJS 
 
 c ' Postquam typicum pascha fue- Kotvtavias. Ibid. p. 612. 
 
 rat impletum, et agni cames cum 8 'Ei/ avrfj rrj rpairf^ri fKarepov 
 
 apostolis comederat, assumit panem, ylverat traffxa, Kal rb TOV rvwov, nal 
 
 qui confortat cor hominis, et ad rb TTJ? a\ri9flas. Chrysost. de Pro- 
 
 verum paschae transgreditur sacra- dit. Jud. Horn. i. torn. i. p. 383. 
 
 mentum : ut quomodo in praefigura- 'En-' aurf/s rrjs rpatrefos, KOI rb rvTrit(bi> 
 
 tione ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei irdcrxa. vrrtpfypa\l/f, Kal rb a\T]6ii'bv 
 
 sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens trpo(r(9j]Ke. Ibid, 
 
 fecit, ipse quoque veritatem sui cor- h Tb -rrvfVfj.ariKbv ird<rxa. Ibid, 
 
 poris et sanguinis repraesentaret.' ' Tb Oelov nal a.XriQiv'bv iroo-^o. Isi- 
 
 Hierouym. in Matt. cap. xxvi. p. dor. Pelus. lib. iv. Epist. 162. p. 
 
 128. ed. Bened. 504. ed. Paris.
 
 CH. i. the Holy Communion. 37 
 
 Lord k . These are authorities sufficient for the name of Passover 
 as applied to the Eucharist : for like as Baptism is in Scrip- 
 ture account the Christian circumcision 1 , so is the Eucharist, 
 in Church account at least, the Christian Passover. 
 
 A.D. 385. Mass. Missa. 
 
 There is one name more, a Latin name, and proper to the 
 western churches, which may just deserve mentioning, because of 
 the warm disputes which have been raised about it ever since 
 the Reformation. It is the name mass, in Latin missa; ori- 
 ginally importing nothing more than the dismission of a church 
 assembly ra . By degrees it came to be used for an assembly, and 
 for Church service : so easily do words shift their sense, and 
 adopt new ideas. From signifying Church service in general, 
 it came at length to denote the Communion service in par- 
 ticular, and so that most emphatically came to be called the Mass. 
 St. Ambrose is reasonably supposed to be the earliest writer now 
 extant who mentions mass in that emphatical sense 11 . Higher 
 authorities have been pretended : but they are either from the 
 spurious Decretal Epistles, or from liturgical offices of modern 
 date in comparison . 
 
 So much for the ancient names of the Sacrament : not that 
 I took upon me to number up all, but those only which appeared 
 to me most considerable. More may be seen in Hospinian, 
 Casaubon, Suicer, or Turretin, collected into one view, with their 
 proper authorities. It is time for me now to proceed directly 
 to the consideration of the Sacrament itself; in the meanwhile 
 hoping that my readers will excuse it, if I have hitherto detained 
 them too long in the preliminaries, intended to open and clear 
 the way to the main subject. 
 
 k 'Aliud est pascha quod adhuc bon. Exercit. xvi. n. 59. p. 418, 
 
 Jadaei de ove celebrant, aliud autem alias t;82. 
 
 quod nos in corpore et sanguine n ' Missam facere coepi.' Ambros. 
 
 Domini accipimus.' Augustin. contr. Epist. 20. ad Marcellin. p. 853. ed. 
 
 Lit. Petiliani, lib. ii. cap. 37. Bened. 
 
 1 Coloss. ii. n. o Compare Deylingius, Observat. 
 
 m Hence Missa Catechumenorum, Miscellan. pp. 262, 272, &c. Bing- 
 
 and Missa Fidelium. See Cangius's ham, b. xiii. chap. I. 
 Glossarium in Missa ; and Casau-
 
 38 The Institution of CH. n. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 Of the Institution of the Holy Cofrvmunion. 
 
 IT will be proper to begin with the institution of this Sacra- 
 ment by Christ our Lord, as recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
 St. Luke, and St. Paul. It is an argument of the great weight 
 and importance of it, that we have it four times recorded in the 
 New Testament, only with some slight variations, while what 
 one or more omit, another supplies. The most complete as well 
 as shortest view of the whole may be taken by throwing all into 
 one, in some such manner as here follows : 
 
 Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. i Cor. xi. 
 
 ' The night in which the Lord Jesus was betrayed, as they 
 were eating, or did eat, Jesus took bread, and giving thanks, 
 blessed it, and brake it, and gave it unto his disciples, and 
 said ; Take, eat, this is my body, which is given and broken for 
 you ; do this in remembrance of me. After supper likewise, 
 having taken the cup, and given thanks, he gave it to them, 
 saying, Drink ye all of this, for this cup is my blood of the new 
 covenant, the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you, 
 for many, for the remission of sins : this do ye, as oft as ye 
 drink it, in remembrance of me, (and they all drank of it.) 
 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of this fruit of 
 the vine, until that day, when I shall drink it new with you 
 in the kingdom of my Father, in the kingdom of God. And 
 when they had sung an hymn, they went out to the mount 
 of Olives.' 
 
 The circumstance of time is the first thing here observable : 
 it was ' in the night in which he was betrayed P' that our Lord 
 instituted this holy Sacrament. Our Lord designed it (besides 
 other uses) for a standing memorial of his passion : and to shew 
 the more plainly that he did so, or to render it the more affect- 
 ing, he delayed the institution to the last period of his life. 
 
 A more material circumstance is, that he began the institution 
 
 p i Cor. x . 23.
 
 CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 39 
 
 as they were eating, or after they had been eating: here the 
 question is, what had they been eating 1 It is commonly sup- 
 posed the paschal lamb. For St. Matthew in the same chapter 
 relates, that on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples 
 came and asked, 'Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee 
 to eat the Passover ?' And the Lord made answer, that he 
 would 'keep the Passover with his disciples,' and the disciples 
 actually prepared the Passover <i. St. Mark reports the same r . 
 St. Luke confirms it, and adds this further circumstance, that 
 our Lord, upon his sitting down to supper, said, 'With desire 
 have I desired to eat this Passover with you, before I suffer 8 .' 
 Nevertheless, it seems from St. John's account, that the day of 
 the legal Passover was not yet come, that it was 'before the 
 feast of the Passover' that our Lord had his supper 4 ; that 
 part of Friday, passion- day, was but the preparation 11 of the 
 paschal feast. These seeming differences have occasioned very 
 long and intricate disputes between Greeks and Latins, and 
 among learned men both ancient and modern, which remain 
 even to this day. I shall not presume to take the place of a 
 moderator in so nice a debate, but shall be content to report as 
 much as may serve to give the reader some notion of it, suffi- 
 cient for my present purpose. There are three several schemes 
 or opinions in this matter : i. The most ancient and most 
 prevailing is, that our Lord kept the legal Passover, and on 
 the same day with the Jews : and those who are in this 
 sentiment have their probable solutions with respect to St. 
 John's accounts, while they claim the three other Evangelists 
 as entirely theirs. 2. The second opinion is, that our Lord 
 anticipated (for weighty reasons) the time of the Jewish Pass- 
 over, and so kept his before theirs : or rather, he kept his 
 Passover at the true legal time, when the Jews (or some at 
 least of the Jews) postponed theirs illegally. This opinion 
 has also its difficulties, and the maintainers of it have contrived 
 some plausible solutions. 3. The third opinion is, that our 
 Lord kept no Passover properly so called, but had a supper, 
 
 i Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, 19. r Mark xiv. 12 16. s Luke xxii. 15. 
 * John xiii. i, 2. John xix. 14 : compare xviii. 28.
 
 40 The Institution of CH. n. 
 
 and afterwards instituted the Eucharist, the mystical or Chris- 
 tian Passover; called Passover in such a sense as Baptism is 
 called Circumcision, succeeding in its room. This last opinion 
 had some patrons of old time, and more of late, and seems to 
 gain ground. I shall here transcribe what a learned and ju- 
 dicious writer of our own has lately pleaded in behalf of it, 
 though it may be thought somewhat prolix. It is in his notes 
 on Matt. xxvi. i / x . 
 
 ' Here occurs a question and a difference between the words 
 of St. John and the other three, concerning the day of the week 
 on which the Jews kept the Passover that year 4746, A. D. 33. 
 It is plain by all the four Gospels, that this day on which Christ 
 did at night eat the Passover (or what some call the Passover) 
 was Thursday. And one would think by reading the three, that 
 that was the night on which the Jews did eat their Passover 
 lamb. But all the texts of St. John are clear, that they did 
 not eat it till the next night, Friday night, before which night 
 Christ was crucified and dead, having given up the ghost about 
 the ninth hour, viz. three of the clock in the afternoon. St. John 
 does speak of a supper which Christ did eat on Thursday night 
 with his Apostles, chap. xiii. i, 2, but he does not call it a 
 Passover supper, but, on the contrary, says it was before the 
 feast of the Passover, npb TT)S foprrjs TOV Trao-^a : by which, I 
 think, he means the day before the Passover, or the Passover 
 eve as we should say. Now this was the same night, and 
 the same supper which the three do call the Passover, and 
 Christ's eating the Passover. I mean, it was the night on 
 which Christ was (a few hours after supper) apprehended ; as 
 is plain by the last verse of that thirteenth chapter. But the next 
 day (Friday, on which Christ was crucified) St. John makes 
 to be the Passover day. He says, (chap, xviii. 28,) the Jews 
 would not go into the judgment-hall on Friday morning, lest 
 they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover, 
 viz. that evening. And, chap. xix. 14, speaking of Friday noon, 
 he says, it was the preparation of the Passover. Upon the 
 
 1 Dr. Wall's Critical Notes on the New Testament, p. 33.
 
 CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 41 
 
 whole, John speaks not of eating the Passover at all : nor 
 indeed do the three speak of his eating any lamb. Among all 
 the expressions which they use, ' of making ready the Passover ; ' 
 ' prepare for thee to eat the Passover ; ' ' with desire have I desired 
 to eat this Passover with you/ &c., there is no mention of any 
 lamb carried to the temple to be slain by the Levites, and then 
 brought to the house and roasted : there is no mention of any 
 food at the supper beside bread and wine : perhaps there might 
 be bitter herbs. So that this seems to have been a commemo- 
 rative supper used by our Saviour instead of the proper paschal 
 supper, the eating of a lamb ; which should have been the next 
 night, but that he himself was to be sacrificed before that time 
 would come. And the difference between St. John and the other 
 is only a difference in words, and in the names of things : they 
 call that the Passover, which Christ used instead of it. 
 
 ' If you say, why then does Mark xiv. 1 2 call Thursday the 
 first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, and 
 Luke xxii. 7 the day of unleavened bread when the passover 
 must be killed ? we must note, that their day, (or mj(Syupo) 
 was from evening to evening. This Thursday evening was the 
 beginning of that natural day of twenty -four hours, towards the 
 end of which the lamb was to be killed : so it is proper in the 
 Jews' way of calling days to call it that day.' Thus far Dr. Wall. 
 
 Deylingius, a learned Lutheran, has more minutely canvassed 
 the same question, and maintained the same side y. I shall not 
 take upon me to say positively which of the three opinions is the 
 best, or clogged with fewest difficulties. If the last of the three 
 be preferred, then the Eucharist is as properly the Christian 
 Passover, as Baptism is the Christian Circumcision ; and we have 
 the authority of our Lord himself, or of his 'disciples, for so 
 calling it, if they gave that name to the whole transaction. But 
 whatever hypothesis we follow, there will be proof sufficient that 
 the Eucharist succeeded in the room of the Passover, like as 
 Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision. 
 
 y Deylingius, Observat. Sacr. torn. Lips. 1736, where he again strongly 
 i. pp. 233 249. Lipsiae, 1720. Com- maintains the same opinion, from 
 pare his Observations Miscellaneae, p. 239 to p. 248.
 
 43 The Institution of CH. n. 
 
 It appears to be well agreed among the learned of all parties, 
 that the Christian Eucharist succeeded in the place of the Jewish 
 Passover : and good use has been often made of the observation, 
 for the explaining the nature of the Eucharist, as well as the 
 phrase of the institution. Buxtorf has laboured with most 
 advantage in this argument in his two tracts, (one against Sca- 
 liger 7 , and the other against Cappellus a ,) and has so exhausted 
 the subject, especially as to what concerns the forms and phrases, 
 that he seems to have left but small gleanings for those that 
 come after him. Yet some additional improvements have been 
 since thrown in by learned hands b . The resembling circum- 
 stances common to the Jewish and Christian Passover may be 
 divided into two kinds : some relating to the things themselves, 
 some to the phrases and forms made use of here and there. It 
 may not be improper to present the reader with a brief detail of 
 those resembling circumstances. 
 
 I. Of the first sort are these : i. The Passover was of Divine 
 appointment, and so is the Eucharist. 2. The Passover was a 
 sacrament, and so is the Eucharist. 3. The Passover was a 
 memorial 6 of a great deliverance from temporal bondage ; the 
 Eucharist is a memorial of a greater deliverance from spiritual 
 bondage. 4. The Passover prefigured the death of Christ d 
 before it was accomplished, the Eucharist represents or figures 
 out our Lord's death now past. 5. The Passover was a kind of 
 federal rite between God and man, so also is the Eucharist. 
 6. As no one was to eat of the Passover before he had been 
 circumcised 6 , so no one is to partake of the Eucharist before he 
 has been baptized. 7. As the Jews were obliged to come clean 
 to the Passover f , so are Christians obliged to come well prepared 
 to the Communion ?. 8. As slight defilements (where there was 
 no contempt) did not debar a man from the Passover, nor excuse 
 
 1 Buxtorf. Dissertat. vi. de Coenae c Exod. xii. 14; xiii. 9. Deut. 
 
 Dominicae primae Ritibus et Forma, xvi. 3. 
 
 * Vindiciae Exercitat. de Coena d Vid. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. 
 
 Domini adv. Lud. Cappel. p. 338, i. lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 415, &c. 
 
 &c. Exod. xii. 43 48. 
 
 b Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist. f Num. ix. 6. 
 
 p. 165. &c. Bucherus, Antiq. Biblicae, i Cor. xi. 27, 28, 29. 
 p. 360, &c.
 
 CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 43 
 
 his neglect of it h , so neither do smaller offences, where there is 
 an honest heart, either forbid or excuse a man's absenting from 
 this sacrament. 9. As a total contempt or neglect of the Passover 
 was crime great enough to render the offender liable to be ' cut 
 off from Israel V so a total contempt or neglect of the Holy 
 Communion is in effect to be cut off from Christianity. 10. As 
 the Passover was to continue as long as the Jewish law should 
 stand in force, so must the Eucharist abide as long as Chris- 
 tianity k . I have thrown these articles together in a short 
 compass for the present, only to give the reader a brief general 
 view of the analogy between those two Sacraments ; and not 
 that he should take the truth of every particular for granted, 
 without further proof, if anything of moment should be hereafter 
 built upon any of them. 
 
 II. The other sort of resembling circumstances concern the 
 particular forms and phrases made use of in the institution : and 
 it is in these chiefly that the great masters of Jewish antiquities, 
 before referred to, have obliged the Christian world. I shall 
 offer a short summary of these likewise. 
 
 1. In the paschal supper, the master of the house took bread 
 and blessed it in a prayer of thanksgiving to God : and the rule 
 was, never to begin the blessing till he had the bread in hand, 
 that so the prayer of benediction directed to God might at the 
 same time be understood to have relation to the bread, and 
 might draw down a blessing upon it \ It is obvious to see how 
 applicable all this is to our Lord's conduct in the first article of 
 the institution. 
 
 2. The breaking of the bread, after benediction, was a cus- 
 tomary practice in the Jewish feasts m : only in the paschal feast 
 it is said that the bread was first broken and the benediction 
 followed n . But whether our Lord varied then, in a slight cir- 
 cumstance, or the Jews have varied since, may remain a question. 
 
 h Num. ix. 10. 2 Chron. xxx. 18. Antiq. Evangel, p. 368, &c. Bux- 
 
 ' Exod. xii. 15. Num. ix. 13. torf. de Coena Domini, p. 310. 
 
 Cp. Bucher. Antiq. p. 402. m Buxtorf. 313. Bucherus, 372. 
 
 k i Cor. xi. 26. n Lightfoot, Temple Service, c. 
 
 1 See Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eu- xiii. sect. 7. p. 964 ; and on Matt, 
 
 charist. p. 171, &c. Bucherus, xxvi. 26, p. 259. Piaffius, p. 178.
 
 44 The Institution of CH. 11. 
 
 3. The distributing the bread to the company, after the bene- 
 diction and fraction, was customary among the Jews : and here 
 likewise our Lord was pleased to adopt the like ceremony. 
 
 Several learned men have suggested P, that the words ' This is 
 my body,' might be illustrated from some old Jewish forms 
 made use of in the Passover feast; as, This is the bread of 
 affliction, &c., and, This is the body of the Passover : but Buxtorf 
 (who best understood these matters), after considering once and 
 again, constantly rejected the former, and demurred to the other 
 instance Q, as not pertinent, or not early enough to answer the 
 purpose : and Bucherus r , who has carefully re-examined the 
 same, passes the like doubtful judgment ; or rather rejects both 
 the instances as improper, not being found among the Jewish 
 rituals, or being too late to come into account. So I pass them 
 by. Justin Martyr, I cannot tell how, was persuaded, that 
 Esdras, at a Passover, had said to the Jews, This Passover 
 (i.e. paschal lamb) is our Saviour and our refuge 8 , and that the 
 Jews after Christ's time had erased the passage out of the 
 Septuagint. He was certainly mistaken in his report: but 
 the words are worth the observing, as discovering what the 
 Christians in his time thought of the Passover as a type of 
 Christ, and how they understood paschal phrases, parallel to 
 ' This is my body,' <fcc. 
 
 4. The words, ' This do in remembrance of me,' making part 
 of the institution, are reasonably judged to allude to the ancient 
 paschal solemnities, in which were several memorials 1 : and the 
 service itself is more than once called a memorial in the Old 
 Testament, as before noted. 
 
 Buxtorf, 316. Bucherus, 374. lutely rejects one and doubts of the 
 P See particularly Pfaffius de Ob- other. 
 
 lat. p. 179. And Deylingius, (Mis- s Kot e?ire/ 'E<r$pas rip Aaip, TOUTO 
 
 cellan. Sacr. p. 228, &c.), who re- rt> fdcr^a 6 <ro>T^p finuv, al ft Kara- 
 
 fers to such authors as have es- <f>uy^i rmiav. Justin Mart. Dial. p. 
 
 poused the first of the instances, 292. edit. Thirlby. Cp. Wolfius, 
 
 after Baronius and Scaliger. i Cor. v. 7. 
 
 1 Buxtorf. Dissert, vi. de Coena, p. * ' 'Av djtvTjcm ritus Hebraeorum 
 301. Dissert. vii.Vindic. pp. 347, 348. redolet : habebant namque Judaei, 
 
 r Bucherus, Antiq. Evangel, p. in celebratione agni paschalis, plures 
 375. Compare Deylingius (Miscel- ejusmodi a.i>afj.vi)ffets et recordati- 
 lan. Sacr. p. 228, &c.), who abso- ones,' &c. Bucherus, p. 379.
 
 CH. ii. the Holy Communion. 45 
 
 5. In the ancient paschal feast, the master of the house was 
 wont to take cup after cup (to the number of four) into his 
 hands, consecrating them one after another by a short thanks- 
 giving ; after which each consecrated cup was called a cup of 
 blessing. It is judged by the learned in Jewish antiquities", 
 that the third or fourth cup (Buxtorf is positive for the fourth) 
 was what our Lord was pleased to sanctify, by taking it into his 
 hand, and giving thanks over it. It is doubted what the words 
 'after supper' mean ; whether in the close of the paschal supper, as 
 some think x , or after they had eaten bread, as others construe y : 
 but the difference is not of moment, and so I pass on. 
 
 6. At the institution of the Passover it was said, ' The blood 
 shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are ; 
 and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague 
 shall not be upon you 2 ,' &c. The blood was the token of the 
 covenant in that behalf, between God and his people; as circum- 
 cision before had been a token a also of a like covenant, and called 
 covenant b as well as token. In the institution of the Communion, 
 our Lord says, ' This cup is the new covenant in my blood 
 which is shed for you, for many, for the remission of sins.' 
 The cup is here by a figure put for wine ; and covenant, accord- 
 ing to ancient Scripture phrase, is put for token of a covenant ; 
 and wine, representative of Christ's blood, answers to the blood 
 of the Passover, typical of the same blood of Christ c : and the 
 
 u Pfaffius de Oblat. Euch. p. 173. consecratum, quam versionem se- 
 
 Buxtorf. iu Lex. Talmud, pp. 614, quuntur Arabs et Persa. Sic Grae- 
 
 616. Dissert, vi. p. 300. Lightfoot cis Sttwvov quideni ISitas coenam, 
 
 on Matt. xxvi. 27, p. 259. Buche- sed TraxfAcUs et Karaxpj)<TTiK(as saepe 
 
 rus, pp. 380 384. Zornius Opusc. cibum et quodvis epulum connotat ; 
 
 Sacr. torn. ii. p. 14, &c. Hooper qua notione Hesiodus dixit ftfiirvov 
 
 on Lent, part ii. cap. 3. p. 173. troifiv, comedere, cibum sumere,' &c. 
 
 * Lightfoot, pp. 259, 260. Bucher. p. 362. 
 
 >' 'Tb juera SfiTrvfiffat [i Cor. xi. z Exod. xii. 13. 
 
 25.] noil vertenduin est, post coenam a Gen. xvii. 1 1. 
 
 communem, qualis nunquam fuit, b Gen. xvii. 10. 'This is my cove- 
 
 sed remote post coenam paschalem : nant,' &c. ; and v. 13, 'my covenant 
 
 vel, quod vero similius est, proxime shall be in your flesh, ' &c. 
 
 et immediate pos esum panis conse- c 'Deus speciali mandate sacrificia 
 
 crati ; cui expos iioni respondet re- et primitias offerendas ordinavit, 
 
 censio historica Luc. xxii. 10. wtrav- maxime effusionem sanguinis, ut ab 
 
 TCOS KO.} r>> TtoTtipio" /j.tra rb Strnvriffai, initio homines haberent unde effusi- 
 
 postquam coinederant, scil. paiiem onis per Christum tacite recordari
 
 46 The Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 remission of sins here, answers to the passing over there, and pre- 
 serving from plague. These short hints may suffice at present, 
 just to intimate the analogy between the Jewish Passover and 
 the Christian Eucharist in the several particulars of moment 
 here mentioned. 
 
 7. At the paschal feast there was an annunciation or declara- 
 tion d of the great things which God had done for that people : 
 in like manner, one design of the Eucharist is to make a de- 
 claration of the mercies of God in Christ, to ' sheAv the Lord's 
 death till he come.' 
 
 8. Lastly, at the close of the paschal supper, they were wont 
 to sing an hymn 6 of praise : and the like was observed in the 
 close of the institution of the Christian Eucharist ; as is recorded 
 in the Gospels. 
 
 The many resembling circumstances, real and verbal, which I 
 have here briefly enumerated, do abundantly shew that this holy 
 Euchai'ist was in a great measure copied from the paschal feast, 
 and was intended to supply its place, only heightening the design, 
 and improving the application. The use of the observation may 
 appear afterwards, when we come to consider more minutely 
 either the general intent or the particular parts of this Christian 
 service. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Of the Commemoration or Remembrance of Christ in the 
 Holy Communion. 
 
 SINCE the end or design of anything is always considered as 
 first in view, antecedent in natural order to the performance, so 
 the rules of just method require that in treating of this Sacra - 
 
 possent. Dan. ix. 24. Heb. ix. et Observant praeterea viri docti vimim 
 
 x. Horn. iii. Praeter caeteras obla- rufum, quale in illis regionibus cres- 
 
 tiones Deo factas, com memorabilia cebat, ac in primis in coena paschali 
 
 sunt sacrificia in festo expiationum. bibebatur, egregiam nobis sanguinis 
 
 .... Turn quoque sacrificium agni memoriam relinquere.' Bucher. An- 
 
 paschalis, et quotidiani, seu jugis tiq. Evan. p. 389. 
 
 sacrificii, attendi debet. Hos igitur d See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 778. 
 
 adritus et oblationes alludit Christus Pfaffius, p. 181. 
 
 cum ait, TOVTO ydp tan rb alpa /.LOV e See Lightfoot, vol. ii. pp. 258, 
 
 , . , 
 
 rb Tys Katvfjs SioO^KTjs, rb irepl iro\- 260. Pfaffius, p. 181. 
 Kiev fKX^"6/jifvov fls &(pecriv a/j.apTtuv.
 
 CH. in. in The Holy Communion. 47 
 
 ment we should begin with some account of the proximate end 
 and design of it ; namely, the commemoration or remembrance 
 of Christ, ' This do in remembrance of me f ;' and particularly of 
 his death and passion, 'shew the Lord's death till he come?.' 
 I call it the proximate or immediate end, because the ultimate 
 end of all is the happiness of man, or, what is coincident there- 
 with, the glory of God. Our blessed Lord seeks not his own 
 glory, but the good of his creatures, in all that he appoints them 
 to do. He is not capable of receiving advantage, or any real 
 addition to his own glory, by any of our commemorations or ser- 
 vices : but all these things are graciously appointed for our 
 present and future benefit ; and we may be confident that Christ, 
 the Captain of our salvation, would prescribe nothing in a par- 
 ticular manner, which does not as particularly contribute to 
 that end. Some Divines, of a refined and elevated way of 
 thinking, will not allow that God can have any end but himself, 
 in anything that he does, because he can have no higher : but 
 then they do not mean that God proposes to himself any increase 
 of happiness or of essential glory, to which nothing can be added ; 
 but that, as he is naturally benevolent, and as he takes delight in 
 his own being and attributes, (the most worthy of his love,) so 
 he delights in the exercise of his goodness, and chooses it as 
 worthy of himself, and, in this sense, acts only for himself. In 
 such a sense as this, our blessed Lord may be said to have acted 
 for himself, or for his own glory, in what he did for mankind : 
 but it can in no sense be allowed, that he receives any advantage 
 by what we say or do ; and therefore the ultimate end (so con- 
 sidered) of our commemorations or services is the benefit 
 accruing from thence to ourselves : what they are we shall see in 
 due time and place. This being premised for clearer conception, 
 or to prevent mistakes, I now proceed. 
 
 The commemoration of our Lord's dying for us includes 
 two things ; the consideration of him as Lord, and as dying ; 
 one expressing his personal dignity, the other expressing his 
 
 f Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24, & i Cor. xi. 26. Tbi> 6a.va.-rov rov 
 25. TOVTO itoieire its -rty ^rjv avd/j.- Kvpiov KaTayj(\\ere &xpis ov tut
 
 48 The Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 meritorious sufferings relative to us. The first of the two may 
 suffice for the present : the second may be reserved for a 
 distinct chapter. 
 
 I here take for my ground the words of our Lord, ' This do 
 in remembrance of me.' The Greek words els T^V e^v dvd- 
 fjLvrja-iv may bear three several renderings (or four) : i. In re- 
 membrance of me. 2. In commemoration of me. 3. For a 
 memorial of me, or, for my memorial. They differ not much in 
 sense, but yet as they do differ, they may deserve a distinct 
 consideration. The second includes the first ; and the third 
 includes both the former, not vice versd : so they rise, as it were, 
 in sense, and are so many distinct gradations, as shall be shewn 
 presently. 
 
 I. I begin with the first and lowest, this do 'in remembrance 
 of me.' The Socinians, (some of them at least,) not content 
 with supposing this remembrance or commemoration to be one 
 considerable end or part of this Sacrament, make it to be the 
 only end or use of it h ; yea and sometimes go so far as to say 
 that it constitutes the very nature or essence of this holy rite : 
 for they interpret the words, ' This is my body,' so as to mean, 
 this action, this eating and drinking, is the memorial of Christ's 
 body broken \ &c. Which is overdoing, and neglecting to dis- 
 tinguish between the thing itself, and the end or design of it ; 
 between what is done, and for what purpose it is done. We eat 
 bread and we drink wine in the Sacrament, the symbols of 
 Christ's body and blood ; and we do so for this reason, among 
 others, that Christ may be remembered, and the merits of his 
 passion celebrated. But this I hint by the way only, and pass 
 
 h 'Et haecquidem quam explicui- Christ! pro memoriali signo cor- 
 
 inus, mortis Christi annuntiatio pro- poris Christ! fracti, et sanguinis 
 
 prius est, atque unicus Coenae Domi- fusi sumimus : cornmemorationem 
 
 nicae finis,' &c. Volkel.de Coen. Dom. autem, istius sacri ritus finem usum- 
 
 p. 687. que esse dicimiis.' Schlichting. contr. 
 
 1 'Haec actio frangendi et come- Meisn. p. 761. 'Ritus istius natu- 
 
 dendi panem, est corpus, hoc est ram in panis fractione et esu, et e 
 
 commemoratio Christi corporis pro poculo potu, perque haec in mortis 
 
 nobis fracti.' Smalc. cont. Frantz. Christi representatione qnadam, si- 
 
 p. 315. tarn esse dicimus.' Ibid. pp. 785, 
 
 'Corpus Christi et sanguinem 786.
 
 CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 49 
 
 on to what I design. Remembrance of Christ is undoubtedly a 
 principal end of this Sacrament. It is not declared by the insti- 
 tution itself, in what view, or under what capacity we are here 
 to remember him ; but that must be learned from other places 
 of Scripture, which declare who and what he is : for certainly we 
 are to remember him in such a light as the Old and New Testa- 
 ment have represented him in. This appears to be an allowed 
 principle on all hands : for none think themselves obliged to stop 
 in the bare words of the institution, without carrying their in- 
 quiries further into the whole compass of Scripture, when they 
 see proper. The Socinians themselves will not scruple to allow 
 that Christ may or ought to be remembered in the Sacrament as 
 Lord, in their sense, or as Master, or Saviour, or Head, or 
 Judge, though there is not a word of Lord, or Master, or 
 Saviour, or Head, or Judge, in the bare form of the institution 
 as delivered by Christ : but those names or titles are to be 
 fetched from other places of Scripture. Therefore, I say, it is 
 allowed by all parties, that we ought to remember Christ, in the 
 holy Communion, according to what he is, by the Scripture 
 account of him. This foundation being laid, I go on to the 
 superstructure : and for the more distinct conception of what 
 this remembrance implies or contains, I shall take leave to 
 proceed by several steps or degrees. 
 
 i. It is not sufficient to remember Christ merely as a very 
 great and good man, a wise instructor, and an admirable teacher, 
 while he lived, received up into celestial bliss and glory 
 when he died : for all this comes vastly short of what sacred 
 Writ declares of him ; and is indeed no more (if so much) than 
 what the Pagans themselves, the Platonists, particularly of the 
 second and third centuries, were ready to admit. For, being 
 struck with the fame of his undoubted miracles, and with the 
 inimitable force of his admirable precepts, holy life, and ex- 
 emplary death, they could not but revere and honour his 
 memory ; neither could they refuse to assign him a place among 
 their chief sages or deities k . And all the plea they had left for 
 
 k See this particularly proved in a written by Laurence Mosheim, and 
 very learned and curious dissertation, lately inserted, with improvements, 
 
 E
 
 50 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 not receiving Christianity was, that his disciples (as was pre- 
 tended) had revolted, or degenerated, and had not duly observed 
 the wholesome instructions of their high leader 1. Those Pagan 
 philosophers therefore, as I said, remembered Christ, in as high 
 a view as this article amounts to : a Christian remembrance 
 must go a great deal higher. 
 
 2. It is not sufficient to remember Christ merely as an 
 eminent prophet, or one of the chief prophets, an ambassador 
 from heaven, and one that received his Gospel from above, 
 wrought miracles, lived a good life, was deified after death, and 
 will come again to judge mankind : for all this the Mahometans 
 themselves (or some sects amongst them) can freely own, and 
 they pay a suitable regard to his memory on that score m . It is 
 all vastly below what the Scriptures plainly testify of him, and 
 therefore does not amount to a Christian remembrance of 
 him. 
 
 3. Neither yet is it sufficient to remember Christ as our Head, 
 Lord, and Master, to whom we owe such regard as disciples do 
 to their leader or founder : for all this is no more than what the 
 Jews justly ascribed to Moses, who was but the servant of 
 Christ n . And it is no more than what many nominal Christians, 
 ancient and modern, many half-believers have owned, and what 
 all but declared apostates or infidels must own. And it comes 
 not up to what the Scriptures fully and frequently teach, and 
 therefore does not amount to a due remembrance of him. 
 
 into his Latin translation of Cud- praeceptoris sui scitis Christianos 
 
 worth, vol. ii. Cp. Euseb. lib. vii. Platonici criminabantur .. ..atque 
 
 cap. 1 8. 'Christum, Servatorem nos- castam et sanam ejus disciplinam 
 
 trum, virum magnum, divinum, et variis erroribus inquinasse 
 
 sapientissimum fuisse non inficia- i. Quod divinis Christum honoribus 
 
 bantur, qui egregia et divina plane afficerent ; nee enim a suis id postu- 
 
 docuisset, cumque a Judaeis injus- lasse Christum. 2. Quod Deos negli- 
 
 tissimo supplicio necatus ftiisset, in gerent, et eorum cultum extinctum 
 
 coelum ad Deos commeasset.' Mo- vellent ; Christum enim ipsum a 
 
 shem. ibid. p. 23. Hence perhaps it Diis baud alienum fuisse.' Moshem. 
 
 was, that the Emperor Alexander ibid. p. 24. 
 
 Severus, (of the third century,) along m See Eeland. de Eeligione Mo- 
 
 with the images of Apollonius and hammedica, pp. 25, 33, 34, 44, 45, 
 
 Orpheus, had others of Abraham 212, 224. David Millius, Dissert. 
 
 and Jesus Christ, receiving them as x. de Mohammedismo, pp. 344, 345, 
 
 deities. Lamprid. \'it. Severi. 346. 
 
 1 'Descivisse scilicet a sanctissimi D Heb. iii. 2 6.
 
 CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 51 
 
 4. Neither, lastly, is it sufficient to remember Christ as higher 
 than the angels, or older than the system of the world : for that 
 is not more than many misbelievers, of former or of later times, 
 have made no scruple to own, and it is still short of the Scripture 
 accounts. 
 
 For, according to the whole tenor both of Old and New 
 Testament, Jesus Christ is not merely our Lord, Master, Judge, 
 &c., but our Divine Lord and Master ; Lord in such a sense as 
 to be Jehovah and God of Israel, God before the creation, and 
 by whom all creatures were made ; who ' laid the foundation of 
 the earth,' and even the 'heavens are the works of his hands P;' 
 who has a rightful claim to be worshipped and adored, by men, 
 by angels n, by the whole creation r . 'And no wonder, since he 
 is described in sacred Writ as 'God with us 8 ,' as Lord God*, 
 'true God u ,' 'great God x ,' 'mighty Gody,' 'over all, God blessed 
 for ever 2 .' Such is the Scripture account of our blessed Lord, 
 and his personal dignity ; and therefore as such we ought to 
 remember him as often as we think of him, and more particularly 
 at the Communion table. For since the value of what our Lord 
 has done or suffered rises in proportion to the dignity of the 
 person so doing or suffering, it is manifest that we cannot duly 
 or suitably remember him in the Sacrament, if we entertain not 
 those high and honourable conceptions of him, which such his 
 personal dignity demands. If the sending of the only-begotten 
 Son into the world, to suffer, bleed, and die for us, was really 
 the highest instance of Divine love which could possibly have 
 been given : and if we are obliged, in return, to express our 
 thankfulness in a way suitable thereto : and if such a suitable 
 return is altogether impracticable without a just sense of the 
 favour granted : and if no just sense can be had of it, while we 
 take away the most endearing and enforcing consideration, which 
 most of all enhances the value of it : if these premises be true, 
 the conclusion is plain and necessary, that as often as we 
 
 John i. i, 2, 3. P Heb. i. 10. The reader who desires to see 
 
 1 Heb. i. 6. r Rev. v. 13. these several texts explained, and 
 s Matt. i. 23. 'Luke i. 16, 17. objections answered, may please to 
 u i John v. 20. x Tit. ii. 13. compare my Eight Sermons, and 
 y Isa. ix. 6. z Rom. ix. 5. particularly the sixth. 
 
 E 2
 
 52 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 remember Christ in the Eucharist, we ought to remember him 
 not barely as a wise man, or a good man, or an eminent prophet, 
 or chief martyr, or as our particular Master, or Founder, or 
 Redeemer, but as an almighty Saviour and Deliverer, as the 
 only -begotten of the Father, 'very God of very God,' of the same 
 Divine nature, of glory equal, of majesty co-eternal. He that 
 remembers him in any lower sense than this, in opposition to 
 this, is not worthy of him ; neither can he be esteemed by sober 
 and discerning Christians as a worthy partaker of the holy 
 Communion. 
 
 To confirm this reasoning drawn from Scripture texts, I shall 
 subjoin some human, but very ancient authorities. They are 
 what all writers, so far as I can perceive, in some degree value, 
 and think it an honour to have, if they can but contrive any 
 colourable pretensions to them a : and it is only when disappoint- 
 ment makes them despair, that they affect to contemn what 
 they cannot arrive to. Justin Martyr is a very early writer, 
 born about the year 89, (as appears probable,) and writing with- 
 in forty or fifty years of the latest Apostle. It is worth the 
 while to know what so early and so considerable a person 
 thought of a Christian Sacrament, which he had so often fre- 
 quented ; especially when he gives us a formal, solemn account 
 of it, in the name of his Christian brethren, and in an address to 
 the Emperor. 'This food we call the Eucharist, of which none 
 are allowed to be partakers but such only as are true believers, 
 and have been baptized in the laver of regeneration for the 
 remission of sins, and live according to Christ's precepts. For 
 we do not take this as common bread and common wine : but 
 as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the Logos of 
 God, and had real flesh and blood for our salvation, so are we 
 taught that this food, which the very same Logos blessed by 
 prayer and thanksgiving, is turned into the nourishment" and 
 substance of our flesh and blood, and is in some sense the 
 flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus V I choose to follow 
 
 ft See my Importance of the Doc- b Justin Mart. Apol. i. cap. 86. 
 trine of the Trinity, vol. iii. pp. 655, p. 96. edit. Thirlby. Beeves, vol. i. 
 656. pp. 1 20, 121.
 
 CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 53 
 
 Mr. Reeves's translation of this passage, though somewhat 
 paraphrastical, because he has very well hit off the sense. What 
 I have to observe upon it, as suitable to my present purpose, is, 
 that particular notice is twice taken of the incarnation of the 
 Logos, (that is, of God incarnate, according to Justin's known 
 doctrine of the Logos being God,) and the Sacrament is not only 
 supposed to be a commemoration , but a kind of emblem of it by 
 Justin's account 11 , as the intelligent reader will observe. The 
 reason is, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the Sacrament 
 of the passion 6 , and God the Son, by becoming incarnate, first 
 became passible. All which will be made plainer, by another 
 passage of the same Justin, in his Dialogue with the Jew f , which 
 is as follows : ' That prayers and thanksgivings, made by those 
 who are worthy, are the only sacrifices that are perfect and 
 well pleasing to God, I also affirm : for these are the only ones 
 which Christians have been taught to perform even in that, 
 remembrance [or memorial] of their food both dry and liquid, 
 wherein also is commemorated the passion which God of God 
 suffered in his own person, [or for them].' i have no need to 
 take notice here of more than is to my present purpose. The 
 words 'God of God' are what I point to, as a proof that the 
 Divinity of Christ was an important article of the Eucharistical 
 remembrance. If any should incline to read 'Son of God,' (upon 
 conjecture, for it is no more,) instead of ' God of God,' in that 
 place, it will still amount to the same, because Justin always un- 
 derstood the phrase of ' Son of God' in the highest and strongest 
 
 c Eis a.vdu.vr}ffi.v rov re ffiafiaroTrot- Kal eV ava/uvfifffL 8e rrfs rpo(pris avriav 
 
 t)o~a(r6ai avrbv 810, rovs Tfiffrevovras ^tjpas re Kal vypas, Iv ft Kal rov irdOovs 
 
 tls avrbv Si ovs Kal Tra6r)rbs ytyovf. o irtirovQf 8*' aurov 6 eos rov tov 
 
 Justin Mart. Dial. p. 290. j ue / u' /r ? TC "- Justin Mart. Dial. p. 387. 
 
 d How this was understood, see A conjectural emendation has been 
 
 explained in a Charge on the Doc- offered, directing us to read 61' av- 
 
 trinal Use of the Sacraments, p. rovs, 6 vibs rov 0eoD. Mede, Opp. p. 
 
 25. 362. Thirlby in loc. I see not why 
 
 c Eis avd/j.i'r)o~iv rov irddovs ov ena- o fbs rov eov may not mean the 
 
 0ei>. Justin Mart. Dial. p. 220. same with 6 ebs tic rov &eov : per- 
 
 f "On juti/ ovv Kal (v^al, nal (vx<*pt- haps &c might have been negligently 
 
 ffriat, virb rSiv a|iW ytv6/j.fi>ai, ri\- dropped. The learned editor in- 
 
 tiat /jiovai KOI tvdptffroi etcn rw f$ genuously says, 'istud Qfbs admo- 
 
 Bvcriat, Kal avrbs <f>ij/ji.i. Tavra, yap clum sane invitus muto, propter 
 
 jutfVa Kal Xpicrrtavol irapf\afiov irotfw sequential
 
 54 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 sense as meaning 'God of God?.' But I see no necessity of 
 admitting any new conjectural change of 6 06s into 6 vlbs, since 
 Qfos is very frequently our Lord's title in Justin n , yea, and 6 
 Qtbs more than once 4 . But I proceed. 
 
 I shall subjoin a passage of Origen, containing the like ele- 
 vated sentiments of the remembrance made in the holy Com- 
 munion. ' Thou that art come to Christ, (the true High Priest, 
 who by his blood has reconciled God to thee, and thee to the 
 Father,) rest not in the blood of the flesh, but consider rather the 
 blood of the Logos, and hear him declaring, This is my blood 
 which shall be shed for you, for remission of sins : the initiated 
 in the mysteries well understand both the flesh and the blood of 
 God the Word V So I translate the last words, as most agree- 
 able to Origen's usual phraseology : but if any one chooses rather 
 to say 'Logos of God,' it comes to the same thing. The sum is, 
 that the life and soul, as it were, of the Eucharistical remembrance 
 lies in the due consideration of the Divine dignity of the Person 
 whose passion we there remember 1 . And indeed every man's 
 awn reason must convince him that it must be so, if he ever 
 seriously calls to mind the Scripture accounts of our blessed 
 Lord, which I have above recited. Hitherto I have confined 
 myself to the strict notion of remembrance. 
 
 II. 1 am next to advance a step further to commemoration, 
 >vhich is remembrance and somewhat more. For to a bare 
 :emembering it superadds the notion of extolling, honouring, 
 elebrating, and so it is collecting all into one complex idea of 
 
 K *Os KO! \6yos irptDT&ToKos &v TOV onem peccatorum. Novit qui mys- 
 
 9eoC, Kai 8ebs vjrdpxfi' p. 94. Cp. teriis imbutus est, et carnem et san- 
 
 jp. 406, 408, 411. guinem Verbi Dei.' Orig. in Levit. 
 
 h Justin Mart. pp. 204, 210, 233, Horn. ix. pp. 243, 244, ed. Bened. 
 
 250, 261, 263, 265, 273, 291, 303, Cp. Clem. Alex. Paedagog. lib. ii. 
 
 328, 408, 409. cap. 2. p. 1 86 : -rbv \6yov tKx^iavov 
 
 i Justin Mart. pp. 251, 326, 378. &c. 
 
 k "Tu qui ad Christum venisti, ' Great use was afterwards made 
 
 (Pontificem verum qui sanguine suo of this consideration in the Nestorian 
 
 Deum tibi propitium fecit, et recon- controversy : of which see Cyrill. 
 
 cilia vit te Patri) non haereas in san- Alex. Ep. ad Nestor, p. 72. et Ana- 
 
 guine camis ; sed disce potius san- them. xi. cum Explanat. p. 156. 
 
 guinem Verbi, et audi ipsum tibi Item Apologet. advers. Oriental, pp. 
 
 dicentem, quia hie sanguis meus est, 192, 193. 
 qui pro vobis effundetur in remissi-
 
 CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 55 
 
 commemorating. This do 'in commemoration of me :' which 
 is the second rendering of the same words. Some perhaps might 
 wonder why the Socinians, of all men, should reject the notion of 
 remembering, and choose that of commemoration, (which is really 
 higher,) yea, and should strongly insist upon it, and make it a 
 point. They certainly do so, as may appear from their own 
 writings m : and what is stranger still, they assign such odd rea- 
 sons for it, that one would scarce think them in earnest, if we were 
 to look no further. For what if St. Paul does speak of declaring, 
 or shewing our Lord's death, may not dvdfjLvrja-ts still signify 
 remembrance 1 Is it not proper first to remember, and then to 
 declare ; or to declare it now, in order to remember for the 
 future ? Why should one exclude the other, when both are con- 
 sistent, and suit well together 1 And though a person is sup- 
 posed, before his coming to the holy Communion, to have the 
 Lord's death in mind, confusely, or in the general, may he not 
 still want to have it more in mind, and to remember it in par- 
 ticular, with all its circumstances, upon a close recollection, 
 assisted by an external solemnity performed before his eyes 1 
 Besides, if we should not want to call it to mind, yet we may 
 want to keep it in mind for the future : and who sees not how 
 serviceable the sacramental solemnity may be for that very pur- 
 pose 1 Add to this, that it is particulai'ly said with respect to the 
 
 mt Apparet,graviter errasseillosqui posuit. ' Socin. de Usu et Fin. 
 
 existimarunt verbum ' commemora- Coenae Domini, pp. 4, 5. 
 
 tionem,' quod in Graeco est avdfj.i'ijtni', ' Quod nonnulli per 'commemoratio- 
 
 mutari debere in ' recordationem : ' nem' in verbis Christi quibus ritum 
 
 neque enim dicit Paulus mortem hunc instituit, ' recordationem' intel- 
 
 Domini recordamini, sed mortem ligunt, vel hanc pro ilia vocem repo- 
 
 Domini annuntiatis, quod profecto iiunt, arbitrantes in eum finem ritum 
 
 non recordationem, sed commemora- hunc sacrum esse institutum, ut no- 
 
 tionem et praedicationem omnino bis mortem Domini in memoriam re- 
 
 significat . . . . non est quod quis ex vocet, in eo manifesto errant ; quum 
 
 verbo illo (ava.fj.vriffis') colligat coenam qui ritum hunc sacrum obire recte 
 
 Domini in eum finem institutani fu- velit, ac mortem Domini hac ratione 
 
 isse, ut nobis suggerat et in memo- annuntiare, eum Christi mortis probe 
 
 riam revocet mortem ipsius Domini et semper memorem esse oporteat.' 
 
 .... Commemoratio autem ista, et Cracov. Catechism, sect. vi. cap. 4. 
 
 praedicatio mortis Christi, id neces- p. 229. Cp. Schlichting. in I Cor. 
 
 sario conjunctum habet, ut gratiae xi. 25. et contr. Meisner. pp. 805, 
 
 agantur Christo, turn vero Deo, patri 814, 816. "\Yolzogen. in Matt. xxvi. 
 
 ejus, cujus mandate animam suam p. 416.
 
 56 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 Passover, ' Thou shalt sacrifice the passover, &c., that thou mayest 
 remember the day when thou earnest out of Egypt, all the days 
 of thy life n .' Which is exactly parallel, so far, to the remem- 
 brance appointed in the Eucharist. How trifling would it be to 
 urge, that the Israelites were supposed to remember the day before 
 their coming to the Passover, and therefore could have no need to 
 refresh their memories by coming ; or to urge, that because they 
 ought always to bear it in mind, therefore it could not be one 
 end or use of the Passover, to remind them of it, or to keep it 
 in remembrance all their days. 
 
 One may judge from hence, that Socinus's pretended reasons 
 against the notion of remembrance were mere shuffle and pre- 
 tence, carrying more of art and colouring in them, than of truth 
 or sincerity : he had a turn to serve in favour of an hypothesis, 
 and that was all. The turn was this : he had a mind to make 
 the dvdfju>T)(ris (which is one end, or use, or part of the Sacrament) 
 to be the whole of the Sacrament, its whole nature and essence, as 
 I before hinted, and to interpret the words, ' This is my body ' 
 and ' This is my blood,' to mean, this bread and wine, or rather 
 this action, is an dvdnvrjo-is, a commemoration, and nothing more. 
 He could not pretend to say, that this material thing, or this 
 external action, is a remembrance, (which denotes an internal 
 perception,) and therefore he substitutes commemoration in its 
 stead, an outward act, and external service, and then resolves the 
 whole of the Sacrament into that, confounding the end or use of 
 the thing with the thing itself. This was his fetch ; and so he 
 hoped to be rid at once of all supposed present graces or benefits 
 accruing to worthy receivers, making the sign and thing signified 
 to be all one, and indeed to be sign only. 
 
 However, though Socinus had no good views in interpreting 
 dvdfjiVTjais by commemoration, and was undoubtedly wrong in ex- 
 cluding remembrance : yet setting aside his foreign fancies, it is 
 very right to interpret the word by commemoration ; but so as 
 to include both an inward remembrance of benefits, and an out- 
 ward celebration of the same, together with devout praises and 
 
 n Deut. xvi. 2, 3.
 
 CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 57 
 
 thanksgivings to Christ our Lord for them, and to all the three 
 Persons of the ever-blessed Trinity. It is scarce possible for a 
 considerate devout mind to stop short in a bare remembrance, 
 (though remembrance is always supposed, and is by this sacred 
 solemnity reinforced,) but it will of course break out into thank- 
 ful praises and adorations. We accept therefore of what Socinus 
 and his brethren so much contend for, that the Greek avafanja-is, 
 in this case, does amount to a commemoration, and is better ren- 
 dered by that word than by remembrance : because the word will 
 bear it, and because the circumstances shew that remembrance 
 alone, without commemoration superadded, is short of the idea 
 intended by it. 
 
 I may further note, though it is but the natural and obvious 
 consequence of what I have before said, that this commemoration 
 must be understood in as high and as full a sense as the remem- 
 brance spoken of above : we must commemorate our Lord in a 
 manner suitable to his Divine natm-e and dignity, and according 
 to what he is by the Scripture accounts. We must commemorate 
 him as God, purchasing the Church with his own blood . We 
 must commemorate his passion as St. Paul has done, and in like 
 words with these : ' Who, being in the form of God, thought it 
 not robbery to be equal with God : but made himself of no repu- 
 tation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
 in the likeness of men : and being found in fashion as a man, he 
 humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross P.' In another place, the same Apostle, speak- 
 ing of the ' redemption by the blood ' of Christ, and of his 
 making ' peace through the blood of the cross,' closes one, and 
 ushers in the other, with a large account of the supereminent 
 dignity of his Person, as born before the creation ; adding, that 
 ' all things were created by him, and for him, and by him con- 
 sist i.' This is the right way of celebrating or commemorating 
 
 Acts xx. 28. For the reading P Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8. See my fifth 
 
 of the text, see Mill, in loc. and Sermon, vol. ii., Second Defence, 
 
 Pearson on the Creed, p. 129, and vol. ii. p. 548, and Third Defence, 
 
 Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. i. p. vol. iii. p. 59. 
 
 213, and Pfaffius de Var. Lect. p. i Coloss. i. 14 20. Compare my 
 
 161. Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 56, &c. 103, &c.
 
 58 Commemoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 his passion, as it is declaring the infinite value of it. To speak of 
 him only as man, or as a creature, though otherwise in a devout 
 way, is not honouring, but dishonouring him and his sufferings ; 
 is not commemorating, hut blaspheming his name. St. Paul, in 
 another place, going to speak of our Lord's passion, introduces 
 it with a previous description of his personal dignity: 'appointed 
 heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds ; who being 
 the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his Person, 
 and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had 
 by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the 
 Majesty on high r .' But as remarkable a passage as any is that 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Apostle, to enhance the 
 value of Christ's sufferings, expresses himself thus : ' If the blood 
 of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the 
 unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; how much more 
 shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered 
 himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead 
 works to serve the living God 8 1 ' By eternal Spirit, I under- 
 stand Christ's Divine nature, as the most judicious interpreters 
 do * : and so from hence it is plain how the merit of Christ's 
 sufferings rises in proportion to the dignity of the Person; and 
 it is the Divinity that stamps the value upon the suffering 
 humanity. And hence also it is that St. John so emphatically 
 observes, that it is the blood of Jesus Christ his Son (that Son 
 whom the Apostle everywhere describes under the most lofty 
 characters, as particularly John i.) which ' cleanseth us from all 
 sin u .' Such is the Scripture way of commemorating our Lord 
 and his passion, and such the way of all the ancient churches of 
 God : be this our pattern, as it ought to be for our commemora- 
 tions in the holy Communion. 
 
 III. But I observed, that there was a third or a fourth ren- 
 dering of the same words, efc rrjv Ipty avapvriviv : ' for a memorial 
 of me ;' or, ' for my memorial,' which is more strictly literal. This 
 rendering is not much different from the two former, but contains 
 and includes both : for a memorial supposes and takes in both 
 
 T Heb. i. 2, 3. s Heb. ix. 13, 14. ' See Bull, Opp. p. 19, and 
 
 Wolfius in loc. u i John i. 7.
 
 CH. in. in the Holy Communion. 59 
 
 a remembrance and a commemoration. Whether it superadds 
 anything to them, and makes the idea still larger or fuller, is 
 the question. If it carries in it any tacit allusion to the sacrifi- 
 cial memorials of the Old Testament, it may then be conceived 
 to add to the idea of commemoration the idea of acceptable and 
 well pleasing, viz. to Almighty God. I build not upon dvap-vrja-is 
 being twice used in the Septuagint as the name for a sacrificial 
 memorial x ; for the usual sense of the word, in the same Septua- 
 gint, is different, having no relation to sacrifice : but thus far may 
 be justly pleaded, from the nature and reason of the thing, that 
 the service of the Eucharist (the most proper part of evangelical 
 worship, and most solemn religious act of the Christian Church) 
 must be understood to ascend up ' for a memorial before God,' in 
 as strict a sense, at least, as Cornelius's alms and prayers were 
 said so to do y ; or as the 'prayers of the saints' go up as sweet 
 odours, mystical incense z , before God. Indeed, the incense and 
 sacrificial memorials of the old Testament were mostly typical of 
 evangelical worship or Christian services, and were acceptable to 
 God under that view ; and therefore it cannot be doubted but 
 the true rational incense, viz. Gospel services, rightly performed, 
 (and among these more especially the Eucharistical service,) are 
 the acceptable memorials in God's sight. Whether there was 
 any such allusion intended in the name avd/jivrja-Ls, when our Lord 
 recommended the observance of the Eucharist as his memorial, 
 cannot be certainly determined, since the name might carry in it 
 such an allusion, or might be without it ; but as to the thing, 
 that such worship rightly performed has the force and value of 
 any memorial elsewhere mentioned in Scripture (sacrificial or 
 other) cannot be doubted ; and the rest is not worth disputing, 
 or would make too large a digression in this place. 
 
 Before I dismiss the word di/d/iwjo-tj, it may not be improper to 
 note, that it occurs but once more in the New Testament, where 
 St. Paul speaks of the 'commemoration of sins a ,' made once a year, 
 
 x Levit. xxiv. 7. Numb. x. 21. 333, &c. Dodwell, Tncensing no 
 
 y Acts x. 4. Apostolical Tradition, pp. 36, 37, 
 
 z Rev. v. 8; viii. 3, 4. Psalm cxli. 38. 
 
 I. Compare Malach. i. n. Vid. a 'Apd/u^cris a-nap-riSm tear' tviav- 
 
 ^itringa, in Apocalyps. pp. 214, &c. TOV. Heb. x. 3.
 
 60 Commetnoration of Christ CH. in. 
 
 under the old Testament, on the great day of expiation ; when 
 the High Priest was to ' confess all the iniquities of the children 
 of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins V There 
 was dvdfivrja-is a/*aprta>/, commemoration of sins : but under the 
 Gospel it is happily changed into dvdfi.vr)<ris rov Xpia-rov, com- 
 memoration of Christ. There sins were remembered ; here for- 
 giveness of sins : a remarkable privilege of the Gospel economy 
 above the legal. Not but that there was forgiveness also under 
 the Old Testament, legal and external forgiveness by the law, and 
 mystical forgiveness under the law, by virtue of the sacrifice of 
 Christ foreordained, and foreshadowed : but under the Gospel, 
 forgiveness is clearly and without a figure declared, and for all 
 sins repented of ; and there is no remembrance of them more c ; 
 no commemoration of them by legal sacrifices, but instead thereof 
 a continual commemoration of Christ's sacrifice for the ' remis- 
 sion of sins,' in the Christian Sacraments. There must indeed 
 be confession of sins, and forsaking them also under the Gospel 
 dispensation : but then it is without the burden of ritual expia- 
 tions and ceremonial atonements : for the many and grievous 
 sacrifices are all converted into one easy (and to every good man 
 delightful) commemoration of the all-sufficient sacrifice in the 
 holy Communion. But I return. 
 
 Hitherto I have been considering the Eucharistical commemo- 
 ration as a memorial before God, which is the highest view of it : 
 but I must not omit to take notice, that it is a memorial also 
 before men, in the same sense as the paschal service was. Of 
 the Passover it is said : ' This day shall be unto you for a 
 memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord d .' It is 
 here called a feast to the Lord, and a memorial to the people : 
 not but that it was a memorial also to the Lord, in the large 
 sense of memorial before mentioned, (as every pious and grateful 
 acknowledgment to God for mercies received is). But in the 
 stricter sense of memorial, it was such only to the people. It is 
 further said in the same chapter, of the paschal service : ' Ye 
 shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons 
 
 for ever And when your children shall say unto you, What 
 
 b Vid. Levit. xvi. 21. c Jer. xxxi. 34. d Exod. xii. 14.
 
 CH. in. -in the Holy Communion. 61 
 
 mean you by this service ? ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the 
 Lord's Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of 
 Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our 
 houses e .' And in the next chapter f : ' It shall be for a sign unto 
 thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, 
 that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth,' <fec. In such a sense 
 as this, the service of the Eucharist is a memorial left to the 
 Church of Christ, to perpetuate the memory of that great deli- 
 verance from the bondage of sin and Satan (of which the former 
 deliverance from Egyptian bondage was but a type) to all 
 succeeding generations. By this solemn service, besides other 
 uses, God has admirably provided for the bulk of mankind, that 
 they may be constantly and visibly reminded of what it so much 
 concerns them both to know and attend to. It is to the 
 illiterate instead of books, and answers the purpose better than 
 a thousand monitors without it might do. Jesus Christ is 
 hereby 'set forth crucified?,' as it were, before their eyes, in 
 order to make the stronger impression. 
 
 I may further observe, that as all the Passovers, after the first, 
 were a kind of representations and commemorations of that 
 original h , so all our Eucharistical Passovers are a sort of com- 
 memorations of the original Eucharist. Which I the rather take 
 notice of, because I find an ancient Father, (if we may depend 
 upon a Fragment,) Hippolytus, who was a disciple of Irenaeus, 
 representing the thing in that view : for commenting on Prov. 
 ix. 2, ' Wisdom hath furnished her table,' he writes thus : 
 ' Namely, the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity ; and also 
 his precious and undefiled body and blood, which are daily 
 administered at the mystical and sacred table, sacrificed for a 
 memorial of that ever memorable and original table of the 
 mystical Divine Supper 1 .' Upon which words I may remark, by 
 the way, that here is mention made of the body and blood as 
 
 Exod. xii. 24, 26, if. Ka.Teira.yyf \\opf vtjv. Ka! rb Tifjuov KO.I 
 
 f Exod. xiii. 9. Compare Deut. axpavrov avrov <rS>na Kal afjta, oirep 
 
 xvi. 3. & Gal. iii. I. ev TTJ (ivcrnKfj Kal Of la. Tpairtfyi Kaff 
 
 h See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- fKtiffrrjv tir IT f \ofvTM, 0v6fj.fva eis ava- 
 
 fice, part n. p. 44. fivrj(Tiv rijs n.tifj.vii<rrov Kal irpdar^s fK.fi- 
 
 ' Kai ^Toi/ucuraro TTJV favrrjs Tpdnre- J/TJS rov fj.v(niKuv Qfiov Seiirvov. Hip- 
 
 fav r^v eiriyi/oifftv TTJS a-yi'a? rpioSos polyt. vol. i. p. 282, ed. Fabric.
 
 62 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 
 
 sacrificed in the Eucharist twenty or thirty years before Cyprian, 
 if the Fragment be certainly Hippolytus's, and then it is the 
 earliest in its kind, though not higher than the third century. 
 As to his making all succeeding Eucharists memorials of the 
 first, the notion interferes not with their being memorials also of 
 our Lord and his passion, as before explained, but all the several 
 views will hang well together. 
 
 Thus far I have been considering the Christian Eucharist as a 
 remembrance, and a commemoration, and a memorial of Christ 
 our Lord. I could not avoid intermixing something here and 
 there of our Lord's death and passion, which have so close an 
 affinity with the subject of this chapter : nevertheless that article 
 may require a more distinct consideration, and therefore it may 
 be proper to have a separate chapter for it. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the Commemoration of tlie Death of our Lord made in the 
 Holy Communion. 
 
 IT is not sufficient to commemorate the death of Christ, with- 
 out considering what his death means, what were the moving 
 reasons for it, and what its ends and uses. The subtilties of 
 Socinus and his followers have made this inquiry necessary : for 
 it is to very little purpose 'to shew the Lord's death till he 
 come,' by the service of the Eucharist, if we acknowledge not 
 that Lord which the Scriptures set forth, nor that death which 
 the New Testament teaches. As to Lord, who and what he is, 
 I have said what I conceived sufficient, in the preceding chapter : 
 and now I am to say something of that death which he suffered, 
 as a willing sacrifice to Divine Justice for the sins of mankind. 
 It is impossible that a man should come worthily to the holy 
 Communion, while he perverts the prime ends and uses of the 
 sacrifice there commemorated, and sets up a righteousness of 
 his own, independent of it, frustrating the grace of God in 
 Christ, and making him to have 'died in vainJ.' 
 
 3 ' Quidam vero, quomodo aliquan- lunt, et adhuc ignorantes Dei justi- 
 do Judaei, et Christianos se dici vo- tiam suam volunt constituere, etiam
 
 CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 63 
 
 The death of Christ, by the Scripture account, was properly a 
 vicarious punishment of sin, a true and proper expiatory sacrifice 
 for the sins of mankind : and therefore it ought to be remembered 
 as such, in the memorial we make of it at the Lord's table. 
 I shall cite some texts, just to give the reader a competent 
 notion of the Scripture doctrine in this article ; though indeed 
 the thing is so plain, and so frequently inculcated, from one end 
 of the Scriptures to the other, that no man (one would think) 
 who is not previously disposed to deceive himself, or has im- 
 bibed strong prejudices, could either reject it or miscon- 
 ceive it. 
 
 i. That the sufferings of Christ had the nature of punishments, 
 rather than of mere calamities, is proved from what is said by 
 the Prophet Isaiah, as follows : ' He hath borne our griefs and 
 carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions, 
 he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our 
 
 peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed 
 
 The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all For the 
 
 transgression of my people was he stricken When thou shalt 
 make his soul an offering for sin, &c. He was numbered with 
 the transgressors, and bare the sins of many V What can all 
 these words mean, if they amount not to punishment for the 
 sins of mankind 1 Evasions have been invented, and they have 
 been often refuted. 
 
 To the same purpose we read in the New Testament, that 
 'he was delivered for our offences 1 ,' that he 'died for all,' was 
 'made sin for us,' when he 'knew no sin m ;' 'was made a 
 curse for us n ,' 'died for our sins ,' 'gave himself for our sins*',' 
 ' tasted death for every man !,' and the like. To interpret these 
 and other such texts of dying for our advantage, without relation 
 to sin and the penalty due to it, is altogether forced and un- 
 
 temporibus nostris, temporibus aper- k Isa. liii. 4 12 : cp. Outram de 
 
 tae gratiae, &c Quod ait Aposto- Sacrific. pp. 319, &c. 328. I Pet. 
 
 lus de lege, hoc DOS istis dicimus de ii. 24. and Outram p. 329, &c. 
 
 natura ; si per naturam justitia, ergo ' Rom. iv. 25. 
 
 Christus gratis mortuus eat.' Au- m 2 Cor. v. 14; 15, 21. John xi. 
 
 gustin. Serai, xiii. in Johan. vi. 50, 51, 52. 
 
 Opp. torn. v. pp. 645, 646, edit. " Gal. iii. 13. i Cor. xv. 3. 
 
 Bened. p Gal. i. 4. i Heb. ii. 9.
 
 64 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 
 
 natural, contrary to the custom of language, and to the obvious 
 import of very plain words. 
 
 2. That our blessed Lord was in his death a proper expiatory 
 sacrifice, (if ever there was any,) is as plain from the New Tes- 
 tament as words can make it. He gave ' his life a ransom for 
 many 1 ",' was 'the Lamb of God' which was to 'take away the 
 sins of the world 8 ,' 'died for the ungodly',' 'gave himself a 
 ransom for all u ,' once 'suffered for sins, the just for the unjust x ,' 
 'gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a 
 sweet-smelling savoury.' ' Christ our Passover was sacrificed 
 for us z ,' 'offered up himself*,' 'to bear the sins of many**,' has 
 'put away sin by the sacrifice of himself 6 .' We have been 
 ' redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb with- 
 out blemish and without spot d .' These are not mere allusions 
 to the sacrifices of the Old Testament, but they are interpre- 
 tative of them, declaring their typical nature, as prefiguring 
 the grand sacrifice, and centering in it : which, besides other 
 considerations, appears very evidently from the whole design 
 and tenor of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; signifying, that the 
 legal sacrifices were allusions to, and prefigurations of, the 
 grand sacrifice. 
 
 3. That from this sacrifice, and by virtue of it, we receive the 
 benefit of atonement, redemption, propitiation, justification, re- 
 conciliation, remission, &c., is no less evident from abundance of 
 places in the New Testament. ' Through our Lord Jesus Christ 
 we have received the atonement,' and 'we are reconciled to God 
 by his death 6 .' 'Him God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
 through faith in his blood f .' 'He is the propitiation for our 
 sins, for the sins of the whole world g.' ' We are justified by 
 his blood V 'redeemed to God by his blood',' 'cleansed from all 
 sin by his blood V 'washed from our sins in his blood 1 ;' and 
 the robes of the saints are washed and made white only in the 
 
 " Matt. xx. 28. s John i. 29. * Rom. v. 6. u i Tim. ii. 6. 
 
 * i Pet. iii. 1 8 ; compare ii. 21 ; iv. i. - v Ephes. v. i. * i Cor. v. 7. 
 
 a Heb. vii. 27; x: 12; is. 14. b Heb. ix. 28. c Heb. ix. 26; 
 
 compare x. 12. d i Pet. i. rg. e Rom. v. 10, u. f Rom. iii. 25. 
 
 e i John ii. 2; iv. 10. h Rom. v. 9. ' Rev. v. 9. k r John i. 7. 
 1 Rev. i. 5.
 
 CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 65 
 
 blood of the Lamb m . By himself he 'purged our sins",' viz. 
 when he shed his blood upon the cross : and our redemption is 
 through his blood . He hath reconciled us to God by the cross P, 
 'in the body of his flesh through death I.' 'God was in Christ 
 reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses 
 unto them 1 ".' His blood was 'shed for many, for the remission 
 of sins 8 ,' 'and without shedding of blood is no remission f .' It 
 is this 'blood of sprinkling' that 'speaketh better things than 
 the blood of Abel u : ' and it is by the 'blood of Jesus ' that men 
 must enter into 'the holiest v ,' as many as enter. I have thrown 
 these texts together without note or comment ; for they need 
 none, they interpret themselves. Let but the reader observe, 
 with what variety of expression this great truth is inculcated, 
 that our salvation chiefly stands in the meritorious sufferings of 
 our Saviour Christ. The consideration whereof made St. Paul 
 say, ' I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus 
 Christ, and him crucified*:' namely, because this was a most 
 essential article, the very sum and substance of the Gospel. ' In 
 these and in a great many more passages that lie spread in all 
 the parts of the New Testament, it is as plain as words can 
 make anything, that the death of Christ is proposed to us as 
 our sacrifice and reconciliation, our atonement and redemption. 
 So it is not possible for any man, that considers all this, to 
 imagine that Christ's death was only a confirmation of his 
 Gospel, a pattern of a holy and patient suffering of death, 
 and a necessary preparation to his resurrection . . . By this all 
 the high commendations of his death amount only to this, that 
 he by dying has given a vast credit and authority to his Gospel, 
 which was the powerfullest mean possible to redeem us from 
 sin, and to reconcile us to God. But this is so contrary to 
 the whole design of the New Testament, and to the true im- 
 portance of that great variety of phrases, in which this matter 
 is set out, that at this rate of expounding Scripture we can 
 
 m Rev. vii. 14. " Heb. i. 3. Ephesians i. 7 ; compare r Corin- 
 thians vi. 20 ; Coloas. i. 14. P Eph. ii. 16. ^ Coloss. i. 22. 
 r 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. s Matt. xxvi. 28. ' Heb. ix. 22. u Heb. xii. 24. 
 v Heb. x. 19. xi Cor. ii. 2.
 
 66 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 
 
 never know what we may build upon ; especially when the 
 great importance of this thing, and of our having right notions 
 concerning it, is well considered y.' 
 
 The least that we can infer from the texts above mentioned is, 
 that there is some very particular virtue, merit, efficacy, in the 
 death of Christ, that God's acceptance of sinners, though penitent, 
 (not perfect,) depended entirely upon it. Common sacrifices 
 could never ' make the comers thereunto perfect 2 : ' but it was 
 absolutely necessary that the heavenly things should be purified 
 with some better sacrifice a . Which is so true, that our Lord is 
 represented as entering into the holy of holies (that is heaven) 
 'by his own blood V where 'he ever liveth to make interces- 
 sion for' those that 'come unto God by him c .' The efficacy 
 even of his intercession above (great and powerful as he is) 
 yet depends chiefly upon that circumstance, his having entered 
 thither by ' his own blood ; ' that is to say, upon the merit of 
 his death and passion, and the atonement thereby made. His 
 intercession belongs to his priestly office, and that supposes the 
 offering before made : for there was a necessity that he should 
 'have somewhat to offer d ,' and nothing less than himself 6 . 
 Seeing therefore that, in order to our redemption, Christ suffered 
 as a piacular victim, (which must be understood to be in our 
 stead,) and that there was some necessity he should do so, and 
 that his prevailing intercession at God's right hand now, and to 
 the end of the world, stands upon that ground, and must do so ; 
 what can we think less, but that some very momentous reasons 
 of justice or of government (both which resolve at length into 
 one) required that so it should be. We are not indeed com- 
 petent judges of all the reasons or measures of an all-wise God, 
 with respect to his dealings with his creatures ; neither are we 
 able to argue, as it were, beforehand, with sufficient certainty, 
 
 y Bishop Burnet on Article II. pp. shews wherein principally the virtue 
 
 70, 71. z Heb. x. I. a Ib. ix. 23. of his intercession consists. 
 
 b Heb. ix. 12. Note, it is not c Heb. vii. 25 ; cp. Rom. viii. 
 only said that Christ entered into 33,34. Heb. ii. 17; ix. 24. i John 
 heaven by his own blood, but he is ii. 2. d Heb. viii. 3 ; v. i. 
 there also considered as the Lamb e Heb. ix. 14, 25, 26, 28 ; corn- 
 slain : Eev. v. 6. Which further pare i. 3.
 
 CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 67 
 
 about the terms of acceptance, which his wisdom, or his holiness, 
 or his justice, might demand. But we ought to take careful 
 heed to what he has said, and what he has done, and to draw 
 the proper conclusions from both. One thing is plain, from the 
 terms of the first covenant, made in Paradise, that Divine wisdom 
 could have admitted man perfectly innocent to perfect happiness, 
 without the intervention of any sacrifice, or any Mediator : and 
 it is no less plain, from the terms of the new covenant, that there 
 was some necessity (fixed in the very reason and nature of things) 
 that a valuable consideration, atonement, or sacrifice, should be 
 offered, to make fallen man capable of eternal glory f . The truth 
 of the thing done proves its necessity, (besides what I have alleged 
 from express Scripture concerning such necessity,) for it is not 
 imaginable that so great a thing would have been done upon 
 earth, and afterwards, as it were, constantly commemorated in 
 heaven , if there had not been very strong and pressing reasons 
 for it, and such as made it as necessary, (in the Divine counsels,) 
 as it was necessary for a God of infinite perfection to be wise and 
 holy, just and good. When I said constantly commemorated in 
 heaven, I had an eye to Christ's continual intercession 11 , which is 
 a kind of commemoration of the sacrifice which he once offered 
 upon the cross, and is always pleading the merit of. Which 
 shews still of what exceeding great moment that sacrifice was, 
 for the reconciling the acceptance of sinful men with the ends of 
 Divine government, the manifestation of Divine glory, and the 
 unalterable perfection of the Divine attributes. And if that 
 
 f ' Si non fuisset peccatum, non ne- tentionis legalium victimarum ; prior 
 
 cesse fuerat Filium Dei agnum fieri, peracta in templo, altera in ipso 
 
 nee opus fuerat eum in carne posi- penetrali : Christi prior in terris, 
 
 turn jugulari, sed mansisset hoc quod posterior in caelo. Prior tameii ilia 
 
 in principle erat, Deus verbum : ve- non sacrificii praeparatio, sed sacrifi- 
 
 rum quoniam intravit peccatum in cium : posterior non tarn sacrificium, 
 
 hunc niundum, peccati autem neces- quam sacrificii facti commemoratio.' 
 
 sitas propitiationem requirit, et pro- Grot, de Satisfact. in fine, 
 
 pitiatio non fit nisi per hostiam, h 'Christ is not entered into the 
 
 necessarium fuit provideri hostiam holy places made with hands, (which 
 
 pro peccato.' Orig. in Num. Horn, are the figures of the true) ; but into 
 
 xxiv. p. 362. heaven itself, now to appear in the 
 
 ' Est ergo duplex, ut legalium presence of God for us.' Heb. ix. 
 
 quarundam victimarum, ita Christi 24. 
 oblatio, prior mactationis, altera os- 
 
 F 2
 
 68 Commemoration of Christ's Death CH. iv. 
 
 sacrifice is represented and pleaded in heaven by Christ himself, 
 for remission of sins, that shews that there is an intrinsic virtue, 
 value, merit in it, for the purposes intended : and it shews 
 further, how rational and how proper our Eucharistical service 
 is, as commemorating the same sacrifice here below, which our 
 Lord himself commemorates above. God may reasonably require 
 of us this humble acknowledgment, this self-abasement, that after 
 we have done our best, we are offenders still, though penitent 
 offenders, and have not done all that we ought to have done ; 
 and that therefore we can claim nothing in virtue of our own 
 righteousness considered by itself, separate from the additional 
 virtue of that all-sufficient sacrifice, which alone can render even 
 our best services accepted 5 . 
 
 If it should be objected, that we have a covenant claim by the 
 Gospel, and that that covenant was entirely owing to Divine 
 mercy, and that so we resolve not our right and title into any 
 strict merits of our OAVII, but into the pure mercy of God, and 
 that this suffices without any respect to a sacrifice : I say, if 
 this should be pleaded, I answer that no such covenant claim 
 appears, separate from all respect to a sacrifice. The covenant 
 is that persons so and so qualified shall be acceptable in and 
 through Christ, and by virtue of that very sacrifice which he 
 entered with into the holy of holies, and by which he now 
 intercedes and appears for us. Besides, it is not right to think 
 nor is it modest or pious to say, that in the economy of every 
 man's salvation, the groundwork only is God's, by settling the 
 covenant, and the finishing part ours, by performing the con- 
 ditions ; but the true order or method is for our Lord to be 
 both the Author and Finisher of the whole. The covenant, or 
 rather, the covenant charter, was given soon after the fall to 
 mankind in general, and has been carried on through successive 
 generations by new stipulating acts in every age : so likewise was 
 the atonement made (or considered as made) once for all, but 
 is applied to particulars, or individuals, continually, by means of 
 Christ's constant abiding intercession. Therefore it is not barely 
 
 ' See our Xlth Article, with Bishop Burnet's Notes upon it, and Mr. 
 Welchman's.
 
 CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 69 
 
 our performing the conditions, that finishes our salvation, but it is 
 our Lord's applying his merits to our performances that finishes 
 all. Perhaps this whole matter may be more clearly represented 
 by a distinct enumeration of the several concurring means to the 
 same end. i. The Divine philanthropy has the first hand in our 
 salvation, is the primary or principal cause. 2. Our performing 
 the duties required, faith and repentance, by the aid of Divine 
 grace, is the conditional cause. 3. The sacrifice of Christ's 
 death, recommending and rendering acceptable our imperfect 
 performances, is the meritorious cause. 4. The Divine ordinances, 
 and more particularly the two Sacraments, (so far as distinct 
 from conditional,) are the instrumental k causes, in and by which 
 God applies to men fitly disposed the virtue of that sacrifice. 
 Let these things be supposed only, at present, for clearer concep- 
 tion : proofs of everything will appear in due time and place. 
 By this account may be competently understood the end and 
 use of commemorating the sacrifice of our Lord's passion in the 
 holy Communion. It corresponds with the commemoration made 
 above : it is suing for pardon, in virtue of the same plea that 
 Christ himself sues in, on our behalf : it is acknowledging our 
 indispensable need of it, and our dependence upon it ; and con- 
 fessing all our other righteousness to be as nothing without it. 
 In a word, it is at once a service of thanksgiving (to Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost) for the sacrifice of our redemption, and a 
 service also of self-humiliation before God, angels, and men. 
 
 If it should be objected here, that shewing forth our Lord's 
 death, cannot well be understood of shewing to God, who wants 
 not to have anything shewn to him, all things being naked 
 before him ; it is obvious to reply, that he permits and com- 
 mands us, in innumerable instances, to present ourselves and our 
 addresses before him : and though the very word KarnyyeXXetv, 
 which St. Paul makes use of in this case 1 , is not elsewhere used 
 for shewing to God, yet dvayyeXXeiv, a word of like import, is m ; 
 
 k I understand 'instrument' here in instruments: which shall be ex- 
 no other sense, but as deeds of con- plained hereafter, 
 veyance, or forms of investiture, such ' I Cor. xi. 26. Tbv Odvarov rov 
 as a ring, a crosier, letters patent, Kvpiov Ka.Ta.Yyf\\tTf. 
 broad seal, and the like, are called m ' Avayye\\w ffij^epov Kvpi<f rf
 
 jo Commemoration of Christ? s Death CH. iv. 
 
 so that there is no just objection to be drawn merely from the 
 phraseology. As to the reason of the thing, since addresses to 
 God have always gone along with the representation made in 
 the Communion, and are part of the commemoration, it must be 
 understood that we represent what we do represent, to God, as 
 well as to men. 
 
 Having thus despatched what I intended concerning the 
 remembrance, commemoration, or memorial of our Lord, and 
 of his passion, made in this Sacrament, I might now proceed to 
 a new chapter. But there is an incidental point or two to 
 be discussed, which seem to fall in our way, and which therefore 
 I shall here briefly consider, before I go further. 
 
 i. It has been suggested by some n , that the notion of remem- 
 brance, or commemoration, in this service, is an argument 
 against present receiving of benefits in, or by it : Christ and his 
 benefits are to be remembered or commemorated here ; therefore 
 neither he nor his benefits are supposed to be actually received 
 at the time. This is not the place proper for examining the 
 question about present or actual benefits : but it may be proper, 
 while we are stating the notion of remembrance, to obviate an 
 objection drawn from it, in order to clear our way so far. I see 
 no force at all in the argument, unless it could be proved that 
 the word remembrance must always be referred to something 
 past or absent : which is a supposition not warranted by the 
 customary use of language. ' Remember thy Creator :' does it 
 follow, that the Creator is not present ] ' Remember the Sabbath 
 day' (when present, I suppose) 'to keep it holy.' Let remem- 
 brance signify calling to mind ; may we not call to mind present 
 
 0e< fjiov. K.T.\. Deut. xxvi. 3. Cp. modo tribui posse : non enim dici 
 
 Psal. xxxviii. 18. possumus eorum recordari quibus 
 
 n ' Jam constat homines ibi non tune cum maxime praesentibus fmi- 
 
 participare, vel sortiri, vel accipere mur, quum recordatio mere ad prae- 
 
 sanguinem Christi : participatio enim, terita . pertineat.' Przipcovius ad 
 
 vel sortitio, rei praesentis est ; at I Cor. xi. 20, p. 91. 
 
 benedictio, quae hoc loco idem est Archbishop Tillotson, explaining 
 
 quod commemoratio, rei praeteritae the Scripture notion of remembrance, 
 
 esse solet.' Smalc. contr. Frantz. p. says : ' Remembrance is the actual 
 
 331. thought of what we do habitually 
 
 ' Notandum recordationem rebus know To remember a person, or 
 
 vere et realiter praesentibus nullo thing, is to call them to mind upon
 
 CH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 71 
 
 benefits, which are invisible, and which easily slip out of our 
 thoughts, or perhaps rarely occur, being thrust out by sensible 
 things? Or let it signify keeping in mind; if so, there is no 
 impropriety in saying, that we keep in mind what is present and 
 not seen, by the help of what is seen. Let it signify commemo- 
 rating: may not a man commemorate a benefaction, suppose, 
 which is in some sense past, but is present also in its abiding 
 fruits and influences, which are the strongest motives for com- 
 memorating the same 1 Indeed it would be hard to vindicate 
 the wisdom of commemorating what is past or absent, were 
 there not some present benefits resulting from it. I presume, 
 if a benefaction were wholly lost or sunk, the usual commemo- 
 ration of it would soon sink with it : the present benefits are 
 what keep it up. We do not say that Christ's death, or Christ's 
 crucifixion, is now present; we know it is past: but the benefits 
 remain ; and while we remember one as past, we call to mind, 
 or keep in mind, the other also, as present, but invisible, and 
 therefore easily overlooked. I see no impropriety in this man- 
 ner of speaking : nor if a person should be exhorted to remem- 
 ber that he has a soul to be saved, that such an admonition 
 would imply, that his soul is absent from his body. 
 
 2. Another incidental question, like the former, is whether, 
 from the notion of remembrance in this sacrament, a conclusive 
 argument may be formed against the corporal presence, and 
 particularly against transubstantiation 1 Notwithstanding that 
 we have many clear demonstrations against that strange doc- 
 trine, yet I should be far from rejecting any additional argument, 
 provided it were solid and just : but I perceive not of what use 
 the word remembrance can be in this case, or how any certain 
 argument can be drawn from it. The words are 'remembrance 
 of me :' therefore, if any absence can be proved from thence, it 
 must be the absence of what ME there stands for, that is, of the 
 
 all proper and fitting occasions, to I see not why present benefits may 
 
 think actually of them, so as to do not thus be remembered, and deserve 
 
 that which the remembrance of them to be so, rather than past, or absent, 
 
 does require, or prompt us to.' Serm. or distant benefits, 
 liv. p. 638. fol. edit.
 
 72 Commemoration of Christfs Death CH. iv. 
 
 whole person of Christ ; and so it appears as conclusive against 
 a spiritual presence, as against a corporal one, and proves too 
 much to prove anything. Surely we may remember Christ, in 
 strict propriety of expression, and yet believe him to be present 
 at the same time ; especially considering that he is ' always pre- 
 sent with his Church, even to the end of the world P,' and that 
 ' where two or three are gathered together in his name, there' 
 is he ' in the midst of them<i ;' and he has often told us of his 
 dwelling in good men. So then, since it is not said, remem- 
 brance of my body, but remembrance of me, and since it is 
 certain, that one part at least of what ought to be remembered 
 is present, (not absent,) therefore no argument can be justly 
 drawn merely from the word remembrance, as necessai-ily infer- 
 ring the absence of the thing remembered. 
 
 But if it had been said, remembrance of my body, or blood, 
 yet neither so would the argument be conclusive, if we attend 
 strictly to the Romish persuasion. For they do not assert any 
 visible presence of Christ's body or blood, but they say, that his 
 natural body and blood are invisibly, or in a spiritual manner, 
 present, under the accidents, or visible appearances of bread 
 and wine. Now what is invisible is so far imperceptible, unless 
 by the eye of faith, and wants as much to be called to mind as 
 any absent thing whatsoever. Therefore remembrance, or calling 
 to mind, might be very proper in this case : for what is out of 
 sight may easily slip out of mind. 
 
 If any particular restrained sense of remembrance should be 
 thought on, to help out the argument ; there will still remain a 
 great difficulty, namely, to prove that avanvrja-is, in the words of 
 the institution, must necessarily be confined to such a restrained 
 sense : which being utterly uncapable of any certain proof, the 
 argument built thereupon must of consequence fall to the ground. 
 Seeing, therefore, that there are two very considerable flaws in 
 the argument, as proving too much one way, and too little the 
 other way, it appears not prudent to rest an otherwise clear 
 clause upon so precarious a bottom, or to give the Romanists a 
 
 P Matt, xxviii. 20. i Matt, xviii. 20.
 
 OH. iv. in the Holy Communion. 73 
 
 very needless handle for triumph in this article, when we have a 
 multitude of other arguments, strong and irresistible, against 
 the corporal or local presence in the holy Communion. 
 
 As to the continuance of the Eucharistical service till our Lord 
 comes, there is a plain reason for it, because the Christian dis- 
 pensation is bound up in it, and must expire with it. And 
 there is no necessity of supposing, as some do r , any allusion 
 to the absence of his body. The text does not say, till his body 
 appears, but till he come : that is, till he comes to put an end to 
 this sacramental service, (and to all other services proper to a 
 state of probation,) and to assign us our reward. The reference 
 is to the ultimate end, where this and all other probationary 
 duties, as such, must cease, and to which they now look, expect- 
 ing to be so crowned and completed : so that if there be an 
 antithesis intended in the words, it is between present service 
 and future glory, not between present and absent body. 
 
 However, though the argument will not bear in the view 
 before mentioned, yet it is right and just to argue, that the sign, 
 or memorial of anything, is not the very thing signified or com- 
 memorated, but is distinct from it. Bread and wine, the symbols 
 of Christ's natural body and blood, are not literally that very 
 natural body and blood ; neither is the sacrament of Christ's 
 passion literally the passion itself : thus far we may argue justly 
 against transubstantiation, but supposing at the same time the 
 strict sense of the word Sacrament to be the true one. The ar- 
 gument is as good against the Socinians also, only by being 
 transversed : for the things signified and commemorated are not 
 the signs or memorials, but something else. And therefore, to 
 make out the true notion of sacramental signs, there must be 
 inward and invisible graces as well as outward visible signs : of 
 which more in the sequel. 
 
 Having done with the first and principal end of the Sacrament, 
 namely, the commemoration of Christ as described in Scripture, 
 
 r ' Quia futuri adventus Domini et ob oculos positions praeteriti ejus 
 
 mentio sit, palam est, quasi absentia beneficii, donee ipse adveniens desi- 
 
 desiderium, et, ut ita dicam, defec- derium hoc nostrum impleat.' Przip- 
 
 tum suppleri, hac repraesentatione covius ad i Cor. xi. 24.
 
 74 The Consecration of CH. v. 
 
 and of his death according to the true sacrificial notion of it ; I 
 now proceed to shew how this commemoration is performed, or 
 by what kind of service it is solemnized, and what is further in- 
 timated or effected in and by that service. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Of the Consecration of the Elements of Bread and Wine in the 
 Holy Communion. 
 
 THE first thing we have to take notice of in the Sacramental 
 service is the consecration of the elements : ' Jesus took bread 
 and blessed it s .' 'The cup of blessing which we bless*,' &c. 
 Here the points to be inquired into are : i. Whether the elements 
 of bread and wine in the Eucharist are really blessed, consecrated 
 sanctified, and in what sense. 2. Supposing they are blessed, 
 &< , by whom or how they are so. 3. What the blessing or 
 CGi ecration amounts to. 
 
 i. The first inquiry is, whether the elements may be justly 
 said to be blessed or consecrated : for this is a point which I find 
 disputed by some ; not many, nor very considerable. Smalcius, 
 a warm man, and who seldom knew any bounds, seems to have 
 been of opinion, that no proper, no sacerdotal benediction at all 
 belonged to the bread and cup before receiving, nor indeed after; 
 but that the communicants, upon receiving the elements, gave 
 praise to God, and that was all the benediction which St. Paul 
 speaks of u . So he denies that any benediction at all passed to 
 the elements. And he asserts besides, that whatever benediction 
 there was, it was not so much from the administrator, or 
 officiating minister, as from the communicants themselves : for 
 which he has a weak pretence from St. Paul's words, ' we bless,' 
 that is, says he, we communicants do it. Thus far Smalcius. 
 But the cooler and wiser Socinians go not these lengths. Crellius 
 
 8 Matt. xxvi. 26. * I Cor. x. 16. tibus, interpretatur) sed calicem quo 
 
 u ' Notandum insuper est, verba sumpto benedicimus : mox enim 
 
 Pauli,' calix benedictionis,'non signi- additur, ' quern benedicimus,' nempe 
 
 ficare calicem benedictum (ut Frant- omnes qui ad mensam Domini acce- 
 
 zius, una cum Pontificiis, aliquid dimus.' Valent. Smal. contr. Frantz. 
 
 divinum sibi et suis hac re arrogan- p. 331.
 
 CH. v. the JBread and Wine. 75 
 
 expressly allows, that a benediction is conferred upon the cup, 
 as it is sanctified by thanksgiving, and made a kind of libation 
 unto God x . He goes further, and distinguishes sacramental 
 consecration from that of common meals, as amounting to a 
 sanctification of the elements for high and sacred purposes y. 
 The Racovian Catechism allows also of a sanctification of the 
 elements, made by prayer and thanksgiving 2 . Wolzogenius, 
 afterwards, seems to waver and fluctuate between inclination 
 and reason, and scarce knows where to fix ; sometimes admitting 
 a consecration of the elements, and soon after resolving all into 
 bare giving of thanks to God a . I suppose all his hesitancy was 
 owing to his not understanding the notion of relative holiness, 
 (which he might have admitted, as Crellius did, consistently with 
 his other principles,) or to some apprehension he was under, 
 lest the admitting of a real sanctification should infer some 
 secret operation of the Holy Ghost. However, to make Scrip- 
 ture bend to any preconceived opinions is not treating sacred 
 Writ with the reverence which belongs to it. St. Paul is express, 
 that the cup, meaning the wine, is blessed, or sanctified, in the 
 Eucharist : and if the wine be really sanctified in that solemn 
 service, no man of tolerable capacity can make any question as 
 to the bread, whether that be not sanctified also. 
 
 It is of small moment to plead that fi/xapia-rflv and cuXoyftj/ 
 are often used promiscuously, and that the former properly 
 
 * ' Benedictio autem ista refertur tiarum actione imprimis poculum 
 
 primum ad Deum et Christum, et istud, quo ad Christi sanguinis fusi- 
 
 in gratiarum actione (uude etiam hie onem repraesentandam utimur, sanc- 
 
 ritus antiquitus Eucharistiae nomen tificatur et consecratur.' Crellius, 
 
 obtinuit) consistit : sed simul etiam ibid. p. 306. 
 
 transit ad calicem, quatenus divini z ' Qui calici huic benedicunt, id 
 
 nominis benedictione et gratiarum est, cum gratiarum actione, et nomi- 
 
 actione sanctificatur calix iste, et sic nis Domini celebratione sanctificant,' 
 
 Domino quodammodo libatur.' Crel- &c. Racov. Catech. sect. vi. c. 4. p. 
 
 lius in i Cor. x. 16. Opp. torn. ii. p. 237. edit. 1659. 
 
 306. a c y ox benedicendi .... significat 
 
 y ' Non tantum earn gratiarum ac- usitatam illam gratiarum actionem, 
 
 tionem, quae etiam in vulgari cibo- seu consecrationem panis, &c 
 
 rum et potus usu adhibetur, intelligi Calicem benedicere est, Deum pro 
 
 arbitramur, qua scilicet gratiae agun- potu, qui est in calice, extollere, 
 
 tur pro poculo isto ; sed maxiine earn eique gratias agere.' Wolzog. in 
 
 qua gratiae aguntur pro Christi fuso Matt. xxvi. 26. p. 408. 
 pro nobis sanguine. Hac enim gra-
 
 76 The Consecration of CH. v. 
 
 signifies giving thanks, and that bread and wine (for thus do some 
 trifle) cannot be thanked : for since the words are often used 
 promiscuously, and since evXoyelv is taken transitively in this 
 very case by the Apostle b , it is next to self-evident that fi>xa- 
 pto-Telv, so far as concerns this matter, cannot be taken in a sense 
 exclusive of that transitive signification of eiXoyeu/ : for to do 
 that is flatly to contradict the Apostle. No doubt but either 
 of the words may (as circumstances happen) signify no more 
 than thanking or praising God ; but here it is manifest, that, in 
 this rite, both God is praised and the elements blessed : yea 
 both are done at the same time, and in the self-same act ; and 
 the Apostle's authority, without anything more, abundantly 
 proves it. If the reader desires anything further, in so plain a 
 case, he may please" to consult three very able judges of Biblical 
 language, or of Greek phrases ; Buxtorf I mean, and Vorstius, 
 and Casaubon, who have clearly and fully settled the true 
 meaning of fixapiamlv and fvXoyelv, both in the general, and with 
 respect to this particular case : I shall refer to the two first of 
 them, and shall cite a few words from the third d . But to cut 
 off all pretence drawn from the strict sense of ev^apio-Teiv, as im- 
 porting barely thanksgiving unto God, it may be observed, that 
 that word also is often used transitively 6 , as well as fvXoyelv, and 
 then it imports or includes benediction : so far from truth is it, 
 that it must necessarily exclude it. I may further add, that the 
 
 b I Cor. x. 16. Ti iroriiptov rrjs 517. Cp. p. 533, and Albertin. de 
 
 fit\oylas t> ev\oyovfji.ev. Eucharist, lib. i. c. 4. p. 8, &c. 
 
 c Buxtorf. de Coena Domini, p. e EiixapierTrjOeWos apTov...tvxapi- 
 
 311. Cp. Bucher. Antiq. Evangel. aTtjQtiffavrpo^v. Justin Mart. Apol. 
 
 p. 369. Johan.Vorstius de Hebraism, i. p. 96. cp. 98. Tronijpia fvxo-pi<nflv 
 
 N. T. part. i. p. 166, &c. .... rov (TIOTTIP'.OV) evxo,piffTr]fj.evov. 
 
 d ' Evangelistae et Apostoius Pau- Iren. lib. i. c. 13. p. 60. vSap if t\bv 
 
 lus...duobus verbis promiscue utun- fv^apKnovffiv. Clem. Alex. Strom, 
 
 tur, ad declarandam Domini actio- i. p. 375- 
 
 nem, ev\oye7v, et eu;api<rre?'... Note, that for the expressing this 
 utraque vox a parte una, totam transitive sense of the Greek word, 
 Domini actionem designat : nam some have contrived, not improperly, 
 Christus in eodem actu, et Deum the English word eucharistize, im- 
 Patrem laudavit, et gratias ei egit, porting thanksgiving towards God, 
 et hoc amplius panem sanctificavit ; but so as at the same time to ex- 
 hoc est, consecravit in usum Sacra- press the benediction imparted to 
 menti,' &c. Casaub. Exercit. xvi. p. the elements in the same act.
 
 CH. v. the Bread and Wine. 77 
 
 benedictions used f in the paschal solemnity may be an useful 
 comment upon the benediction in the Eucharist. There the lay- 
 ing hand upon the bread, and the taking up the cup, were signi- 
 ficant intimations of a blessing transferred to the bread and 
 wine, in virtue of the thanksgiving service at the same time 
 performed. And by the way, from hence may be understood 
 what St. Chrysostom observes upon i Cor. x. 16, 'The cup of 
 blessing which we bless,' &c., on which he thus comments : ' He 
 called it the cup of blessing, because while we hold it in our 
 hands, we send up our hymns of praise to God, struck with 
 admiration and astonishment at the ineffable gift,' &c.S That 
 circumstance of holding the thing in hand while the prayers or 
 praises were offering, was supposed to signify the derivation of a 
 benediction, or consecration upon it. It is not material to dispute, 
 whether the consecration formerly was performed by thanksgiving, 
 or by prayer, or by both together : the forms might differ in dif- 
 ferent churches, or at different times. But the point which we 
 are now considering is, whether a benediction is really conveyed 
 to the elements in this service, and whether they are really sanc- 
 tified, or made holy. That they are so, is plain from the 
 testimony of St. Paul before recited. 
 
 2. As to Smalcius's pretence, before mentioned, concerning 
 the benediction of the communicants, after their receiving the 
 elements, it is a groundless fiction, and a violent perverting of 
 the plain meaning of the text. In the paschal service, the bene- 
 diction was performed by the master of the feast, (not by the 
 whole company,) and before distribution : so was it likewise in 
 the institution of this sacrament by our Lord. And all antiquity 
 
 f See above, chap. ii. p. 495. where plainly speaks of prayer be- 
 8 Tiorlipiov 8e ev\oyias ftcd\e<rev, sides, prayer for the descent of the 
 eirtiSav aiirb jue-ra Xflpas e^oi/rey, Holy Ghost. "Orav Si Kal rb irvfv/j.a 
 OTJTias avrbv avvfjLfovfj.fi', 0av/j,dovTS, rb aytov /caAj?, Kal T^V ^pLKw^fffrdrTiv 
 fKir\rirr6iJ.evoi TTJS cuparov Scupeas. ^TriTeAr? Bvcriav, Kal rov KOIVOV irdvTcav 
 K.T.A. (rvvfx&s ffpdirT-fjTai SeffirArov, TTOV rd- 
 Note, though Chrysostom here 1-ofj.fv avrbv, elire /J.QI ; De Sacerdot. 
 makes mention of hymns only, in lib. vi. c. 4. p. 424. ed. Bened. Corn- 
 accounting for the name of eulogy, pare Theophyl. on John vi., who 
 or blessing, yet he did not mean speaks as fully to the same pur- 
 that hymns only were used at that pose, 
 time in consecrating, for he else-
 
 78 The Consecration of CH. v. 
 
 is consonant, that a sacerdotal blessing was previous to the deli- 
 vering the sacred symbols 11 , made sacred by that benediction. 
 And this is confirmed from hence, (as before hinted,) that an 
 unworthy communicant is guilty of profane irreverence ; viz. to- 
 wards what is supposed holy, before he receives it. As to St. 
 Paul's expression, we bless, it means no more than if he had said, 
 we Christians bless, meaning, by the proper officers. To strain 
 a common idiom of speech to the utmost rigour is not right : 
 it might as well be pleaded, that St. Paul must be present 
 in person at every consecration ; for ordinarily, when a man 
 says we, he includes himself in the number. It must be owned, 
 that it depends upon the disposition of every communicant, to 
 render the previous consecration either salutary or noxious to 
 himself : and if any man has a mind to call a worthy reception 
 of the elements, a consecration of them to himself, a secondary 
 consecration, he may 1 ; for it would not be worth while to hold 
 a dispute about words. But strictly speaking, it is not within 
 the power or choice of a communicant, either to consecrate or to 
 desecrate the symbols, to make the sacrament a common meal, or 
 otherwise : it is a religious and sacred meal even to the most un- 
 worthy ; and that is the reason why such are liable to the judg- 
 ment of God for abusing it : for if it were really a common meal 
 to them, it would do them no more hurt, than any other ordinary 
 entertainment. Holy things are fit for holy persons, and will 
 turn to their nutriment and increase : but to the unholy and 
 profane, if they presume to come near, the sanctified instruments 
 do as certainly turn to their detriment and condemnation. 
 There are proofs of this, in great abundance, quite through the 
 Old Testament, and I need not point out to the reader what he 
 may everywhere find. 
 
 h Evx<xpiffT'{]ffavTOS Se -rov irpoearw- hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio 
 
 TOS, Kal firevtpriHTia'avTos iravrbs TOV Deus : sed conscientia ejus qui offert, 
 
 Xaov, ot ica\ov/j,evoi trap' ri/j.7i> SIO.KOVOL sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens,' 
 
 $L$6a(nv fK<i(TT(f T<av irap6vT(oi> fj.fra- &c. Iren. lib. iv. c. 18. p. 250. 
 \apf?v airb TOV evxapiffTydfi/Tos &p-rov, N. B. Here, sanctifying means 
 
 Kal otvov, Kal liSaror. Justin Mart, rendering salutary : not that that 
 
 p. 96. See Archbishop Potter on alone does it, but it is a condition 
 
 Church Government, p. 262, &c. sine qua non. 
 
 1 ' Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant
 
 CH. v. the Bread and Wine. 79 
 
 One thing more I may note here in passing, for the preventing 
 cavils or mistakes. When we speak of human benedictions, and 
 their efficacy, we mean not that they have any real virtue or 
 efficacy in themselves, or under any consideration but as founded 
 in Divine promise or contract, and as coming from God by man. 
 If the prayer of faith saved the sick k , it was not properly the 
 human prayer that did it, but God did it by or upon such prayer, 
 pursuant to his promise. In like manner, whatever consecration, 
 or benediction, or sanctification is imparted in the Sacrament to 
 things or persons, it is all God's doing ; and the ground of all 
 stands in the Divine warrant authorizing men to administer the 
 holy Communion, in the Divine word intimating the effect of it, 
 and in the Divine promise and covenant, tacit or express 1 , to 
 send his blessing along with it. 
 
 3. The third and most material article of inquiry is, what the 
 consecration of the elements really amounts to, or what the effect 
 of it is? To which we answer, thus much at least is certain, that 
 the bread and wine being 'sanctified by the word of God and 
 prayer m ,' (according to the Apostle's general rule, applicable 
 in an eminent manner to this particular case,) do thereby con- 
 tract a relative holiness, or sanctification, in some degree or other. 
 What the degree is, is nowhere precisely determined ; but the 
 measures of it may be competently taken from the ends and uses 
 of the service, from the near relation it bears to our Lord's 
 Person, (a Person of infinite dignity,) and from the judgments 
 denounced against irreverent offenders, and perhaps from some 
 other considerations to be mentioned as we go along. 
 
 For the clearer conception of this matter, we may take a brief 
 survey of what relative holiness meant under the Old Testament, 
 
 k James v. 15. ' is it not the communion,' &c., tan- 
 
 1 I say. tacit or express : because tarnount to a Divine promise of 
 
 our Lord's declaring, and St. Paul's everything we contend for ? But 
 
 declaring what is done in the Eucha- this is not the place to explain that 
 
 rist, do amount to a tacit promise whole matter : thus much is evident, 
 
 of what shall be done always, that what the word of prayer did 
 
 Wherefore the Socinians do but once make the sacramental bread 
 
 trifle with us, when they call for and wine to be, that it will always 
 
 an express promise. Are not the make it. 
 
 words, ' this is my bo.ly,' &c., and m I Tim. iv. 5.
 
 80 The Consecration of CH. v. 
 
 and of the various degrees of it. I shall say nothing of the 
 relative holiness of persons, but of what belonged to inanimate 
 things, which is most to our present purpose. The court of the 
 temple was holy n , the temple itself more holy, and the sanctuary, 
 or holy of holies, was still more so : but the ark of God, laid up 
 in the sanctuary, appears to have been yet holier than all. The 
 holiness of the ark was so great, and so tremendous, that many 
 were struck dead at once, only for presuming to look into it with 
 eyes impure P: and Uzzah but for touching it (though with a 
 pious intent to preserve it from falling) was instantly smitten of 
 God, and died upon the spot<L Whatever God is once pleased 
 to sanctify by his more peculiar presence, or to claim a more 
 special property in, or to separate to sacred uses, that is relatively 
 holy, as having a nearer relation to God ; and it must of course 
 be treated with a reverence and awe suitable. Be the thing what 
 it will, be it otherwise ever so mean and contemptible in itself, 
 yet as soon as God gives it a sacred relation, and, as it were, 
 seals it with his own signet, it must then be looked upon with 
 an eye of reverence, and treated with an awful respect, for fear 
 of trespassing against the Divine majesty, in making that com- 
 mon which God has sanctified. 
 
 T.his notion of relative holiness is a very easy and intelligible 
 notion : or if it wanted any further illustration, might be illus- 
 trated from familiar examples in a lower kind, of relative 
 sacredness accruing to inanimate things by the relation they bear 
 to earthly majesty. The thrones, or sceptres, or crowns, or 
 presence-rooms of princes are, in this lower sense, relatively 
 sacred : and an offence may be committed against the majesty of 
 the sovereign, by an irreverence offered to what so peculiarly 
 belong to him. If any one should ask, what is conveyed to the 
 respective things to make them holy or sacred 1 we might ask, 
 in our turn, what was conveyed to the ground- which Moses once 
 stood upon, to make it holy ground 1 "? or what was conveyed to 
 
 n I Kings viii. 64. P I Sam. vi. 19. 
 
 The Rabbins reckon up ten i 2 Sain. vi. 7. i Chron. xiii. 9, 
 
 degrees of such relative holiness. 10. 
 
 Vid. Deylingius, Observat. Mis- r Exod. iii. 5. 
 cellan. p. 546.
 
 CH. v. the Bread and Wine. 81 
 
 the gold which the temple was said to sanctify 8 , or what to the 
 gift when the altar sanctified it* 1 But to answer more directly, 
 as to things common becoming holy or sacred, I say, a holy or 
 sacred relation is conveyed to them by their appropriation or 
 use ; and that suffices. The things are in themselves just what 
 they before were u : but now they are considered by reasonable 
 creatures as coming under new and sacred relations, which have 
 their moral effect ; insomuch that now the honour of the Divine 
 majesty in one case, or of royal in the other case, becomes deeply 
 interested in them. 
 
 Let us next apply these general principles to the particular 
 instance of relative holiness supposed to be conveyed to the 
 symbols of bread and wine by their consecration. They are now 
 no more common bread and wine, (at least not during this their 
 sacred application,) but the communicants are to consider the 
 relation which they bear, and the uses which they serve to. I do 
 not here say what, because I have no mind to anticipate what 
 more properly belongs to another head, or to a distinct chapter 
 hereafter : but in the general I observe, that they contract a 
 relative holiness v by their consecration, and that is the effect. 
 Hence it is, that some kinds of irreverence towards these sacred 
 symbols amount to being 'guilty of the body and blood of the 
 Lord x ,' the Lord of glory ; and hence also it was that many 
 of the Corinthians, in the apostolical age, were punished as 
 severely for offering contempt to this holy solemnity, as others 
 formerly were for their irreverence towards, the ark of God : 
 that is to say, they were smitten of God with diseases and 
 death y. 
 
 8 Matt, xxiii. 17. of Nature, ch. i. concerning moral 
 
 * Matt, xxiii. 19. entities. 
 
 u 'When certain things are said v The ancients therefore frequently 
 
 to be holy or sacred, no moral gave the title of holy, holy of the 
 
 quality of holiness inheres in the Lord, or even holy of holies, and 
 
 things, only an obligation is laid the like, to the sacred elements, 
 
 upon men, to treat them in such Testimonies are collected by 8uicer, 
 
 a particular manner : and when that torn. i. pp. 56, 62. Albertin. pp. 
 
 obligation ceases, they are supposed 345, 346, 376. Grabe, Spicil. torn, 
 
 to fall again into promiscuous and i. p. 343. 
 ordinary use.' Puffendorf, Law * I Cor. xi. 27. y I Cor. xi. 30. 
 
 G
 
 82 The Consecration of CHAP. 
 
 Enough hath been said for the explaining the general nature 
 or notion of relative holiness : or if the reader desires more, he 
 may consult Mr. Mede, who professedly considers the subject 
 more at large z . Such a relative holiness does undoubtedly belong 
 to the elements once consecrated. The ancient Fathers are still 
 more particular in expounding the sacerdotal consecration, and 
 the Divine sanctification consequent thereupon. Their several 
 sentiments have been carefully .collected, and useful remarks 
 added, by the learned Pfaffius a . It may be proper here to give 
 some brief account of their way of explaining this matter, and 
 to consider what judgment it may be reasonable to make of it. 
 Mr. Aubertine has judiciously reduced their sentiments of conse- 
 cration to three heads, as follows b : i. The power of Christ and 
 the Holy Spirit, as the principal, or properly efficient cause. 
 2. Prayers, thanksgivings, benedictions, as the conditional cause, 
 or instrumental. 3. The words of our Lord, ' This is my body, 
 this is my blood,' as declarative of what then was, promissory 
 of what should be always. I shall throw in a few remarks upon 
 the several heads in their order. 
 
 i. As to the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, (in con- 
 junction with God the Father,) I suppose, the ancients might 
 infer their joint operations in the Sacraments, partly from the 
 general doctrine of Scripture relating to their joint concurrence 
 in promoting man's salvation c , and partly from their being jointly 
 honoured or worshipped in sacramental services d ; and partly 
 also from what is .particularly taught in Scripture with respect 
 
 1 Mede's Works, pp. 399, &c. and d Baptism in the name of all 
 
 823. Dissertationum Triga. Lond. three. Matt, xxviii. 19. As to the 
 
 A.D. 1653. Eucharist, Justin Martyr is an early 
 
 Pfaffius, Dissert, de Consecra- witness, that the custom was to 
 
 tione veterum Encharistica, p. 355. make mention of all the three Per- 
 
 Compare 1'Arroque, Hist, of the sons in that service. 
 
 Eucharist, part i. ch. 8'. p. 65, &c. "E-Treira irpo<r<pfptTa.i r<v irpof<rr5>Ti 
 
 b Albertin. de Eucharist, lib. i. TWI> ftVA^fiy &pros, Kal TroT-fipiov v5a- 
 
 C. 7. p. 34. ros, Kal Kp-ifiaros- Kal OVTOS \aBwv, 
 
 c Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. John xiv. ali-ov Kal $Aai> rtf irarpl rwv tiXcav, 
 
 16, 26. Rom. v. 5, 6. i Cor. xii. 5icb TOV 6v6fj.aros rot) vtov, Kal TOV 
 
 4, 5> 6. 2 Cor. i. 21, 22; xiii. 14. VlvfVfjLaros TOV aylov, avairtfiirfi. 
 
 Epb.es. i. 17, 21, 22. 2 Thess. ii. 13, Apol. i. p. 96. 
 14. Tit. iii. 4, 5, 6. i Pet. i. 2.
 
 v. the Bread and Wine. 83 
 
 to our Lord's concern in the Eucharist, or the Holy Spirit's. It 
 is observable that the doctrine of the Fathers, with regard to 
 consecration, was much the same in relation to the waters of 
 Baptism, as in relation to the elements in the Eucharist. They 
 supposed a kind of descent of the Holy Ghost, to sanctify the 
 waters in one, and the symbols in the other, to the uses intended : 
 and they seem to have gone upon this general Scripture prin- 
 ciple, (besides particular texts relating to each sacrament,) that 
 the Holy Ghost is the immediate fountain of all sanctification. 
 I believe they were right in the main thing, only not always 
 accurate in expression. Had they said, that the Holy Ghost came 
 upon the recipients, in the due use of the sacraments, they had 
 spoken with greater exactness ; and perhaps it was all that they 
 really meant. They could not be aware of the disputes which 
 might arise in after times, nor think themselves obliged to a 
 philosophical strictness of expression. It was all one with them 
 to say, in a confuse general way, either that the Holy Ghost 
 sanctified the ' receivers in the use of the outward symbols,' or 
 that he 'sanotified the symbols to their use :' for either ex- 
 pression seemed to amount to the same thing ; though in strict- 
 ness there is a considerable difference between them. What 
 Mr. Hooker very judiciously says, of the real presence of Christ 
 in the Sacrament, appears to be equally applicable to the presence 
 of the Holy Spirit in the same : 'It is not to be sought for in 
 the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament. . . . 
 As for the Sacraments, they really exhibit; but for ought we 
 can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not 
 really, nor do really contain in themselves, that grace which 
 with them, or by them, it pleaseth God to bestow 6 .' Not that 
 I conceive there is any absurdity in supposing a peculiar presence 
 of the Holy Ghost to inanimate things, any more than in God's 
 appearing in a burning bush f : but there is no proof of the fact, 
 
 e Hooker, Eccl. Polity, b. v. pp. sion, lower down, for citing his 
 307, 308. Archbishop Cranmer had words. Conf. Sam. Ward, Deter- 
 said the same thing before, in his miuat. Theolog. p. 62. 
 preface to his book against Gar- f Exod. iii. 2. Acts vii. 30. 
 diner : I shall have another occa- 
 
 G 2
 
 84 The Consecration of CHAP. 
 
 either from direct Scripture, or from that in conjunction with 
 the reason of the thing. The relative holiness of the elements, 
 or symbols, as explained above, is very intelligible, without this 
 other supposition : and as to the rest, it is all more rationally 
 accounted for (as we shall see hereafter) by the presence of the 
 Holy Spirit with the worthy receivers, in the use of the symbols, 
 than by I know not what presence or union with the symbols 
 themselves S. 
 
 2. The second article, mentioned by Albertinus, relates to 
 prayers, thanksgivings, and benedictions, considered as instru- 
 mental in consecration. It has been a question, whether the 
 earlier Fathers (those of the three first centuries) allowed of any 
 proper prayer, as distinct from thanksgiving, in the Eucharistical 
 consecration. I think they did, though the point is scarce worth 
 disputing, since they plainly allowed of a sanctification of the 
 elements, consequent upon what was done by the officiating 
 minister. But we may examine a few authorities, and as briefly 
 as possible. 
 
 Justin Martyr, more than once, calls the consecrated elements 
 by the name of eucharistized food h , which looks as if he thought 
 that the thanksgiving was the consecration : but yet he com- 
 monly makes mention both of prayers and thanksgiving *, where 
 he speaks of the Eucharistical service ; from whence it appears 
 probable, or certain rather, that consecration, at that time, was 
 performed by both. 
 
 Irenaeus k speaks of the bread as receiving the invocation of 
 God, and thereby becoming more than common bread. Some 
 would interpret it of prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost l ; 
 but, as I apprehend, without sufficient authority. Irenaeus 
 might mean no more than calling upon God, in any kind of 
 
 * Vid. Vossius de Sacrament. Vi ux a P" rn/ai '- Ii>id. p. 96. Evxas (5<uoi- 
 et Efficacia A.D. 1648. torn. vi. p. ws ol evx<*ptffrla.s. p. 08. Ei/xa.1 /cal 
 252. de Bapt. Diss. v. p. 174. Har- ei>xap'<rriai. Dial. p. 387. 
 
 mon. Evangel. 233. A.D. 1656. k 'O etirb yrjs &pros irpoff\afj.&av6- 
 
 * Evxa-piffTTiOfvTos &prov. . . . eu^a- fifvos r^v fKK\ri<nv rov @eov, ovKtn 
 punriBti-jav rpo<fyfiv. Apol. i. p. Koifbs &pros forlv, a\\' ei/xapitTTia. 
 96. Iren. lib. ix. c. 18. p. 2 = 1. 
 
 ' A.Ayci> ff>x^ s Ka ^ ttjftfurrUa. ' Pfaffius in Praefat. ad Fragm. 
 
 Apol. i. p. 19. T&s euxJ MM TV Anecdota et in Lib. p. 96.
 
 v. the Bread and Wine. 85 
 
 prayer or thanksgiving, or in such as Justin Martyr before him 
 had referred to. Irenaeus, in the same chapter, twice speaks of 
 thanksgiving m , as used before or at the consecration : but no- 
 thing can be certainly inferred from thence, as to his excluding 
 prayer, and resolving the consecration into bare thanksgiving. 
 
 Origen has expressed this whole matter with as much judg- 
 ment and exactness, as one shall anywhere meet with among 
 the ancient Fathers. He had been considering our Lord's 
 words, ' Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man n ;' 
 upon which he immediately thought with himself, that by parity 
 of reason, it might as justly be said, that what goes into the 
 mouth cannot sanctify a man. And yet here he was aware, that 
 according to the vulgar way of conceiving or speaking, the sa- 
 cramental elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist were 
 supposed to sanctify the receiver, having themselves been sanc- 
 tified before in their consecration. This was true in some sense, 
 and according to a popular way of speaking ; and therefore could 
 not be denied by Origen, without wary and proper distinctions. 
 He allows, in the first place, that the elements were really sanc- 
 tified ; namely, by the word of God and prayer o : but he denies 
 that what is so sanctified, sanctifies any person by its own proper 
 virtue P, or considered according to its matter, which goes in at 
 the mouth, and is cast off in the draught ; admitting, however, 
 that the prayer and word (that is, God by them) do enlighten the 
 mind and sanctify the heart (for that is his meaning) of the 
 worthy receiver. So he resolves the virtue of the Sacrament into 
 the sacerdotal consecration, previous to the worthy reception : 
 and he reckons prayer (strictly so called) as part of the conse- 
 cration. The sum is, that the sanctification, properly speaking, 
 
 m ' Offerens ei cum gratiarum ac- icbi>, et's atyeSpuva e/c/SaAAerat, Kara Sf 
 
 tione....Panem in quo gratiae actae rrjv eiriyevofj.fvriv avry fvx^v, Kara 
 
 sint.' Iren. p. 251. rfyv ava\oyiav rrjs Trlffras, &<t>f\t/jiot> 
 
 n Matt. xv. II. yii/erai, Kal rijs rov vov atnov $iaf}\- 
 
 ' Ayia(r6fvros \6y<f eov Kal tvrtv- \j/fcas, oputvros firl rb w<t>t\ovv. Kal oi>x 
 
 |ei aprov. . . . rb aytatyufvov fipia/j.a Sia r) v\rf rov aprov, a\\' 6 fir' avr flpr/- 
 
 \6yov Qfov Kal fi>Tfvtus. Orig. in fi4vos \6yos e<rrlv & w<t>t\wv rbf /ur; 
 
 Matt. p. 254. ava^ius rov Kvptov fcrBiovra avrdv. p. 
 
 P Ov Tta ifiiip \6yca aytdfi rbv xp<i>- 254. 
 /j-fvov. p. 253. Kar' avrb (*.ei> rb v\i-
 
 86 The Consecration of ( CHAP. 
 
 goes to the person fitly disposed, and is the gift of God, not the 
 work of the outward elements, though sanctified in a certain 
 sense, as having been consecrated to holy uses. Thus by carefully 
 distinguishing upon the case, he removed the difficulty arising 
 from a common and popular way of expressing it. Nevertheless, 
 after this% in his latest and most correct work, he did not 
 scruple to make use of the same popular kind of expression, 
 observing that the eucharistical bread, by prayer and thanks- 
 giving, was made a sort of holy, or sanctified body, sanctifying 
 the worthy receivers r . Where we may note, that lie again takes 
 in both prayer and thanksgiving, to make the consecration. And 
 we may observe another thing, by the way, worth the noting, 
 that by body there, he does not understand our Lord's natural 
 body, but the sanctified bread, which he elsewhere calls the sym- 
 bolical and typical body s ; that is to say, representative body, as 
 distinguished from the real body, or true food of the soul, which 
 none but the holy partake of, and all that do so are happy. 
 Origen's doctrine therefore, with respect to this article, lies in 
 these particulars : i. That the bread and wine, before consecra- 
 tion, are common food. 2. That after consecration by prayer 
 and thanksgiving, they become holy, typical, symbolical food, 
 representative of true food. 3. That unworthy receivers eat of 
 the symbolical food only, without the true. 4. That worthy 
 receivers, upon eating the symbolical food, are enlightened and 
 sanctified from above, and consequently do partake of the true 
 spiritual food, in the same act. I shall proceed no lower with 
 the Fathers, under this article, having said as much as I conceive 
 sufficient for illustrating Mr. Aubertine's second particular. 
 3. The third will still want some explication : where we are 
 
 i The Homilies on St. Matthew n, Kal ayidov TOVS per' vyiovs vpoOf- 
 
 are supposed to have been written crecos avrip ^p<afj.evovs. Origen. contr. 
 
 in the year of our Lord 244, and Cels. lib. viii. p. 766. edit. Bened. 
 
 his book against Celsus A.D. 249. s Tavra /j.tv trtpl TOV TVTTIKOV Kal 
 
 Origen died in 253. eru^u/SoAi/coD erco/uaros, TroAAa S 1 tiif Kal 
 
 r 'U/j.f7s tie r TOV iravrbs Srj/ui- irtpi UVTOV \fyono TOV \6yov, bs yt- 
 
 ovpyy euxapiffTovvTfs, Kal TOVS /J.(T' yore <rop|, Kal a\r]9tv^ /8pw<m, ^v Tiva 
 
 evxaptffTias Kal fi>xrjs TTJJ eirl rots 6 <f>aycav irdvTtas tfcreTai fls T^V aliai/a, 
 
 <5o0e?<n irpocrayoij.fi>ovs aprovs tffOiof^ei'. ovSevbs Svva/j.fvov <f>av\ov tcrQieiv av- 
 
 ff>[jia yevoftfvovs Sia TTJC fvxfyv aytov r^v. Origen. in Matt. p. 254.
 
 v. the Bread and Wine. 87 
 
 to consider what effect the words of our Lord, ' This is my body,' 
 are conceived now to have in the Eucharistical consecration. It 
 is not meant (as the Romanists are pleased to interpret) that the 
 pronouncing those words makes the consecration : but the words 
 then spoken by our blessed Lord are conceived to operate now 
 as virtually carrying in them a rule, or a promise, for all succeed- 
 ing ages of the Church, that what was then done when our Lord 
 himself administered, or consecrated, will be always done in the 
 celebration of the Eucharist, pursuant to that original. If the 
 elements were then sanctified or consecrated into representative 
 symbols of Christ's body and blood, and if the worthy receivers 
 were then understood to partake of the true spiritual food upon 
 receiving the symbolical; and if all this was then implied in the 
 words, ' This is my body,' &c., so it is now. What the Sacrament 
 then was, in meaning, virtue, and effect, the same it is also at this 
 day. Such was the way of reasoning which some of the Fathers 
 made use of ; and it appears to have been perfectly right and 
 just. It was with this view, or under this light, that they took 
 upon them to say, that our Lord's words then spoken, were to 
 have their effect in every consecration after ; namely, as being 
 directly declaratory of what then was, and virtually promissory 
 of what should be in like case for all times to come. The same 
 Lord is our High Priest in heaven, recommending and enforcing 
 our prayers there, and still constantly ratifying what he once said, 
 ' This is my body,' &c. For, like as the words once spoken, 
 ' Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth,' have their effect 
 at this day, and in all ages of the world ; so the words of our 
 Lord, ' This is my body,' though spoken but once by him, stand 
 in full force and virtue, and will ever do so, in all ages of 
 the Christian Church. This is the sum of St. Chrysostom's rea- 
 soning upon this head ; which it may suffice barely to refer to* : 
 Mr. Pfaffius has collected from him what was most material, 
 illustrating all with proper remarks ". The use I would further 
 
 * Chrysost. Homil. i. de Prodi- Bingham, b. xiv. ch. 3. sect. II. Al- 
 
 tione Judae, torn. ii. p. 384. ed. bertin. lib. i. c. 7. p. 33 ; and Covel's 
 
 Bened. Account of the Greek Church, pp. 47, 
 
 " Pfaffius de Consecratione Vet. 48, 63, &c. 
 Eucbaristica, p. 389, &c. Compare
 
 88 The Consecration of CHAP. 
 
 make of the notion is, to endeavour from hence to explain some 
 short and obscure hints of the elder Fathers. For example, 
 Justin Martyr speaks of the elements being eucharistized or 
 blessed by the prayer of the word that came from him x [God]. 
 Why might not he mean the very same thing that Chrysostom 
 does, namely, that Christ, our High Priest above, now ratines 
 what he once said on earth, when he blessed the elements with 
 his consecration prayers, in the institution of the Eucharist ? It 
 is he that now sanctifies the symbols, as he then did, and, as it 
 were, presides over our Eucharistical services, making the bread 
 to become holy, which before was common, and giving the true 
 food to as many as are qualified to receive it, along with the 
 symbolical ; that is, giving himself to dwell in us, as we also in 
 him. There is another the like obscure hint in Irenaeus, which 
 may probably be best interpreted after the same way. He sup- 
 poses the elements to become Christ's body by receiving the 
 word Y. He throws two considerations into one, and does not 
 distinguish so accurately as Origen afterwards did, between the 
 symbolical food and the true food. In strictness, the elements 
 first become sanctified (in such a sense as inanimate things may) 
 by consecration pursuant to our Lord's institution, and which our 
 Lord still ratifies ; and thus they are made the representative 
 body of Christ : but they are at the same time, to worthy 
 receivers, made the means of their spiritual union with Christ 
 himself ; which" Irenaeus points at in what he says of the bread's 
 receiving the Logos, but should rather have said it of the com- 
 municants themselves, as receiving the spiritual presence of 
 Christ, in the worthy use of the sacred symbols. But this 
 matter must come over again, and be distinctly considered 
 at large. All I had to do here was, to fix the true notion of 
 consecration in as clear and distinct a manner as I could. The 
 sum is, that the consecration of the elements makes them holy 
 symbols, relatively holy, on account of their relation to what they 
 
 ijs \6yov rov Trap av- rbv koyov rov 0eoG, Kal yiverat rj 
 
 rov tvxapio~rr]0e'iffav Tpo<pijv. Justin fi>xapiffrla erta/jia Xpiorou, &c. Iren. 
 
 Mart. p. 96. Cp. Albertin. p. 31. lib. v. c. 2. p. 294. TrpoaXa^avtiv 
 
 > 'Oirort ovv Kal rb Kcfcpa/ucVoi/ iro- rov \6yoi> rov eov, fvxapi<rria ylvt- 
 
 rifpiov, Kal d ytyovias Upros eTi8/x Ta ' Tal - Ibid.
 
 vi. the Bread and Wine. 89 
 
 represent, or point to, by Divine institution : and it is God that 
 gives them this holiness by the ministry of the word. The 
 sanctification of the communicants (which is God's work also) is 
 of distinct consideration from the former, though they are often 
 confounded : and to this part belongs what has been improperly 
 called making the symbols become our Lord's body ; and which 
 really means making them his body to us ; or more plainly still, 
 making us partakers of our Lord's broken body and blood shed 
 at the same time that we receive the holy symbols ; which we 
 are to explain in the sequel. I shall only remark further here, 
 what naturally follows from all going before, that the consecra- 
 tion, or sanctification of the elements in this service, is absolute 
 and universal for the time being ; and therefore all that commu- 
 nicate unworthily are chargeable with profaning things holy : 
 but the sauctification of persons is hypothetical and particular, 
 depending upon the dispositions which the communicants bring 
 with them to the Lord's table. 
 
 Having done with the consecration of the elements, I should 
 now proceed to the distribution and manducation. But as there 
 is a sacramental feeding and a spiritual feeding; and as the 
 spiritual is the nobler of the two, and of chief concern, and what 
 the other principally or solely looks to, I conceive it will be 
 proper to treat of this first : and because the sixth chapter of 
 St. John contains the doctrine of spiritual feeding, as delivered 
 by our Lord himself, a twelvemonth, or more, before he insti- 
 tuted the Sacrament of the Eucharist, I shall make that the 
 subject of the next chapter. 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Of Spiritual Eating and Drinking, as taught in John vi. 
 
 THE discourse which our Lord had at Capernaum, about the 
 eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is very remarkable, 
 and deserves our closest attention. His strong way of ex- 
 pressing himself, and his emphatical repeating the same thing, 
 in the same or in different phrases, are alone sufficient to 
 persuade us, that some very important mystery, some very
 
 90 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 significant lesson of instruction is contained in what he said 
 in that chapter, from verse the 27th to verse the 63rd 
 inclusive. 
 
 For the right understanding of that discourse, we must take 
 our marks from some of the critical parts of it, and from other 
 explanatory places of Scripture. From verse the 63rd, as well 
 as from the nature of the thing, we may learn, that the discourse 
 is mostly mystical, and ought to be spiritually, not literally 
 understood 2 . 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh pro- 
 fiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, 
 and they are life.' I am aware that this text has been variously 
 interpreted 8 , and that it is not very easy to ascertain the con- 
 struction, so as not to leave room even for reasonable doubt. I 
 choose that interpretation which appears most natural, and which 
 has good countenance from antiquity, and many judicious inter- 
 preters b ; but the reason of the thing is sufficient to satisfy us, 
 that a great part of this discourse of our Lord's cannot be 
 literally interpreted, but must admit of some figurative or 
 mystical construction. 
 
 A surer mark for interpreting our Lord's meaning in this 
 chapter is the universality of the expressions which he made use 
 of, both in the affirmative and negative way. ' If any man eat 
 of this bread he shall live for ever c .' ' Whoso eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life d ,' ' dwelleth in me, and 
 I in him e .' So far in the affirmative or positive way : the pro- 
 positions are universal affirmatives, as the schools speak. The 
 like may be observed in the negative way: 'Except ye eat the 
 flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
 you f .' The sum is : all that feed upon what is here mentioned 
 have life ; and all that do not feed thereupon have no life. 
 Hence arises an argument against interpreting the words of 
 sacramental feeding in the Eucharist. For it is not true that 
 
 * Orig. in Levit. Horn. vii. p. nus in Psalm, xcviii. 
 
 235. Eusebius de Eccl. Theol. 1. iii. a Vid. Albertin. de Eucharist, p. 
 
 c. 12. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xvi. 243, &c. 
 
 p. 251. Mystag. iv. 321. Chrysos- b Vid. Albertin. p. 244. 
 
 torn, in loc. Athanasius ad Scrap. c John vi. 51. d John vi. 54. 
 
 Ep. iv. p. 710. ed. Bened. Augusti- e John vi. 56. f John vi. 53.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 91 
 
 all who receive the Communion have life, unless we put in the 
 restriction of ' worthy,' and ' so far.' Much less can it be true, 
 that all who never have, or never shall receive, have not life ; 
 unless we make several more restrictions, confining the proposi- 
 tion to persons living since the time of the institution, and 
 persons capable, and not destitute of opportunity : making ex- 
 ceptions for good men of old, and for infants, and for many who 
 have been or may be invincibly ignorant, or might never have it 
 in their power to receive the Communion, or to know anything 
 of it. Now an interpretation which must be clogged with a 
 multitude of restrictions to make it bear, if at all, is such as 
 one would not choose (other circumstances being equal) in pre- 
 ference to what is clogged with fewer, or with none ?. 
 
 Should we interpret the words, of faith in Christ, there must 
 be restrictions in that case also ; viz. to those who have heard 
 of Christ, and who do not only believe in him, but live according 
 to his laws. And exceptions must be made for many good men 
 of old, who either knew nothing of Christ, or very obscurely; as 
 likewise for infants and idiots ; and perhaps also for many who 
 are in utter darkness without any fault of theirs : so that 
 this construction comes not fully up to the universality of the 
 expressions made use of by our Lord. 
 
 But if neither of these can answer in that respect, is there 
 any other construction that will 1 or what is it ? Yes, there 
 is one which will completely answer in point of universality, 
 and it is this : all that shall finally share in the death, passion 
 and atonement of Christ, are safe; and all that have not a 
 part therein are lost h . All that are saved owe their salvation 
 to the salutary passion of Christ : and their partaking thereof 
 (which is feeding upon his flesh and blood) is their life. On 
 the other hand, as many as are excluded from sharing therein, 
 
 s Cp. Albertin. de Eucharist, pp. passion! Dominicae communican- 
 
 234, 235. dum, et suaviter atque utiliter re- 
 
 h ' Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, condendurn in memoria, quod pro 
 
 carnem Filii hominis, et sanguinem nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulne- 
 
 biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vo- rata sit.' Augustin. de Doctriri. 
 
 bis. Facinus, vel flagitium videtur Christian, lib. iii. cap. 16. p. 52. 
 
 jubere : figura est ergo, praecipiens torn. iii. Bened.
 
 92 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 and therefore feed not upon the atonement, have no life in 
 them. Those who are blessed with capacity and opportuni- 
 ties, must have faith, must have sacraments, must be in cove- 
 nant, must receive and obey the Gospel, in order to have the 
 expiation of the death of Christ applied to them : but our Lord's 
 general doctrine in this chapter seems to abstract from all 
 particularities, and to resolve into this ; that whether with 
 faith or without, whether in the sacraments or out of the 
 sacraments, whether before Christ or since, whether in cove- 
 nant or out of covenant, whether here or hereafter, no man 
 ever was, is, or will be accepted, but in and through the 
 grand propitiation made by the blood of Christ. This I take 
 to be the main doctrine taught by our Lord in that chapter, 
 which he delivers so earnestly, and inculcates so strongly, for 
 the glory of the Divine justice, holiness, goodness, philanthropy ; 
 and for humbling the pride of sinners, apt to conceive highly 
 of their own worth ; as also for the convincing all men, 
 to whom the Gospel should be propounded, of the absolute 
 necessity of closing in with it, and living up to it. That 
 general doctrine of salvation by Christ alone, by Christ cruci- 
 fied, is the great and important doctrine, the burden of both 
 Testaments ; signified in all the sacrifices and services of the 
 old law, and fully declared in every page almost of the New 
 Testament. What doctrine more likely to have been intended 
 in John vi., if the words will bear it; or if, over and 
 above, the universality of the expressions appears to require 
 it? Eating and drinking, by a very easy, common figure, 
 mean receiving : and what is the thing to be received ] 
 Christ himself in his whole person : ' I am the bread of 
 life k .' ' He that eateth me, even he shall live by me l .' But 
 more particularly he is to be considered as giving his body 
 to be broken, and as shedding his blood for making an atone- 
 ment : and so the fruits of his death are what we are to 
 receive as our spiritual food : his ' flesh is meat indeed,' and 
 
 1 So eating and drinking damnation (i Cor. xi. 29) is receiving dam- 
 nation. 
 
 k John vi. 35, 48, 51. ' John vi. 57.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 93 
 
 his 'blood is drink indeed 01 .' His passion is our redemption, 
 and by his death we live. This meat is administered to us by 
 the hand of God ; while by the hand of faith, ordinarily, we take 
 it, and in the use of the sacraments n . But God may extraordi- 
 narily administer the same meat, that is, may apply the same 
 benefits of Christ's death, and virtue of his atonement, to sub- 
 jects capable, without any act of theirs ; as to infants, idiots, 
 &c., who are merely passive in receiving it, but at the same time 
 offer no obstacle to it. 
 
 The xxviiith Article of our Church says, ' that the means 
 whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper 
 is faith.' That sacrament is supposed to be given to none but 
 adults ; and to them, not only faith in general, but a true and 
 right faith, and the same working by love, is indispensably re- 
 quisite, as an ordinary mean . All which is consonant to what 
 I have here asserted, and makes no alteration as to the exposition 
 of John vi., which speaks not principally of what is required in 
 adult Christians, or of what is requisite to a worthy reception 
 of the holy Communion, but of what is absolutely necessary at 
 all times, and to all persons, and in all circumstances, to a happy 
 resurrection; namely, an interest in, or a participation of, the 
 atonement made by Christ upon the cross. He that is taken in, 
 as a sharer in it, is saved : he that is excluded from it, is lost. 
 
 Some learned writers have observed that our Lord in that 
 chapter attributes much to a man's believing in him, or coming 
 to him, as the means to everlasting life, have conceived that 
 faith, or doctrine, is what he precisely meant by the bread of 
 life, and that believing in Christ is the same with the eating 
 and drinking there spoken of. But the thing to be received is 
 very distinct from the hand receiving ; therefore faith is not the 
 
 m John vi. 55. menta et fides non sunt sibi invicem 
 
 n ' Sacramenta sunt media offeren- opponenda.' Gerhard. Loc. Comm. 
 
 tia et exhibentia ex parte Dei : fides par. iv. p. 309. 
 
 medium recipiens et apprehendens T Hs ovSevl &\\y fj-fraff-^ftv t6v 
 
 ex pai'te nostra : quemadmodum eo-rij/, t) rf iriffrtvovri a\ri6rj flvou TCI 
 
 igitur manus donans, et manus re- StSiSayfieva. v<j> iipuir.. ..ical oifows 
 
 cipiens non sunt opposita sed relata, ftioi-vri wsoXpiar^-n-apeSuKfr. Justin 
 
 et subordinata, ita quoque Sacra- Mart. Apol. i. p. 96.
 
 94 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 meat, but the mean. Belief in Christ is the condition required, 
 the duty commanded : but the bread of life is the reward conse- 
 quent. Believing is not eating or drinking the fruits of Christ's 
 passion, but is preparatory to it, as the means to the end P. In 
 short, faith, ordinarily, is the qualification, or one qualification ; 
 but the body and blood is the gift itself, and the real inheritance. 
 The doctrine of Christ, lodged in the soul, is what gives the soul 
 its proper temperature and fitness to receive the heavenly food : 
 but the heavenly food is Christ himself, as once crucified, who 
 has since been glorified. See this argument very clearly and 
 excellently made out at large by a late learned writer Q. It may 
 be true, that eating and drinking wisdom is the same with 
 receiving wisdom : and it is no less true, that eating and drink- 
 ing flesh and blood is receiving flesh and blood; for eating 
 means receiving. But where does flesh or blood stand for 
 wisdom or for doctrine ? What rules of symbolical language are 
 there that require it, or can ever admit of it 1 There lies the 
 stress of the whole thing. Flesh, in symbolical language, may 
 signify riches, goods, possessions r : and blood may signify life : 
 but Scripture never uses either as a symbol of doctrine. To 
 conclude then, eating wisdom is receiving wisdom ; but eating 
 Christ's flesh and blood is receiving life and happiness through 
 his blood, and, in one word, receiving him ; and that not 
 merely as the object of our faith, but as the fountain of 
 our salvation, and our sovereign good, by means of his death 
 and passion. 
 
 To confirm what has been said, let us take in a noted text of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, which appears decisive in this case. 
 ' We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which 
 
 * 'Credere in Christum, et edere que unum cum ipso.. ..Itaque, no- 
 
 Christum, vel carnem ejus, inter se tione definitioneque aliud est spiri- 
 
 tanquam prius et posterius differunt ; tualis manducatio quam credere in 
 
 sicuti ad Christum venire et Chris- Christum.' Lamb. Danaeus ApoJog. 
 
 turn bibere. Praecedit enim acces- pro Helvet. Eccles. p. 23. 
 sus et apprehensio, quara sequitur 1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 potio, et manducatio : ergo fide p. 393, &c. 
 
 Christum prius recipiinus, ut habitet r See Lancaster's Symbolical Dic- 
 
 ipse in nobis, fiamusque ipsius vivae tionary, prefixed to his Abridgment 
 
 carnis et sanguinis participes, adeo- of Daubuz, p. 45.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 95 
 
 serve the tabernacle s .' Whether the Apostle here speaks of 
 spiritual eating in the sacrament, or out of the sacrament, is not 
 now the question : hut that he speaks of spiritual eating cannot 
 reasonably be doubted. And what can the eating there mean, 
 but the partaking of Christ crucified, participating of the benefits 
 of his passion 1 That is the proper Christian eating, such as 
 none but Christians have a clear and covenanted right to. The 
 Apostle speaks not in that chapter of eating doctrine, but of 
 eating sacrifice. The references there made to the Jewish sacri- 
 fices plainly shew, that the Apostle there thought not of eating 
 the doctrine of the cross, but of eating, that is, partaking of, the 
 sacrifice or atonement of the cross '. Therefore let this be 
 taken in, as an additional explication of the eating mentioned in 
 John vi., so far at least as to shew that it must refer to some 
 sacrifice, and not to mere doctrines. 
 
 I am aware that many interpreters of good note among the 
 ancients", as well as many learned moderns, have understood 
 altar in that text directly of the Lord's table, and the eating, of 
 oral manducation : which construction would make the text less 
 suitable to my present purpose. But other interpreters v , of 
 good note also, have understood the altar there mentioned of 
 the altar in heaven, or of the altar of the cross (both which 
 resolve at length into one) ; and some have defended that con- 
 struction with great appearance of reason. Estius, in particular, 
 after Aquinas and others, has very ingenuously and rationally 
 maintained it, referring also to John vi. 51, as parallel or similar 
 to it, and understanding both of spiritual eating, abstracted from 
 
 8 Heb. xiii. 10 : compare Rev. u Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theo- 
 
 vi. 9. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn, phylact, Primasius, Sedulius, Hay- 
 
 ii. p. 542. mo, Remigius, Anselm. ' Plerique 
 
 * ' Mihi perspicuum videtur esse, tarn veteres quam recentiores signi- 
 
 ararn hie poni pro victima in ara ficari volunt mensam Dominicam.' 
 
 Deo oblata. Sensus verborum hie Estius in loc. 
 
 est, ut puto : Jesu Christi, qui vera v Chrysostom. in Hebr. Horn. xi. 
 
 est pro peccatis hominum victima, p. 807. Cyrill. Alex, de Adorat. lib. 
 
 nemo fieri particeps potest, qui in ix. 310. Compare Lightfoot, Opp. 
 
 ceremoniis et externis ritibus Ju- torn. ii. part. 2. pp. 1259 1264. 
 
 daicis, religionis arcem censet esse Outram de Sacrif. p. 332, &c. Wol- 
 
 positam.' Moshem. ad Cudworth. fius, Cur. Crit. in loc. 
 P- 3-
 
 96 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 sacramental x . In this construction I acquiesce, as most natural 
 and most agreeable to the whole context : neither am I sensible 
 of any just objection that can be made to it. The Apostle did 
 not mean, that they who served the tabernacle had no right 
 to believe in Christ ; that indeed would be harsh : but he 
 meant that they who served the tabernacle, not believing in 
 Christ, or however still adhering too tenaciously to the legal 
 oblations, had no right or title to partake of the sacrifice or atone- 
 ment made by Christ. The thought is somewhat similar to 
 what the same Apostle has elsewhere signified; namely, that 
 they who affected to be justified by the law, forfeited all benefit 
 arising from the grace of the Gospel, and Christ could profit 
 them nothing Y. 
 
 But for the clearer perception of spiritual feeding, and for the 
 preventing confusion of ideas, it will be proper to distinguish 
 between what it is primarily, and what secondarily ; or between 
 the thing itself, and the effects, fruits, or consequences of it. 
 i. Spiritual feeding, in this case, directly and primarily means 
 no more than the eating and drinking our Lord's body broken, 
 and blood shed ; that is, partaking of the atonement made by his 
 death and sufferings : this is the prime thing, the ground and 
 basis of all the rest. We must first be reconciled to God by the 
 death of his Son, before we can have a just claim or title to any 
 thing besides z : therefore the foundation of all our spiritual 
 privileges is our having a part in that reconcilement ; which, in 
 strictness, is eating and drinking his flesh and blood in St. John's 
 phrase, and eating of the altar in St. Paul's. 2. The result, 
 fruit, or effect of our thus eating his crucified body is a right to 
 be fellow-heirs with his body glorified : for if we are made par- 
 takers of his death, we shall be also of his resurrection a . On 
 this is founded our mystical union with Christ's glorified body, 
 
 * ' Hue etiam pertinet, quod cor- on the Sacrament, b. vi. chap. 3. p. 
 
 pus Christi, in cruce oblatum, panis 416. 
 
 vocatur, fide manducandus. Ut y Gal. v. 2, 3, 4. 
 
 Joann. vi. Panis, inquit, quern ego z Coloss. i. 20, 21, 22. Ephes. ii. 
 
 dabo, caro mea est, quam ego dabo 13, 16, 
 
 pro mundi vita: scilicet, in cruce.' a Rom. v. 9, 10, n. Phil. iii. 10, 
 
 Estiusinloc. Compare Bp. Moreton n. Eom. vi. 5 8.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 97 
 
 which neither supposes nor infers any local presence : for all the 
 members of Christ, however distant in place, are thus mystically 
 united with Christ, and with each other. And it is well known, 
 that right or property, in any possession, is altogether independent 
 of local presence, and may as easily be conceived without it as 
 with it b . 3. Upon such mystical union with the body of Christ 
 glorified, and making still part of his whole Person, follows a 
 gracious vital presence of his Divine nature abiding in us, and 
 dwelling with us c . Upon the same follows the like gracious vital, 
 presence, and indwelling of the other two Divine Persons d : and 
 hereupon follow all the spiritual graces, wherewith the true 
 members of Christ are enriched. 
 
 This orderly ranging of ideas may contribute very much towards 
 the clearing our present subject of the many perplexities with 
 which it has been embarrassed ; and may further serve to shew 
 us, where the ancients or moderns have happened to exceed, 
 either in sentiment or expression, and how far they have done so, 
 and how they were led into it. The ancients, in their account of 
 spiritual feeling, have often passed over the direct and immediate 
 feeding upon Christ considered as crucified, and have gone on to 
 what is properly the result or consequence of it, namely, to the 
 mystical union with the body glorified, and what hangs thereupon* 
 There was no fault in so doing, more than what lies in too quick 
 a transition, or too confused a blending of ideas. 
 
 I am aware that much dispute has been raised by contending 
 
 b ' Pro tanta conjunctione asse- possit in caelis ease, ac spiritualiter 
 
 renda inter nos et Christum non nobiscum conjungi? Quod idem in 
 
 opus praesentia corporali aut sub- matrimonio usu venire intelligimus, 
 
 stantiali corporis Christi, quam sta- ubi sancta Scriptura praedicat, virum 
 
 tuere multi conantur in Eucharistia. et uxorem unam carnem esse : quod 
 
 Nam ea nil plus vel commodi vel non minus verum fateri coguntur 
 
 utilitatis habebimus quam si Chris- adversarii cum una conjuges habi- 
 
 tuni quoad corpus suo loco sinamus tant, quam si locorum intervallo 
 
 in caelis. Videmus enim Christi- nonnunquam disjungantur.' Pet. 
 
 anos posse esse invicem membra, et Martyr in i Cor. xii. 12, 13, fol. 
 
 quidem conjunctissima, tametsi ali- 178. Cp. Albertin. de Eucharist, 
 
 quis eorum degat in Britannia, alius pp. 230, 231. 
 
 in Gallia, et alius in Hispania. Quod John vi. 56 ; xv. 4. Matt, xviii. 
 
 si de membris ipsis conceditur, cur 20 ; xxviii. ao. 
 
 de capite idem fateri erit absurdum, d John xiv. 16, 17, 23. I Cor. iii. 
 
 ut hac spiritual! conjuuctione simul 16 ; vi. 19. a Cor. vi. 16. 
 
 H
 
 98 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 parties about the sense of the ancients with respect to John vi. 
 It may be a tedious inquiry to go through : for there is no doing 
 it to the satisfaction of considering men, without taking every 
 Father, one by one, and re-examining his sentiments, as they lie 
 scattered in several places of his writings, and that with some 
 care and accuracy. It may be of some use to go over that 
 matter again, after many others, if the reader can but bear with 
 a little prolixity, which will be here unavoidable. There have 
 been two extremes in the accounts given of the Fathers, and both 
 of them owing, as I conceive, to a neglect of proper distinctions. 
 They who judge that the Fathers in general, or almost uni- 
 versally, do interpret John vi. of the Eucharist, appear not to 
 distinguish between interpreting and applying : itwas right to 
 apply the general doctrine of John vi. to the particular case of 
 the Eucharist, considered as worthily received ; because the 
 spiritual feeding there mentioned is the thing signified in the 
 Eucharist, yea and performed likewise. After we have suffi- 
 ciently proved, from other Scriptures, that in and by the Eucha- 
 rist, ordinarily, such spiritual food is conveyed, it is then right to 
 apply all that our Lord, by St. John, says in the general, to that 
 particular case : and this indeed the Fathers commonly did. But 
 such application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of 
 the Eucharist. For example ; the words, ' except ye eat the 
 flesh of Christ, &c., you have no life in you,' do not mean 
 directly, that you have no life without the Eucharist, but that you 
 have no life without participating of our Lord's passion : never- 
 theless, since the Eucharist is one way of participating of the 
 passion, and a very considerable one, it was very pertinent and 
 proper to urge the doctrine of that chapter, both for the clearer 
 understanding the beneficial nature of the Eucharist, and for the 
 exciting Christians to a frequent and devout reception of it. 
 Such was the use which some early Fathers made of John vL (as 
 our Church also does at this day, and that very justly,) though 
 I will not say that some of the later Fathers did not extend it 
 further : as we shall see in due place. 
 
 As to those who, in another extreme, charge the Fathers in 
 general as interpreting John vi. of digesting doctrines only,
 
 vi. according to JoJm vi. 99 
 
 they are more widely mistaken than the former, for want of con- 
 sidering the tropological way of commenting then in use : which 
 Avas not properly interpreting, nor so intended 6 , but was the more 
 frequently made use of in this subject, when there was a mixed 
 audience ; because it was a rule not to divulge their mysteries 
 before incompetent hearers, before the uninitiated, that is, the 
 unbaptized. But let us now take the Fathers in their order, and 
 consider their real sentiments, so far as we can see into them, 
 with respect to John vi. 
 
 Ignatius never formally cites John vi., but he has been thought 
 to favour the sacramental interpretation, because he believed the 
 Eucharist to be a pledge or means of an happy resurrection : for 
 it is suggested that he could learn that doctrine only from 
 John vi. f But this appears to be pushing a point too far, and 
 reasoning inconsequently. Ignatius might very easily have main- 
 tained his point, from the very words of the institution, to as 
 many as knew anything of symbolical language : for what can 
 any one infer less from the being symbolically fed with Christ's 
 body crucified, but that it gives a title to an inheritance with the 
 body glorified? Or, if the same Ignatius interpreted i Cor. x. 16 
 (as he seems to have done) of a mystical union with the body of 
 Christ , then he had Scripture ground sufficient, without John vi., 
 for making the Eucharist a pledge or means of an happy resur- 
 rection. John vi. may be of excellent use to us for explain- 
 ing the beneficial nature of the Eucharist, spiritual manducation 
 being presupposed as the thing signified in that Sacrament : but 
 it will not be prudent to lessen the real force of other consider- 
 able texts, only for the sake of resting all upon John vi., which 
 at length cannot be proved to belong directly or primarily to 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 It seems that Ignatius had John vi. in his eye, or some 
 
 e See my Importance of the Doc- & *Ev iroTJipiov, (Is ev<a<rtv rov a'[^.a- 
 
 trine of the Trinity asserted, vol. iii. TOS avrov. Ignat. ad Philad. sect, 
 
 pp. 649, 692, &c. and Preface to iv. p. 27. Compare Chrysostom on 
 
 Sciipture Vindicated, vol. iv. p. I Cor. x. 16, who interprets com- 
 
 160. munion there mentioned by eVoxns. 
 
 f See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- avrtf 5jct rov &prov rovrov tvw/j.e6a. 
 fice, part. i. pp. 387, 388. 
 
 H 2
 
 ioo Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 phrases of it, in a very noted passage, where he had no thought 
 of the Eucharist, but of eating the bread of life, after a more 
 excellent way, in a state of glory. The passage is this : ' I am 
 alive at this writing, but my desire is to die. My love is cru- 
 cified, and I have no secular fire left : but there is in me living 
 water, speaking to me within, and saying, Come to the Father. 
 I delight not in corruptible food, nor in the entertainments of 
 this world. The bread of God is what I covet ; heavenly bread, 
 bread of life, namely, the flesh of Christ Jesus the Son of God, 
 who in these last times became the Son of David and of Abra- 
 ham : and I am athirst for the drink of God, namely, his blood, 
 which is a feast of love that faileth not, and life everlasting. 
 I have no desire to live any longer among men ; neither shall 
 I, if you will but consent 11 .' 
 
 Here we may take notice of heavenly bread, bread of God, 
 bread of life, our Lord's own phrases in John vi. And Ignatius 
 understands them of spiritual food, of feeding upon the flesh of 
 Christ, the Son of God incarnate. Drink of God, he interprets 
 in like manner, of the blood of Christ ; which is the noblest feast, 
 and life eternal. Learned men have disputed whether he intended 
 what he said of sacramental food, or of celestial ; whether of en- 
 joying Christ in the Eucharist, or in heaven. To me it appears a 
 clear point, that he thought not of communicating, but of dying : 
 and the Eucharist was not the thing which he so earnestly 
 begged to have, (for who would refuse it ?) but martyrdom, 
 which the Christians might endeavour to protract, out of an 
 over-officious care for a life so precious. However, if the reader 
 is desirous of seeing what has been pleaded on the side of the 
 Eucharist, he may consult the authors referred to at the bottom 1 , 
 
 h 7.Sov yap ypd<pu vfjuv, tpiav rov a"irfpfj.aros Aa$!5 Kal 'Afipaan' al 
 
 diroQavtiv' 6 t/ubs epoas fffravpunai' irifyia tov 0fA.w rb af/ia ainov, 8 
 
 Kal owe Hffriv kv 4fj.ol irvp <t>t\6v\ov' tffnv aydirri &<p6apros, Kal aeWaos 
 
 vSa-p 8e <av, Kal \a\ovv eV ffJ.ol, fffca- fay. OUK tn 6e\ta Kara av&pdiirovs 
 
 6(v fj.oi \tyov Stiipo irpos rbv irarepa. r)v TOVTO 5t etrrai, tav ii/Afts #A^- 
 
 Oi/x fySo/jiai rpo<pfj <p6opas, oiiSe fiSovals fffjrf. Ignat. ad Rom. cap. 7? 8. 
 
 rov fttov Totirov aprov eov 6f\<a, * Smith. Not. in Ignat. pp. IOI, 
 
 uprov ovpavwv, &prov OJTJS, 8s effrtf 102. Grabe, Spicileg. torn. ii. p. 
 
 ffapj 'lija-ov XpitrroD, TOV vlov, Tov 229. Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 fuv, TOV yfvojj.tvov iv var4p<f e/c part i. pp. 387, alias 392.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 101 
 
 and may compare what others have pleaded on the contrary 
 side k . 1 see no impropriety in Tgnatius's feeding on the flesh 
 and blood of Christ in a state of glory 1 , since the figure is easily 
 understood, and is made use of by others m besides Ignatius. 
 Our enjoyment in a world to come is entirely founded in the 
 merits of Christ's passion : and our Lord's intercession for us (as 
 I have above hinted) stands on the same bottom. Our spiritual 
 food, both above and below, is the enjoyment of the same Christ, 
 the Lamb slain. The future feast upon the fruits of his atone- 
 ment is but the continuation and completion of the present. Only 
 here it is under symbols, there it will be without them : here it is 
 remote and imperfect, there it will be proximate and perfect. 
 
 It has been strongly averred, that Irenaeus understood John vi. 
 of the Eucharist ; though he never directly quotes it, nor ever 
 plainly refers to it : but it is argued, that by the Eucharistical 
 symbols (according to Irenaeus) we have the principle of a blessed 
 immortality conveyed to our bodies, for which there is no appear- 
 ance of proof in Scripture, but in John vi. : therefore here is as 
 clear proof of his so interpreting that chapter, as if he had cited 
 it at length 11 . How inconclusive this kind of reasoning is, and 
 how injurious besides to our main cause, is visible enough, and 
 has been intimated before, in answer to the like pretence con- 
 cerning Ignatius. It appears the worse with respect to Irenaeus, 
 because he manifestly did found his doctrine on i Cor. x. 16, and 
 expressly quoted it for that very purpose . He judged, as every 
 sensible man must, that if the Eucharist, according to St. Paul, 
 
 k Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. num. n Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 39. Albertinus, de Eucharist, lib. p. 387, alias 392. 
 
 ii. c. i. p. 286. Halloixius, Vit. ' Vani autern omnimodo, qui . . . 
 
 Ignat. p. 410. Ittigius, Hist. Eccles. carnis salutera negant, et regene- 
 
 saec. ii. pp. 169, 170. rationem ejus spernunt, dicentes, 
 
 1 A learned writer objects that non earn capacem esse incorrupti- 
 
 the ' eating of Christ's flesh in an- bilitatis. Si autem non salvetur 
 
 other world, is a way of expression haec, nee Dominus sanguine suo 
 
 somewhat unaccountable.' John- redemit nos, neque calix Eucharis- 
 
 son's Unbloody Sacr. i. p. 389, alias tiae communicatio sanguinis ejus 
 
 394. eat, neque panis quern frangimus, 
 
 m Athanashis de Incam. et contr. communicatio corporis ejus est." 
 
 Arrian. p. 883. Damascen. torn. i. Iren. lib. v. cap. a. p. 293. ed. 
 
 p. 172. Augustin. torn. v. p. 384. Bened.
 
 IO2 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 amounts to a communion, or communication of our Lord's body 
 and blood to every faithful receiver, that then such receiver, for 
 the time being, is therein considered as symbolically fed with the 
 crucified body, and of consequence entitled to be fellow-heir with 
 the body glorified P. He draws the same conclusion % though 
 more obscurely, from the words of the institution, 'This is my 
 body,' &c. And the conclusion is certain, and irresistible, when 
 the words are rightly understood. Therefore let it not be 
 thought that we have no appearance of proof, where we have 
 strong proof; neither let us endeavour to loosen an important 
 doctrine from its firm pillars, whereon it may stand secure, only 
 to rest it upon weak supports, which can bear no weight. 
 
 Had Irenaeus been aware that John vi. was to be interpreted 
 directly of the Eucharist, strange that he should not quote that 
 rather than the other, or, however, along with the other, when he 
 had so fair an occasion for it. Stranger still, that when he so 
 frequently and so fully speaks his mind concerning the Eucharist, 
 and with the greatest reverence imaginable, that he should never 
 think of John vi. all the time ; that he should never make 
 any use at all of it for advancing the honour of the Sacrament, 
 had he supposed that it strictly belonged to it, and was to be 
 interpreted of it. The silence of a man so knowing in the Scrip- 
 tures, and so devoutly disposed towards this holy Sacrament, is 
 a strong presumptive argument (were there nothing else) of 
 his understanding John vi. very differently from what some have 
 imagined. 
 
 There is one place in Irenaeus which seems to carry some 
 remote and obscure allusion to John vi. The Logos, the Divine 
 nature of our Lord, according to him, is the perfect bread of the 
 Father, and bread of immortality ; and he talks of eating and 
 drinking the same Logos, or Word 1 ". If he had John vi. then 
 in his eye, (which is not improbable,) he interpreted it, we see, 
 
 P See the argument explained in . . . . &>s virb fj.aa-6ov TTJJ ffapKbs avrov 
 
 a Charge, upon the Doctrinal Use rpa<j>fvres .... fOicrdevrfs rpcayftv ical 
 
 of the Sacrament, vol. v. p. no, c. iriveiv rbv A.Ayov TOV Qtov, rbv TTJS 
 
 i Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251 ; adavaa-ias &pTov, Sirtp earl rb Trvev/j.a 
 
 lib. v. cap. 2. p. 294. TOV Trwrpfa. Iren. lib. iv. cap. 38. 
 
 r 'O Upros 6 T(\fiot TOV irarpbs p. 284.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 103 
 
 not of sacramental manducation, but of spiritual ; not of the 
 signs, but of the things signified, apart from the signs. Only it is 
 observable, that while he speaks of our feeding upon the Logos, 
 he explains it as done through the medium of the flesh : it is 
 the human nature, by which we are brought to feast upon the 
 Divine. St. Chrysostom gives the like construction of bread of 
 life in John vi., interpreting it, so far, of our Lord's Divine 
 nature 8 . But I proceed. 
 
 Our next ancient writer is Clemens of Alexandria, who flour- 
 ished about A. D. 192. In the first book of his Paedagogue, 
 chapter vi., he quotes several verses * of our Lord's discourse 
 in St. John, commenting upon them after a dark, allegorical 
 way ; so that it is not easy to learn how he understood the 
 main doctrine of that chapter. I shall take notice of some 
 of the clearest passages. After speaking of the Church under 
 the figure or similitude of an infant, brought forth by Christ 
 with bodily pain, and swaddled in his blood, he proceeds thus : 
 ' The Word is all things to the infant, a father, a mother, a pre- 
 ceptor, a foster : Eat, says he, my flesh, and drink my blood. 
 These are the proper aliments which our Lord administers : 
 he reaches out flesh, and he pours out blood ; and nothing is 
 wanting for the growth of the infants. O wonderful mystery ! 
 he bids us lay aside the old carnal corruption, together with 
 the antiquated food, and to partake of the new food of Christ, 
 receiving him, if possible, so as to lay him up within ourselves 
 and to inclose our Saviour in our breasts".' There is another 
 passage, near akin to this, a few pages higher, which runs thus : 
 
 ' Our Lord, in the Gospel according to St. John, has other- 
 wise introduced it under symbols, saying, Eat my flesh, and 
 drink my blood; allegorically signifying the clear liquor of 
 faith, and of the promise, by both which the Church, like man, 
 
 8 Kol irpaTov irep\ rrjs 6e6rr)ro$ yap titfivri 8<a rbv &ebv \6yov apros 
 
 O.VTOV Sia\ey{Tcu, Ktytav, ty<l> flfj.i 6 f<rriv. Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. xliv. 
 
 &pros TTJS fcoijs. ouSe yap irepl TOV p. 264. torn. viii. ed. Bened. 
 ffcafj.aros TOVTO rfpqrcu. itfpl yap ^Kf(. e John vi. 32, 33, 51, 53, 54> 55- 
 vov Trpbs Ttf re\fi \tyti' nal 6 apros u 'O \6yos rci irdvra T(f vijirty, 
 
 5e bv eytii 8a><r, TJ ffdp fnov Iffriv. K. r. \. Clem. Paedag. lib. i. cap. 
 
 'AAAi Tos vtpl TTJS QfOTijros, K.a.1 6. p. 123. ed. Oxon.
 
 IO4 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 compacted of many members, is watered and nourished, and 
 is made up or compounded of both ; of faith as the body, and 
 of hope as the soul, like as our Lord of flesh and blood x .' These 
 hints appear to be very obscure ones, capable of being turned or 
 wrested several ways. Some therefore have appealed to these 
 and the like passages, to prove that Clemens understood John vi. 
 of doctrines, or spiritual action sY. Others have endeavoured so 
 to explain them, as to make them suit rather with the Eucha- 
 rist 2 . Perhaps both may guess wide. In the first passage, 
 Clemens says nothing of receiving either doctrines or Eucharist, 
 but of receiving Christ himself : in the second, he does indeed 
 speak of receiving faith and the promise ; but then he owns 
 it to be an allegorical or anagogical view of the text ; from 
 whence one may infer that he intended it not for the primary 
 sense, or for strict interpretation. The doctrine which Clemens 
 most clearly expresses, and uniformly abides by, is that Christ 
 himself is our food and nutriment a : and, particularly, by shed- 
 ding his blood for us b . 
 
 At the end of Clemens, among the ' excerpta Theodoti,' there 
 is a pretty remarkable passage ; which, though it belongs to a 
 Valentinian author, may be worth the taking notice of c . Com- 
 menting on John vi. he interprets the living bread, of the person 
 of Christ : but as to our Lord's saying, ver. 49, ' The bread which 
 I will give is my flesh,' he proposes a twofold construction, i . 
 He understands it of the bread in the Eucharist. 2. Correcting 
 his first thought, he interprets bread to mean the Church ; 
 
 1 'O xvptos iv rip Kar' 'ltaavvt]V b Tpotptvs TJUUV \6yos rb avrov 
 
 fvayythitf. K. T. \. Clem. ibid. p. inrep ijfj.cav tx fev afp&i v&fav rrjv 
 
 121. a.vBp<airArj)ra. Clem. ibid. p. 124. 
 
 y Dr. Whitby, Dr. Claget, Bas- TJ> avrb apa Kal afjuo, Kal -yaAa rov 
 
 nage Annal. torn. i. p. 320. itvplov irdOovs Kal SiSacr/caAiaj ffvpfio- 
 
 z Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, \ov. p. 127. 
 part i. p. 255, &c. c 'O GUV &prros, 6 virb rov irarpbs 
 
 8 'O Kvpios, ri rpoifii rwv vrfit(a>v. SoOels, 6 vi&s effn, rots taQiftv @ov\o- 
 
 Clem. ibid. p. 124. ff rpotyii, rovrfcrri /xcVot?. 6 tie &pros t>v ty& $(>ffa>, <f>rifflv, 
 
 Kvpios 'IrjiroCj. Ibid. IHUV 5e avrbs 6 rj ""^fl M u to"riv. tfroi $ rpftpfrai rj 
 
 Xpicrris i] rpo<(>^i TO?S vniriois. p. 125. <rop{ 8ja TTJJ (vxapHrrlas, ^ oirtp Kal 
 
 &prov avrov ovpaviav 6/40\oyei 6 \6yos. /j.a\\oi>, r) ffa.pl- rb trw/ua avrov tcrriv, 
 
 Ibid. iro\\ax<>>s a.\Krijopt1ra.i 6 \6yos, Sirtp i<rr\v ri tKK\r)<rla, &pros ovpd- 
 
 Kal ftpte/iia, Kal fl"ap|, Kal rpo<f>^>, Kal fios, ffvvayoay^i fv\oyTjufvrt. Excerpt. 
 
 Upros, Kal of/ia, Kal yd\a. p. 126. Theod. apud Clem. p. 971.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 105 
 
 having, as I conceive, I Cor. x. 17 in his eye, 'We being many 
 are one bread, and one body.' Of what weight or authority 
 a Valentinian gloss ought to be in this case, I pretend not to 
 say : but this is the first clear precedent we shall meet Avith 
 in antiquity, for interpreting any part of John vi. directly 
 of the Eucharist. And it is observable, that it was offered only 
 in the conjectural way, and another interpretation presently 
 subjoined as preferable to it. 
 
 Tertullian quotes two verses out of John vi. And he inter- 
 prets the bread there mentioned, not of the sacramental bread, 
 but of Christ himself ; not of the signs, but of the things signi- 
 fied. Presently after, he quotes part of the words of the 
 institution, ' This is my body,' referring to the Eucharist : and 
 there he does not say that our Lord's body is that bread, (as he 
 had said before, that Christ, or the Logos, is our bread,) but 
 that the Lord's body is understood, or considered, in bread : as 
 much as to say, the Eucharistical bread is by construction that 
 natural body of Christ which is the true bread. And for this 
 he refers not to John vi. but to the words of the institution. 
 Tertullian here joined together the spiritual food mentioned in 
 John vi. in the abstract way, and the same as conveyed in the 
 Eucharist; but he did not interpret John vi. of the Eucharist* 3 . 
 
 It has been suggested by some 6 , that Tertullian understood 
 John vi. merely of faith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions : and it 
 is strenuously denied by others f . The passage upon which the 
 dispute turns is part of his reply to Marcion ; who took a handle 
 from the words, 'the flesh profiteth nothing,' to argue against 
 the resurrection of the body. 
 
 ' Though he says, " the flesh profiteth nothing," yet the sense 
 is to be governed by the subject-matter. For because they 
 
 d ' Panem nostrum quotidianum et corpus ejus in pane censetur : 
 
 da nobis hodie, spiritualiter potius Hoc est corpus meum.' Tertull. de 
 
 intelligamus : Christus enim panis Orat. cap. vi. p. 131. 
 
 noster est, quia vita Christus, et e Dr. Claget, Dr. Whitby, &c. 
 
 vita panis : Ego sum, inquit, panis Compare Basnag. Annal. torn. i. p. 
 
 vitae. Joh. vi. 35. Et paulo supra, 320. 
 
 v. 33 : Panis est sermo Dei vivi, { Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 qui descendit de caelis. Turn quod part i. p. 358, &c.
 
 io6 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 thought it an hard and intolerable saying, as if he had intended 
 really to give them his flesh to eat ; therefore in order to resolve 
 the affair of salvation into the spirit, he premised that " it is the 
 spirit that quickeneth," and then subjoined, that "the flesh profiteth 
 nothing ; " namely, towards quickening. He shews also what he 
 would have them understand by spirit : " the words that I speak 
 unto you, they are spirit and they are life," comformable to what 
 he had said before ; " he that heareth my words, and believeth in 
 him that sent me, hath everlasting life," &c. Therefore as he 
 makes the word the quickener, because the word is spirit and 
 life, he calls the same his flesh, inasmuch as the word was made 
 flesh; which consequently is to be hungered after for the sake 
 of life, and to be devoured by the ear, and to be chewed by the 
 understanding, and digested by faith : for a little before also he 
 had pronounced the heavenly bread to be his flesh f ,' &c. 
 
 All that one can justly gather from this confused passage is 
 that Tertullian interpreted the bread of life in John vi. of the 
 Word ; which he sometimes makes to be vocal, and sometimes 
 substantial, blending the ideas in a very perplexed manner : so 
 that he is no clear authority for construing John vi. of doctrines, 
 &c. All that is certain is, that he supposes the Word made 
 flesh, the Word incarnate, to be the heavenly bread spoken of in 
 that chapter. 
 
 There is another place in Tertullian &, where by flesh and 
 
 1 ' Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, spiritus et vita sermo, eundem etiam 
 
 ex materia dicti dirigendus eat sen- cariiem suam dixit, quia et sermo 
 
 sus. Nam quia durum et intolera- caro erat factus : proinde in causam 
 
 bilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, vitae appetendus, et devorandus 
 
 quasi vere carnem suam illis eden- auditu, et ruminandus inteliectu, et 
 
 dam determinasset ; ut in spiritual fide digerendus ; nam et paulo ante, 
 
 disponeret statum salutis, praemisit, carnem suam panem quoque caeles- 
 
 " spiritus est quivivificat :" atqueita tern pronuntiarat,' &c. Tertull. de 
 
 subjunxit "caro nihil prodest;" advi- Resurr. Carn. cap. xxxvii. p. 347. 
 vificandum scilicet. Exsequitur etiam ' Panis qu,em ego dedero pro 
 
 quid velit intelligi spiritum : "Verba salute mundi, caro mea est. Quod 
 
 quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus sunt, si una caro, et una anima, ilia tristis 
 
 vita aunt." Sicut et supra, " Qui audit usque ad mortem, et ilia panis pro 
 
 sermones meos, et credit in eum qui mundi salute ; salvus est numeru.s 
 
 me misit, habet vitam aeternam, et duarum substantiarum, in suo genere 
 
 in judicium non veniet, sed transiet distantium, excludeus carneae ani- 
 
 de morte in vitam." Itaque sermo- mae unicam speciem.' De Carn. 
 
 nem constituens vivificatorem, quia Christi, cap. xiii. p. 319.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 107 
 
 bread in John^vi. he very plainly understands, not the sacra- 
 mental, but natural body of Christ, not doctrine, but literally 
 flesh ; as indeed our Lord evidently meant it. For as to verses 
 53> 54? &c., the figure is not in the word ' flesh/ but in the words 
 ( eating and drinking,' as learned men have very justly observed 11 . 
 But then this is to be so understood, that the eating and drinking 
 the natural body and blood amount to receiving the fruits of the 
 blood shed, and body slain ; otherwise there is a figure in the 
 words ' body and blood,' as put for the fruits of them, if eating 
 amounts simply to receiving. But I pass on. 
 
 Much dispute has been 1 about Origen's construction or con- 
 structions (for he has more than one) of John vi. The passages 
 produced in the debate are so many, and the pleadings here and 
 there so diffuse, that it would be tedious to attend every par- 
 ticular. I shall endeavour to select a few critical places, from 
 whence one may competently judge of his sentiments upon the 
 whole thing. 
 
 Origen's general observation relating to that chapter is, that 
 it must not be literally, but figuratively understood k. He 
 commonly understands the living bread of the Divine Logos, as 
 the true nutriment of the soul 1 , the Logos, but considered as 
 incarnate m . At other times, he allegorizes the flesh of Christ 
 in a very harsh manner, making it a name for high mysterious 
 
 h ' Figura autem non est in carne, manducaveritis carnem meam, et 
 
 vera enim Christ! caro ad vitam est biberitis sanguinem meum," occidit 
 
 manducanda : superest igitur ut sit haec litera.' Orig. in Levit. Horn, 
 
 in manducandi vocabulo, quod a cor- vii. p. 225. ed. Bened. 
 
 poris organis, ad facilitates animae > ' Ego sum panis vivus, &c. Qui 
 
 figurate transferatur." Albertinus, haec dicebatverbum era t, quo animae 
 
 p. 525. ' Caro et sanguis nihil aliud pascuntur Intuearis quomodo 
 
 designant quam quod verba prae se Justus semper et sine intermissione 
 
 ferunt, ac proinde nee aenigma, nee manducet de pane vivo, et repleat 
 
 parabola sunt . . . . At id nullo modo animam suam, ac satiet earn cibo cae- 
 
 evincit vocabulum manducandi non lesti, qui est verbuni Dei et sapientia 
 
 esse metaphoricum, aut manducati- ejus.' Orig. in Levit. Horn. xvi. p. 
 
 onem illam de manducatione spiri- 266. ed. Bened. 
 
 tuali non esse intelligendum.' Ibid. m AUTTJ Se ^ativ TJ o\Tj0r)s 0pw<m, 
 
 526. <rap \ptffrov, T}TIS \6yos oSffa, yf- 
 
 1 See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- yove ffdp- /caret rb tlpti^tvov /cat 6 
 
 fice, part i. pp. 360 373. \6yos <rap\ ejfvf-o. Orig. trtpl eu^. p. 
 
 k 'Si secundum literam sequaris 244. 
 hoc ipsum quod dictum est, " nisi
 
 io8 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 doctrines n . All that he should have said, and probably all that 
 he really meant, was, that the mind is prepared and fitted for 
 enjoying the fruits of Christ's body and blood, the benefits of his 
 passion, by those Divine truths, those heavenly contemplations. 
 He should have distinguished the qualifications for receiving 
 from the thing to be received. Believing in Christ is not enjoying 
 him, but it is in order to it : and the doctrine of the atonement 
 is not the atonement itself, whereon we are to feed. But I return 
 to our author. 
 
 In another place he observes, that the blood of Christ may be 
 drank, not only in the use of the Sacraments, but by receiving 
 his words; and he interprets the drinking his blood to mean 
 the embracing his doctrines . Here again he mistakes the means 
 for the end, the qualification for the enjoyment, the duty for the 
 blessing, or reward, just as he did before. However, he is right 
 in judging, that the Sacraments are not the only means, or 
 instruments, in and by which God confers his graces, or applies 
 the atonement, though they are the most considerable. 
 
 It should be noted that Origen, in the passage last cited, 
 was commenting upon Numb, xxiii. 24, ' Drink the blood of 
 the slain :' and he had a mind to allegorize it, as his way was, 
 into something evangelical. So he thought first of the blood of 
 Christ ; and could he have rested there, he need not have looked 
 beyond the benefits of the grand sacrifice : but it happened that 
 ' slain' was in the plural; and so, to make his allegory hit, he was 
 necessitated to take in more than one ; therefore he pitched upon 
 the Apostles to join with Christ, as slain for Christ. The next 
 thing was to interpret blood in such a sense as might equally fit 
 
 n 'Ubi enim mysticus sermo, ubi pp. 359, 360. 
 
 dogmaticus et Trinitatis fide repletus ' Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem 
 
 proferturet solidus, ubifuturi saeculi, Christi, non solum sacramentorum 
 
 araoto velamine literae, legis spiri- ritu, sedet cumsermones ejus recipi- 
 
 tualis sacramenta panduntur, ubi mus, in quibus vita consistit, sicut et 
 
 spes animae, &c. . .. Haec omnia ipse dicit : Verba quae locutus sum, 
 
 carries sunt verbi Dei, quibus qui spiritus et vita est. Est ergo ipse 
 
 potest perfecto intellectu vesci, et vulneratus, cujus nos sanguinem bi- 
 
 corde purificato, ille vere festivitatis bimus, id est, doctrinae ejus verba 
 
 paschae immolat sacrificium, et diem suscipiraus. ' Orig. in Num. Horn, 
 
 festum agit cum Deo et angelis xvi. p. 334. Cp. Horn. vii. in Levit. 
 
 ejus.' Orig. Horn, in Num. xxiii. p. 225.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 109 
 
 both Christ and his Apostles, and so he interpreted it to mean 
 doctrines : and now the ' blood of the slain' turns out, at length, 
 doctrines of the slain, and the allegory becomes complete P. I 
 thought it proper thus briefly to hint how Origen fell into that 
 odd construction, because he may be looked upon, in a manner, 
 as the father of it : whatever weight the admired Origen may 
 justly have as to other cases, he can have but little in this, where 
 he manifestly trifled. 
 
 I shall cite but one passage more from him ; a very remark- 
 able one, and worth the noting. After having spoken of the 
 outward sign of the Eucharist, he goes on thus : ' So much for 
 the typical and symbolical body. But T might also have many 
 things to say of the Logos himself, who became flesh and true 
 food, and of which whosoever eats, he shall live for ever, no 
 wicked man being capable of eating it. For were it possible 
 for an ill man, as such, to feed upon him who was made flesh, 
 the Logos, and the living bread, it would not have been written 
 that whosoever eateth of this bread shall live for ever Q.' Here 
 we may observe, that Origen interprets the true food, and living 
 bread, not of doctrines, nor of the sacramental bread, (the typical, 
 symbolical body,) but of Christ himself, of the Word made flesh : 
 and as to the eating that true food, he understands it of a vital 
 union with the Logos, a spiritual participation of Christ. This 
 is a just construction of John vi., and falls in with that which I 
 have recommended in this chapter. A learned writer, who had 
 taken uncommon pains to shew that the Fathers interpreted 
 John vi. of the Eucharist, was aware that this passage of Origen 
 was far from favouring his hypothesis, and therefore frankly 
 declared that he ' could not pretend to understand it r ; ' 
 
 P ' Sed et illi nihilominus vulnerati TIV a & <pay&v irdvrws tfioTrai tls rlv 
 
 sunt, quinobis verbumejuspraedica- alSiva, ovSevbs Swa^tvov <pav\ov 4ff6i- 
 
 runt. Ipsorum enim, id est, Aposto- eiv avr-fiv. el yap olov re -f\v en <pav- 
 
 loruin ejus verba cum legimus, et \ov /j.fv ovra effdtetif rlv yev6nevov 
 
 vitam ex eis consequimur, vuinera- adpica., \6yov fora, /ecu &prov <avra, 
 
 torum sanguinem bibimus.' Orig. OVK bv eytypairro, on iras 6 (paywv 
 
 ibid. rbv &proi> rovrov ^jfferai *s rbv 
 
 H Kcu ravra /uev irepl rov TVWIKOV aluiva. Orig. in Matt. p. 254. ed. 
 
 Kol ffVfJi$O\lKOV (TlbfMTOS' TTU\\O. 8' kv Huet. 
 
 Kal Tttpl airrov \eyoiro rov \6yov, &y r Johnson'a Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 ytyovf o-op|, Ktti a.\t}QivT] fipSxris, 1\v part i. p. 373.
 
 I jo Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 observing, however, that it could not at all favour another opinion, 
 espoused by Dr. Whitby and others ; meaning the doctrinal in- 
 terpretation. The truth is, that it favours neither, but directly 
 overthrows both : and had that very ingenious and learned 
 author being aware of any middle opinion, which would stand 
 clear of the difficulties of both extremes, it is more than probable 
 that he would have closed in with it. 
 
 Cyprian, who was but a few years later than Origen, comes 
 next to be considered. The most observable passage, so far as 
 concerns our present purpose, occurs in his Exposition of the 
 Lord's Prayer : I have thrown it to the bottom of the page 8 , 
 for the learned reader to judge of, and may here save myself 
 the trouble of translating it. But I shall offer a few remarks 
 upon it. i. Cyprian, in this passage, does not interpret 'bread 
 of life' of the Eucharistical bread, but of Christ himself 1 , thrice 
 over. 2. He seems to give the name of Lord's body in the Eu- 
 charist to the sacramental bread, as representative and exhibitive 
 of the natural body. 3. But then a communicant must receive 
 worthily, must receive 'jure communicationis,' under a just right 
 to communion, otherwise it is nothing. 4. Therefore it concerns 
 every one to preserve to himself that right by suitable behaviour, 
 and not to incur any just forfeiture by misbehaviour. 5. For, if 
 he incurs just censure, and is justly debarred from communion, 
 he is shut out from Christ Such is the form and process of 
 
 ' Panis vitae Christus est : et manifestum est eos vivere qui corpus 
 
 panis hie omnium non est, sed noster ejus attingunt et Eucharistiam jure 
 
 est. . . . Christus eorum qui corpus communicationis accipiunt, ita con- 
 
 ejus contingunt, panis est. Hunc tra tenendum est et orandum, ne 
 
 autem panem dari nobis quotidie dum quis abstentus separatur a 
 
 postulamus, ne qui in Cbristo sumus, Christi corpore, procul remaneat a 
 
 et Eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salute, comminante ipso et dicente : 
 
 salutis accipimus, intercedente aliquo nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis et 
 
 graviore delicto, dum abstenti et non biberitis sanguinein ejus, non habe- 
 
 communicantes a caelesti pane pro- bitis vitam in vobis. Et ideo panem 
 
 hibemur, a Christi corpore separemur, nostrum, id est, Christum, dari nobis 
 
 ipso praedicante et monente : Ego quotidie petimus, ut qui in Christo 
 
 sum panis vitae, qui de caelo descen- manemus etvivimus, a sanctificatione 
 
 di : si quis ederit de meo pane, vivet ejus et corpore non recedamus.' 
 
 in aeternum. Panis autem quern ego Cypr. de Orat. Domin. pp. 209, 210. 
 
 dedero, caro mea est pro saeculi vita. BO. Bened. ; alias 146, 147. 
 
 Quando ergo dicit in aeternum vi- * Compare Albertinus, pp. 377, 
 
 vere si quis ederit de ejus pane, ut 378.
 
 vi. according to John vi. in 
 
 Cyprian's reasoning : and it must be owned that John vi. is very 
 pertinently alleged by him, in order to convince every serious 
 Christian of the necessity of his continuing in a state fit for 
 the reception of the holy Communion, and not such as shall 
 disqualify him for it. For since our Lord there lays so great 
 a stress upon eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; and since 
 communicating worthily is one way of doing it; and since, if we 
 are rendered morally unfit for that, we must of course be morally 
 unfit for all other ways, and so totally debarred from feeding 
 upon Christ at all, for life and happiness : these things con- 
 sidered, it is very obvious to perceive that John vi., though not 
 particularly pointing to the Eucharist, is yet reductively appli- 
 cable to it, in the way of argumentation, and is of very great force 
 for the exciting Christians to a reverential regard for it, and to 
 a solicitous care that they may never, by any fault of theirs, 
 be debarred from it. In short, though John vi. doth not 
 directly speak of the Eucharist, yet Christians, in the due use 
 of that sacrament, do that which is there mentioned, do really 
 eat his flesh and drink his blood, in the spiritual sense there in- 
 tended ; therefore Cyprian had good reason to quote part of that 
 chapter, and to apply the same as pertinent to the Eucharist, 
 in the way of just inference from it, upon known Christian 
 principles. 
 
 Cyprian elsewhere quotes John vi. 53, ['except ye eat the 
 flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
 you,'] in order to enforce the necessity of Baptism". Either he 
 thought that the spiritual feeding, mentioned in St. John, was 
 common both to Baptism and the Eucharist, and might be in- 
 differently obtained in either sacrament : or else the turn of his 
 thought was this, that as there is no life without the Eucharist, 
 and as Baptism must go before the Eucharist, Baptism must of 
 course be necessary in order to come at the kingdom of God. 
 If this last was Cyprian's thought, then indeed he interpreted 
 
 u ' Ad regnum Dei nisi baptizatus Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis et 
 
 etrenatusfuerit pervenire non posse, biberitis sanguinem ejus, non babe- 
 
 In Evangelic cata Jobannem. Nisi bitis vitam in vobis.' Cypr. Tes- 
 
 quis renatus fuerit, &c. Item illic: timon. lib. iii. c. 25. p. 314.
 
 112 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 John vi. directly of the Eucharist : but I incline to understand 
 him according to the other view first mentioned ; and the 
 rather because we shall find the same confirmed by the African 
 Fulgentius, in his turn. 
 
 Novatian of the same age appears to understand John vi. of 
 spiritual manducation at large, feeding upon a right faith (which 
 of course must take in faith in the merits of Christ's passion) 
 and conscience undefiled, and an innocency of soul. He refers 
 to John vi. 27, and immediately after adds, that righteousness 
 and continence, and the other virtues, are the worship which 
 God requires : he had before intimated that they were the true, 
 the holy, and the clean food x . But, I presume, all this was to 
 be so understood as not to exclude the salutary virtue of Christ's 
 atonement : only the subject he was then upon led him not to 
 speak plainly of it. In another work, he understands Christ 
 himself to be the bread of life, and makes it an argument of his 
 Divinity 7, referring to John vi. 51. So that if we take the 
 author's whole sense on this head, Christ or the fruits of his 
 death, together with our own faith and virtues, are our bread of 
 life, our spiritual food, as taught in John vi. 
 
 We may now come down to the fourth century, where we 
 shall meet with Eusebius, a writer of considerable note. His 
 common way is to interpret the bread of life, or heavenly bread, 
 of Christ himself, of the heavenly Logos become incarnate z . He 
 understands John vi. of spiritual eating, and intimates that 
 Judas received the bread from heaven, the nutriment of the 
 soul : not meaning what he said of Judas's receiving the sacra- 
 mental bread in the Eucharist ; but, I conceive, his meaning 
 
 * 'Cibus, inquam, verus, et sanctus, signavit Deus. Justitia, inquam, et 
 
 et mundus est fides recta, immaculata continentia, et reliquis Deus virtu- 
 
 conscientia, et innocens anima. Quis- tibus colitur.' Novat. de Cib. Judaic, 
 
 quis sic pascitur, Christo convesci- c. v. p. 140. ed. Welchm. 
 
 tur : talis epulator conviva est Dei ; * ' Si homo tantummodo Christus, 
 
 istae sunt epulae quae angelos pas- quomodo refert, Ego sum panis vitae 
 
 cunt; istae sunt mensae quae mar- aeternae, &c. . ..cum neque panis 
 
 tyres faciunt.. . . Hinc ilia Christi, vitae homo esse possit, ipse mortalis/ 
 
 Operaniini autem non escam quae &c. Novat. de Trin. c. xiv. p. 46 ; 
 
 perit, sed escam permanentem in cp. c. xvi. p. 54. 
 
 vitam aeternam, quam filius ho- z Eusebius in Psalm, pp. 81, 267, 
 
 minis vobis dabit; hunc enim Pater 47 1. In Isx p. 586.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 113 
 
 was, that Judas had been blessed with heavenly instructions and 
 Divine graces, though he made an ill use of them. He had 
 tasted of the heavenly gift, of the blessed influences of the 
 Divine Logos, but fell away notwithstanding a . 
 
 Eusebius, in another place, interprets flesh and blood in 
 John vi. of our Lord's mystical body and blood, as opposed to 
 natural b . And when he comes afterwards to explain this mys- 
 tical body and blood, he interprets the same of words and doc- 
 trines c , grounding his exposition on John vi. 63, ' The words that 
 I speak,' &c. A learned author d endeavours to make Eusebius 
 contradict himself in the same chapter : but he is consistent so 
 far, which will evidently appear to any one that reads him with 
 attention. However, I think his interpretation of John vi. to 
 be forced and wide. It was very odd to make doctrines the 
 mystical body and blood, and to say, that the doctrines, or 
 words then spoken, were what our Lord intended afterwards to 
 ' give for the life of the world :' such construction appears 
 altogether harsh and unnatural. Besides, since Eusebius inter- 
 preted ' bread of life' of our Lord's Divine nature, he ought 
 certainly to have understood that bread, which our Lord was to 
 give, to be the human nature, the natural body and blood. But 
 my business here is not so much to dispute as to report : and it 
 is plain enough that Eusebius followed Origen in this matter, 
 and that both of them favoured the same mystical or allegorical 
 construction ; whether constantly and uniformly, I need not 
 say. 
 
 Athanasius was contemporary with Eusebius, as a young 
 man with one grown into years. He occasionally gives us his 
 thoughts upon John vi. 61, 62, 63, in these words: 'Here he 
 has made mention of both, as meeting in himself, both flesh and 
 
 a 2tW(mos 5e $>v Tt? $i$a(TKd\(p, ov Kal ctf/uaTos. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. 
 
 r'bv Koivbv aprov avrip /j-dvov avveff- contr. Marcell. p. 179, 
 6itv, a\\a Kal TT)S i/'i'X'i* BpfrriKov c "Ciffre aina ilvat TO. p-fi^ara Kal 
 
 /u.eTaXa/i/Sat'eij' T)IOUTO' irepl ov f\*ytv TOVS \6yovs avTov, T^}V ffdpKa Kal -rb 
 
 6 ffonijf tyw tl/j.t & apros & K TOV at/ua, Siv 6 /uiTe'xw altl, uffavd aprcp 
 
 ovpavov Kara&as, Kal fa^v StSovs rots ovpaviy Tpe<p6/j.fvos, TTJS ovpaviov fj.(ff- 
 
 av6p<airois. Euseb. in Psalm, p. 171. e|ct fays- Euseb. ibid. p. 180. 
 
 b Oil TrepJ fjs avfi\ij<pf (rap/cor Sif\ty- d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 CTO, irepi Sf TOV /uuffTiKoC vw/j.ar6s re part i. pp. 373j 374- 
 
 I
 
 114 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 spirit ; and he has distinguished the spirit from the flesh, that 
 they believing not only the visible part of him, but the invisible 
 also, might learn that his discourse was not carnal, but spiritual. 
 For, how many men must the body have sufficed for food, if it 
 were to have fed all the world 1 But for that very reason he inti- 
 mated beforehand the Son of man's ascension into heaven, to draw 
 them off from corporeal imaginations, and to teach them that the 
 flesh which he had been speaking of, was to be heavenly meat 
 from above, and spiritual food, which he would give them : For, 
 says he, the words which I have spoken, they are spirit and life. 
 As much as to say, That which outwardly appears, and is to be 
 given for the salvation of the world, is this flesh which I bear 
 about me : but this, with the blood thereof, shall be by me 
 spiritually given for food, spiritually dispensed to every one, for 
 a preservative unto all, to secure to them a resurrection to life 
 eternal e .' Thus far he. The observations which I have here- 
 upon to offer are as follow : i . Our author very justly construes 
 the flesh which Christ was to give, of his natural body ; and 
 supposes no figure in the word flesh. 2. He as rightly supposes 
 some figure to lie in the words ' given for meat,' which he would 
 have to be spiritually understood. 3. The spiritual, or hidden 
 meaning, according to our author, is, that the flesh is joined with 
 spirit, the humanity with the Divinity, and therefore in the giving 
 his flesh to eat, he at the same time imparts his Divinity with the 
 happy influences of it. 4. The flesh, or human nature, being all 
 that was seen, we ought to raise our minds up to the Divinity 
 united to it, and veiled under it ; and so may we spiritually 
 feast upon it, and be sealed to a happy resurrection by it. 
 
 Such is Athanasius's comment upon John vi., worthy of him- 
 self, and (like most other things of his) neat, clear, and judicious. 
 Here is not one word of the Eucharist : neither do I see any 
 certain grounds to persuade us that he had it in his mind ; 
 though I am sensible that the generality of the learned do 
 conceive that he had f . The thought appears juster and 
 
 e Athanas. Epist. iv. ad Serapion, pleases, Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- 
 
 p. 71- ed. Bened. fice, (part i. pp. 167, 374,) which in- 
 
 1 The reader may compare, if he terprets Athanasius of the Eucharist.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 115 
 
 finer g, without that supposition, than with it, so that there is no 
 necessity at all for it. He could hardly understand ' flesh' of 
 Christ's natural flesh, and still imagine it to be given in the Eu- 
 charist, unless he had added, virtually, constructionally, or in effect, 
 which he does not : his construction of ' spiritual' is, that our 
 Lord's Divine spirit goes along with that natural flesh, to make 
 it salutary food to us. Besides, to interpret our Lord's giving 
 his flesh ' for the life of the world,' of his giving it symbolically in 
 the Eucharist (rather than really on the cross), is too low and too 
 jejune a sense to be fathered upon a person of his great discern- 
 ment. Add to this, that he speaks expressly of spiritual man- 
 ducation, not of oral or corporal, and therefore cannot be under- 
 stood to interpret John vi. of sacramental eating and drinking b . 
 My persuasion therefore is, that the passage relates not at all to 
 the Eucharist, but to our Lord's becoming man, in order to bring 
 us up to God ; or, in short, to his taking our humanity, and 
 making an atonement for us, in order to feast us with his 
 Divinity, and so to raise us up to himself. In another place, 
 Athanasius distinguishes the bread which is Christ, from the 
 bread which Christ gives (referring to John vi.), and he resolves 
 the latter into the flesh of our Lord, but as operating in virtue 
 of the Holy Spirit. He observes, that we receive that heavenly 
 bread here, as the firstfruits of what we are to receive hereafter, 
 inasmuch as we receive the flesh of Christ, which is a quickening 
 spirit I He had before supposed that Christ had insinuated the 
 
 However, it is very certain, that this aliLviov K\-npoi>o/j.ov/j.fv. Athanas. 
 
 passage is no way favourable to those Orat. iii. p. 5^4- Cp. Sermo 
 
 who would construe John vi. of pre- Major, in Nov. Collect, pp. 6, 7- 
 
 cepts or doctrines. de Incarnat. contra Arian. pp. 874, 
 
 s He seems to express the same 876. 
 
 thought, where, without any view to fc Vid. Chamier, de Eucharist, lib. 
 
 the Eucharist, he says : 'As our Lord xi. c. 5. p. 613. 
 
 by putting on a body was made man, ' "On ird\ii> 6 Kvptos \tyei trtpl 
 
 so are we men made divine by the eavrov, tyui elf^t b &pro$ 6 <av, 6 K 
 
 Logos, being assumed through his rov ovpavov Ka.Ta.fids. a\\axov TO 
 
 flesh, and so of consequence heirs to Hyiov irvfv/j.a Ka,\e7 &prov ovpdvtov, 
 
 eternal life.' 'Us yap 6 Kvpios fvSvff- \eycev rov 6prov i,^iav ri>v sirioixnov 
 
 d/4tvos TO (roijua yeyovev &v9piinros' Sbs fifjuv o"l)fj.epov' 5fae yap 7]fj.as tv 
 
 OVTWS ^ueTs Ko.1 livOpunroi Tropo rov rjj fi>xrj tv T< vvv alHavi alreiv TOV 
 
 \6yov re 6eotroiovfji(6a, irpocrX-rityBevTes tirwvffiov &prov, TovrtffTi T&V jiteX- 
 
 5iek -njs ffapKbs avrov, Kal \onrbv o>V \ovra, ov awapxV exi u> ' ^ v T F v ^ v 
 
 I 3
 
 Ii6 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 union of the Logos with his humanity, and now here he sup- 
 poses that a conjunction of the Spirit is insinuated likewise ; 
 since the Logos and the Spirit are inseparable. But nothing is 
 here said directly of the Eucharist ; so that it cannot be hence 
 certainly inferred that Athanasius interpreted John vi. of the 
 Eucharist, or that he so much as applied it that way : his 
 thoughts, in both these passages, seem to have been intent upon 
 quite another thing. A learned man, to make this last passage 
 look the more favourable to his scheme, renders part of it thus : 
 ' We have the firstfruits of the future repast in this present life, 
 in the communion of the body of our Lord k :' where the whole 
 force of the plea lies in the phrase 'communion of the Lord's 
 body,' and the idea which it is apt to convey to an English reader. 
 Let but the place be rendered literally, ' partaking of the flesh of 
 the Lord V and the idea vanishes. It is certain, that flesh there 
 means natural flesh, not sacramental, or symbolical ; because it is 
 the firstfruits of the future repast, (which will be real, not sacra- 
 mental,) and means, according to* our author, partaking of the 
 Holy Spirit Therefore one would wonder how any attentive 
 reader should conceive that Athanasius here speaks directly and 
 positively, or at all, of oral manducation. That he speaks of 
 spiritual manducation is self-evident : and he might mean it 
 of spiritual manducation at large ; for he says nothing of the 
 Eucharist in particular, to confine it to that single form or 
 instance of it. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, in bis Catechetical Lectures to the unini- 
 tiated, interprets John vi. 64 of good doctrine m . But in what 
 
 fafj, rrjs vapKos rov Kvplov jueraAa/u- of the same flesh. Orat. iii. pp. 571, 
 
 Pdvovres, Ka.6&s avros the 6 apros 572, 573, 582, 583, 588. Serino 
 
 Se t>i> eyu Swffoi, y <rdp| /j.ov la-rlv inrep Major, p. 7. de Incarn. contr. 
 
 TTJS rov n6o~fi.ov a>5)?. irvevfj-a, yap fao- Arian. p. 875. 
 
 vowvf f) ffdp tffn rov Kvpiov. Athan. m TIfpl Se TTJJ Ka\rjs SiSatTKaXias 
 
 de Incarn. p. 883. avros 6 Kvpios \tyti' ra pTj/uora & 
 
 k Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, eyw \e\d\i)ica vulv irvtvud tari, Kal 
 
 part i. p. 375. <ei) tffnv avrl rov irvevp.a.rtKd. tan. 
 
 1 It is a thought which Athanasius .. .. Ta ^uara & iyw \e\d\r]Ka vfj.?v, 
 
 dwells much upon, that Christ took Mtv/id turiv 'iva /XT; \a.\iav x fl ^f' av 
 
 our flesh upon him, to make himself rovro tlvai vo/j.la~iis, dAAck r^v /coAV 
 
 one with us; and that we are par- SiSaffKa\(af. Cyrill.Hierosol.Catech. 
 
 takers of him, by being partakers xvi. sect. 13, 14. pp. 250, 251.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 117 
 
 he says to the initiated, he applies John vi. 54 to the Eucharist 11 . 
 To reconcile both places, or both constructions, we may fairly 
 presume that he supposed our Saviour, in verse the 64th, to 
 intimate, that what he had said was, in the general, true and 
 sublime doctrine, but withal spiritual ; and in verse the 54th, to 
 intimate, that his flesh and blood were to be spiritually fed upon 
 by the faithful. Thus both parts are consistent : for this doctrine 
 of spiritual manducation was spiritual doctrine. And Cyril here 
 applies that very doctrine to the case of the Eucharist, because he 
 had ground sufficient, from other Scriptures, to conclude, that such 
 spiritual manducation was a privilege of that sacrament, though 
 not of that only. So he did not directly interpret John vi. of 
 the Eucharist, but he so applied it, and that very properly. 
 
 Hilary, of that time, undertaking to prove that we are one 
 with Christ by a closer union than bare will and consent 
 amount to, draws an argument from the sacrament of the Eu- 
 charist (as he does likewise in the same place from the sacrament 
 of Baptism) to prove a real and permanent, but spiritual union 
 between Christ and his true members. The thread of his argu- 
 ment is this : In and by the eucharistical food, we spiritually 
 receive the Word incarnate, and are mystically united with the 
 natural flesh and blood of Christ, our bodies with his body : and 
 we are thereby truly and substantially (therefore not in consent 
 only) united with Christ . To confirm the reality of such union, 
 he appeals to John vi. 55, 56, 'My flesh is meat indeed ; he that 
 eateth my flesh, dwelleth in me, and I in him.' It is observable 
 that he distinguishes the eucharistical food from the food men- 
 tioned in John vi., for in or by the former we receive the latter, 
 according to him. Therefore he does not interpret John vi. of 
 the Eucharist ; but, taking it for an acknowledged principle, 
 that by the due use of one we come at the other, he pertinently 
 
 Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xxii. camera corporis sui sumimus.' Hilar. 
 
 tagog. iv. c. 4. pp. 520, 521. de Trin. lib. viii. sect 13. p. 954. Cp. 
 
 1 Si enim vere verbum caro fac- Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. xlvi. pp. 
 
 turn est, et vere nos verbum carnem 272, 273. Bened. Cyrill. Alex, de 
 
 cibo Dominico sumimus ; quomodo Trin. Dial. i. p. 407. And compare 
 
 nonnaturalitermanerein nobis exis- my Charge, vol. v. p. Iil3. 
 timandus est &c.... vere, sub mysterio
 
 1 1 8 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 accommodates or applies the doctrine of John vi. to the Eu- 
 charist. In a word, Hilary does not teach that the Eucharist 
 is that flesh and blood of Christ mentioned in John vi., but that 
 the flesh and blood there mentioned is received in or by the Eu- 
 charist, is spiritually or mystically received ; ' sub mysterio,' as 
 he expresses it P. 
 
 Basil says, ' It is good and profitable to communicate daily of 
 the sacred body and blood of Christ, since he himself plainly says, 
 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
 life <!.' He argues justly, because the consideration drawn from 
 John vi. is and ought to be of great force : not that John vi. speaks 
 of the outward Sacrament, but of spiritual manducation at large, 
 and of inward grace ; which, as we learn from other Scriptures, 
 does ordinarily (where there is no impediment) go along with the 
 Sacrament. Basil therefore does not interpret John vi. of the 
 Sacrament, but he applies the general doctrine there taught to 
 one particular instance whereunto it ordinarily belongs : else- 
 where he interprets it of spiritual (not oral) manducation of the 
 flesh of Christ r. 
 
 Gregory Nyssen is sometimes cited 8 as one that interprets 
 John vi. of the Eucharist ; but upon slender presumptions, with- 
 out any proof. Macarius also is made another voucher r , and 
 with little or no colour for it. Ambrose is a third u : and yet 
 
 P ' Ipse enim ait, caro mea vere est B Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 
 
 esca &c...Ipsius Domini professione, 385. It is argued, that Greg. Nys- 
 
 et fide nostra, vere caro est, et vere sen must have understood John vi. of 
 
 sanguis est : et haec accepta atque the Eucharist, because he made it a 
 
 hausta id efEciunt, ut et nos in Chris- pledge of the resurrection ; which is 
 
 to, et Christus in nobis sit. ' Ibid, no argument at all, as was observed 
 
 sect. 14. p. 956. If any one wants to under Ignatius and Irenaeus. 
 
 see the whole argument cleared and * Johnson, p. 385. Vid. Macar. 
 
 vindicated, against such as hold the Orat. iv. p. 22. 
 
 corporal presence, he may consult Al- N.B. Macarius may as reasonably 
 
 bertine,p.4ii,&c.orBishopMoreton, be thought to interpret John iv. 14 
 
 pp. 358-374, or Chamitr,p.648, &c. of the Eucharist, as John vi. in that 
 
 i To Koivwvilv Sf Kaff fKa.<rr-t]v T?JJ/ place. It is absurd to imagine that 
 
 ri/j.fpav, Kal fj.fraXa.fj.fidi'fiv rov ayiov he so interpreted either ; unless he 
 
 ffia/jiaros Kal a'1/j.aros rov Xpiffrov, KO,- supposed Moses (whom he there men- 
 
 \6v KOI ftrtixpt\ts' avrov ffa$>s \eyov- tions) to have received the Eucharist. 
 
 TOS. 6 rpdiiycav fj.ov T^V <rdpKa, Kal u Johnson, ibid. Ambrose there 
 
 irivtav /JLOV TO of,uo, !x C^V alt!>viov. plainly distinguishes the sacramental 
 
 Basil. Epist. 289. bread from the bread mentioned in 
 
 r Basil, in Psalm, xxxiij. 8. John vi.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 119 
 
 neither does he speak home to the point, as every careful reader 
 may soon see. I pass them over for the sake of brevity. 
 
 Jerome interprets the heavenly bread of Christ himself, and 
 calls it angels' food ; intimating thereby that it is eaten in 
 heaven, but plainly teaching that it was eaten by the Patriarchs 
 of old, and is now eaten, not only in the Eucharist, but in the 
 sacrament of Baptism x . From all which it is evident that he 
 interpreted John vi. of spiritual feeding at large. It is a mis- 
 take to imagine y that he meant sacramental bread and wine, 
 where he speaks of the wheat of which the heavenly bread is 
 made, and of the wine which is Christ's blood z . All he intended 
 was, that the wheat and the wine, mentioned in the prophecy 
 of Isaiah, mystically pointed to the real flesh and blood of Christ; 
 who is himself that wheat which makes the heavenly bread, ac- 
 cording to his own allusion, where he resembles himself to wheat 
 falling and bearing much fruit a . 
 
 Chrysostom interprets John vi. 51 of Christ's natural body, 
 not of the sacramental b . Elsewhere, distinguishing between the 
 bread which is Christ, and the bread which Christ gives, he in- 
 terprets the former of our Lord's Divine nature c : of the latter 
 he offers a twofold construction, so as to comprehend both our 
 Lord's own natural body, and any salutary doctrines, inasmuch as 
 both of them strengthen the soul d . He takes notice that our 
 
 x 'Panisquide caelo descend it cor- z "Triticum quoque de quo panis 
 
 pus est Domini, et vinum quod disci- caelestis efficitur, illud est de quo lo- 
 
 pulis dedit, sanguis illius est Novi quitur Doniinus, Caro mea vere est 
 
 Testament! &c Nee Moyses dedit cibus : rursumque de vino, Et san- 
 
 nobis panem verum, sed Dominus guis meus vere est potus.' Hieron. 
 
 Jesus : ipse conviva et convivium, in Isa. c. Ixii. p. 462. 
 
 ipse comedens et quod comeditur a John xii. 24. Compare Jerome 
 
 Hunc panem et Jacob Patriarcha co- in Ose. c. vii. p. 1285. 
 
 medere cupiebat, dicens, Si fuerit b 'firep rovrtav rb ffiiov Qtxfev 
 
 Dornhius mecum, et dederit mihi af/ua, virtp rovriav T^I/ ff(payijv Kart- 
 
 panem ad vescendum &c Quotquot 8f|oro. 6 yap &pros, <t>j]<rlt>, y ffdp 
 
 enim in Christobaptizamur, Christum pov etrrlv, fy yd> Siaffw inrtp rrjs TOV 
 
 induhnus, et panem comedimus an- KAff^ov fays. Chrysost. de Anathe- 
 
 gelorum, et audimus Dominum pre- mate, torn. i. p. 692. ed Bened. 
 
 cantem, meus cibus est, ut faciam' Cp. Horn. xlv. in Joan. p. 271. 
 
 &c. Hieron. Hedibiae, torn. iv. pp. c Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. xliv. 
 
 171, 172. ed. Bened. p. 264; cited above, p. 103. [note 8 .] 
 
 y See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- Cp. Horn. xlv. p. 270. 
 
 fice, part i. p. 3/6. d "Aprov 5e ^TUJ ret 8<tyjuaTa \tyei
 
 I2O Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 Lord there speaks of spiritual food e , and that by the Eucha- 
 ristical food we partake of the spiritual, and become really one 
 with Christ f . The thought is the same with what we have seen 
 in Hilary before cited : and it proves very evidently, that Chry- 
 sostom did not understand the food spoken of in John vi. of the 
 sacramental food, since he makes them as distinct as means and 
 end, or as the instrumental cause and principal, while he supposes 
 that by the due use of one we come at the other. I shall not now 
 give myself the trouble of particularly examining every plea that 
 has been offered, or every passage that has been alleged , to 
 make Chrysostom appear favourable to another hypothesis. If 
 the reader does but bear in mind the proper distinction between 
 interpreting of the Eucharist, and applying a text or texts to the 
 Eucharist, he will need no further solution. I shall only observe 
 further, that no one of the later Fathers has better expressed 
 the true and full meaning of our Lord in John vi., than 
 Cyril of Alexandria has done, where he teaches, that ' no soul 
 can ever attain to freedom from sin, or escape the tyranny of 
 Satan, or arrive to the city above, but by participating of Christ, 
 and of his philanthropy h ;' presently after quoting John vi. 53 
 (together with John viii. 34) in proof of what he had said. 
 
 Hitherto we have seen nothing in the Fathers that can be 
 justly thought clear and determinate in favour of oral manduca- 
 tion, as directly and primarily intended in John vi. Many, or 
 most, of them have applied that general doctrine of spiritual 
 feeding to the particular case of the Eucharist, because we are 
 spiritually fed therein : but they have not interpreted that 
 chapter directly of the Eucharist, because it has not one word 
 of the outward signs or symbols of the spiritual food, but ab- 
 stracts from all, and rests in the general doctrine of the use and 
 
 IvravOa TO. fftaTfjpta, Kal rfy viffnv rrjs rpoQrjs yap TOVTO ylvtrcu, $s 
 
 T^I* els aurir, ^ rb (T(afj.a rb eavrov. ix a P^ ffaro - Ibid. p. 272. 
 aju^Ttpa yap vfvpoi rty tyvxTiv- Chry- s See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- 
 
 sost. in Joan. Horn. xlv. p. 370. fice, part i. p. 384. 
 
 e Mefj.v7]Tai rpo<prjs wet^iaTi/cJjr. L Ei ^ 8ia rrjs Xpurrov fjKToxy* 
 
 Ibid. p. 271. Hal <f>i\at>0ptairias &c. Cyrill. Alex- 
 
 f M^J n&vov Kara r^v aydirriv ytvu' andr. Glaph. in Exod. ii. de Host. 
 
 &AAa KUT' avrb rb irpayna, fls Agni, p. 267.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 121 
 
 necessity of spiritual nutriment, the blood of Christ, in some shape 
 or other, to everlasting salvation. Thus stood the case, both in 
 the Greek and Latin churches, for the first four centuries, or 
 somewhat more. But about the beginning of the fifth century 
 arose some confusion. The frequent applying of John vi. to the 
 Eucharist came at length to make many, among the Latins 
 especially, interpret it directly of the Eucharist : and now some 
 thought John vi. 53 as decisive a text for the necessity of the 
 Eucharist, as John iii. 5 was for the necessity of Baptism. 
 Hereupon ensued a common practice of giving the Communion 
 to mere infants. Pope Innocent I. is believed to have been the 
 first or principal man that brought up such doctrine of the 
 necessity of communicating infants i : he was made Bishop of 
 Borne A. D. 402. It appears very probable, that from the time 
 of his Synodical Epistle, A. D. 417, the doctrine generally ran, 
 in the Latin churches at least, that 'unless you receive the 
 Eucharist, you have no life in you.' St. Austin is supposed 
 to have construed the text in that way, especially from the time 
 of Pope Innocent k . But in some places of his works he inter- 
 prets that chapter, or some parts of it, with clearer and better 
 judgment. Particularly in his Doctrina Christiana, lib. iii. 
 cap. 1 6, quoted above 1 : and also in another work of his, where 
 he plainly distinguishes the Sacrament of Christ's body from the 
 spiritual food mentioned in John vi. m There are two noted 
 passages of his, where he seems to interpret the living bread of 
 
 ! See Wall's Hist, of Infant Bap- 3. p. 167. But Thorndike disputes 
 
 tism, part ii. ch. 9. p. 441, &c. 3rd it, [Epilog. p. 176, &c. De Jur. 
 
 ed. Defence, pp. 36, 384. Bingham, Finiend. p. 285,] with some show of 
 
 b. xv. c. 4. sect. 7. Compare Mr. reason. 
 
 Pierce's Essay on Infant Communion, l See above, p. 91. [note h .] 
 who carries it much higher than m 'Panis quotidianus aut pro iis 
 others, upon suggestions which bear omnibus dictus est quae hujus vitae 
 a plausible appearance, and are worth necessitatem sustentant, aut pro Sa- 
 examining by some person of learn- cramento corporis Christi quod quo- 
 ing and leisure. But in the mean- tidie accipimus, aut pro spiritual! 
 while, I acquiesce in Dr. Wall's ac- cibo de quo idem Dominus dicit, 
 count, as one that was well con- Ego sum panis,' &c. August, de 
 sidered, and which, in my opinion, Sermone Domini in Monte, lib. ii. 
 cannot be far from the truth. c. 7. Cp. de Civit. Dei, lib. xxi. 
 
 k See Wall, ibid. pp. 441, 442, 443. c. 35, 
 Vosgius, Hist. Pelag. lib. ii, part.
 
 122 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 eating doctrine, of believing only n : but he only seems to do so, 
 when he really does not. For he intends no more than this, 
 that faith is the mean whereby we receive that living bread ; it 
 is the qualification requisite for the reception of it. A man 
 must have had faith to be healed, as we often read in the Gos- 
 pels ; and healing certainly followed upon the faith of the person : 
 and it might be right to say, Believe, and thou art healed : but 
 yet faith and the cure following were not the same thing, but 
 very distinct, both in nature and notion P. 
 
 It may be proper to go on to Fulgentius of the next age, 
 A. D. 507, a great admirer and follower of St. Austin, to see 
 how this matter stood among the Africans in his time. He had 
 a question put to him, upon a scruple raised from John vi. 53, 
 concerning the case of such as having been baptized, happened 
 to be prevented by death from receiving the holy Communion : 
 and he determined that they were safe, because Baptism exhibits 
 the body and blood of Christ to faithful recipients, as well as the 
 Eucharist 9. He strengthens his determination of the case by 
 the authority of St. Austin, in a long citation from him : and at 
 length concludes, that receiving Baptism is receiving the body 
 and blood of Christ, because it is receiving the thing signified in 
 the other sacrament r . He certainly judged very right : and it 
 
 n ' Quid paras dentes, et ven- Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. c. 17. p. 
 
 trem ? Crede, et mandueasti. Ore- 280. 
 
 dere enim in eum, hoc est manducare P Compare Johnson, Unbloody 
 
 panem vivum.' August, in Joan. Sacrifice, part i. p. 377. 
 
 tract. 25, 26. ' Augustinus hunc 1 ' In ipso lavacro sanctae re- 
 
 cibum tripliciter interpretatur : vide- generations hoc fieri providebit. 
 
 licet de propria Domini came,., in- Quid enim agitur sacramento sancti 
 
 terdum etiam de Sacramento carnis Baptismatis, nisi ut credentes mem- 
 
 hujus; nonnunquam de societate bra Domini nostri Jesu Christi fiant, 
 
 fidelium.' Albertin. pp. 691, 699. et ad compagem corporis ejus eccle- 
 
 'Non perspexit...ab Augustino siastica unitate pertineant ?...Tunc 
 
 ipso, his verbis, fidem ut causam, incipit unusquisque particeps esse 
 
 manducationem vero ipsam spiritua- illius unius panis, quando coeperit 
 
 lem ut effectum inter se conferri et memor esse illius unius corporis,' 
 
 collocari. Alioqui, si credere, et man- &c. 
 
 ducare una et eadem res esset ex r ' Unumquemque fidelium cor- 
 
 Augustini mente, quid hac oratione poris sanguinisque Dominici partici- 
 
 fuerit ineptius ? Crede et manducasti, pern fieri, quando in Baptismate 
 
 id est, manducaet manducasti.' Lamb, membruin esse illius corporis Christi 
 
 Danaei Apolog. pro Helvet. Eccl. efficitur, nee alienari ab illo panis 
 
 p. 1477. Opusc. ed. Genev. Cp. calicisve consortio, etiamsi antequam
 
 vi. according to John vi. 123 
 
 is an instance to shew how plain good sense overruled, though it 
 did not abolish, a wrong interpretation of John vi., and removed, 
 in some measure, the uneasy scruples arising naturally from the 
 then prevailing construction. The proper inference from Ful- 
 gentius's wise and wary resolution of the case is, that John vi. 
 ought not to be rigorously understood of any particular way of 
 spiritual feeding, but simply of spiritual feeding, be it in what 
 way soever : be it by Baptism, or by the Eucharist, or by any 
 other sacraments, (as under the old law,) or by any kind of 
 means which divine wisdom shall choose, or has in Scripture 
 signified. 
 
 From this summary view of the ancients it may be observed, 
 that they varied sometimes in their constructions of John vi. 
 or of some parts of it : but what prevailed most, and was the 
 general sentiment wherein they united, was, that Christ himself 
 is properly and primarily our bread of life, considered as the 
 Word made flesh, as God incarnate, and dying for us ; and that 
 whatever else might, in a secondary sense, be called heavenly 
 bread, (whether sacraments, or doctrines, or any holy service,) it 
 was considered but as an antepast to the other, or as the same 
 thing in the main, under a different form of expression. 
 
 I shall here throw in a few words concerning the sentiments 
 of moderns before I close this chapter. Albertinus s will furnish 
 the reader with a competent list of Schoolmen, and others of 
 the Roman communion, who have rejected the sacramental inter- 
 pretation of John vi. A more summary account of the same 
 may be seen in Archbishop Wake*, in the collection of pam- 
 phlets written against Popery in a late reign. I know not 
 whether the authorities of that kind may be looked upon as so 
 many concessions from that quarter, (though the Romanists, 
 
 panem ilium comedat, et calicem 270. in Joan. ix. 6. p. 602. 
 
 bibat, de hoc saeculo in imitate cor- 8 Albertinus de Eucharistia, lib. i. 
 
 poris Christi constitutus abscedat. c. 30. p. 209. 
 
 Sacrament! quippe illius participa- * Discourse of the Eucharist, print- 
 
 tione et beneficio non privatur, quan- ed in 1687, p. 20. He numbers up 
 
 do ipse hoc quod illud sacramentum thirty in all, thus : two popes, four 
 
 significat invenitur.' Fulgent, ibid, cardinals, two archbishops, five bi- 
 
 pp. 227, 228. Cp. Cyrill. Alex- shops, the rest doctors and pro- 
 
 andr. Glaphyr. in Exod. lib. ii. p. fessors.
 
 124 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 generally, contend earnestly for the sacramental construction,) 
 because there may be reasons why the more considering Ro- 
 manists should think it prudent to give another construction, 
 inasmuch as John vi., if interpreted directly of the Eucharist, 
 would furnish a strong argument for infant communion, which 
 they have long laid aside ; and it would be diametrically oppo- 
 site to a noted principle of theirs, of denying the cup to the 
 laity. I cannot say how far these two considerations may have 
 inclined the shrewder men amongst them to reject what I call 
 the sacramental construction of John vi. 
 
 But the Reformers, in general, for very weighty reasons, have 
 rejected the same : the Lutherans and Calvinists abroad, and our 
 own most early and most considerable Divines, have concurred 
 in discarding it. It would be tedious to enter into a particular 
 recital of authorities ; and so I shall content myself with point- 
 ing out two or three of the most eminent, who may justly be 
 allowed to speak for the rest. Archbishop Cranmer stands at 
 the head of them : he had considered that matter as closely 
 perhaps as any man before or after him, and determined in the 
 main as judiciously. He writes thus : 
 
 ' Whoe ever said or taught before this tyme, that the Sacra- 
 ment was the cause why Christ said, Yf wee eat not the fleshe 
 of the Sonne of man, wee have not lyfe in us? The spiritual 
 eating of his flesh, and drincking of his bloud by faith, by 
 digesting his death in our myndes, as our only pryce, raunsom, 
 and redemption from eternal dampnation, is the cause wherfore 
 Christe sayd, that If wee eat not his fleshe, and drincke not his 
 bloud, we have not lyfe in us : and If wee eat his fleshe and 
 drincke his bloud, wee have everlasting lyfe. And if Christ had 
 never ordeyned the Sacrament, yet should wee have eaten his 
 fleshe and dronken his bloud, and have had therby everlasting 
 lyfe, as al the faithful dyd before the Sacrament was ordeyned, 
 and doe daily, when thei receave not the Sacrament. . . . That 
 in the vi. of John Christ spake nether of corporall nor sacra- 
 mental eating of his fleshe, the tyme manifestly sheweth. For 
 Christ spake of the same present tyme that was then, saying : 
 The bread which I will give is my fleshe, &c. At whyche tyme
 
 vi. according to Jo/tn vi. 125 
 
 the sacramental bread was not yet Christes fleshe : for the 
 Sacrament was not yet ordeyned ; and yet at that tyme, all 
 that beleved in Christ did eat his flesh and drincke his bloucl, or 
 elles thei coulde not have dwelled in Christ, nor Christ in them". 
 
 ' This symilityde caused oure Saviour to say, My fleshe is very 
 meate, and my bloud is very drynke. For there is no kynde of 
 meate that is comfortable to the soule, but only the death of 
 Christes blessed body ; nor no kynde of drynke that can quenche 
 her thirst, but only the bloude sheddyng of our Saviour Christ 
 which was shed for her offences x . 
 
 ' I mervail here not a litle of Mr Smith's either dulnes or 
 maliciousnes, that cannot or will not see, that Christ in this 
 chapter of St. John spake not of sacramental bread, but of 
 heavenly bread ; nor of his flesh only, but also of his bloud, and 
 of his Godhead, calling them heavenly bread that giveth ever- 
 lasting life. So that he spake of himselfe wholly, saying, I am 
 the bread of life, &c. And nether spake he of common bread, 
 nor yet of sacramental bread, for nether of them was given 
 upon the crosse for the lyfe of the world. And there can be 
 nothing more manifest, than that in this sixth chapter of St. 
 John, Christ spake not of the Sacrament of his flesh, but of 
 his very flesh. And that as wel for that the Sacrament was 
 not then instituted, as also because Christ said not in the future 
 tense, The bread which I will give shall be my flesh, but in the 
 present tense, The bread which I will give is my flesh : which 
 sacramental bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then 
 instituted for a sacrament, nor was after given for the life of 
 the world. . . . When he said, The bread which I wil give is my 
 flesh, &c., he meant nether of the materiall bread, nether of the 
 accidents of bread, but of his own flesh : which although of itself 
 it availeth nothinge, yet being in unity of Person joyned unto his 
 Divinity, it is the same heavenly bread that he gave to death 
 upon the crosse for the life of the world y.' 
 
 u Archbishop Cranmer on the Sa- Jewel, Defence of Apology, p. 306, 
 
 crament, p. 22. &c. Answer to Harding, pp. 78, 239, 
 
 x Cranmer, p. 41. Cp. Calvin, in 240. Fryth, Answer to More, pp. 
 
 Joan. vi. 54. 21, 27. 
 
 y Cranmer, p. 450. Compare Bishop
 
 J26 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, CHAP. 
 
 Thus far that excellent person has shewn, by convincing rea- 
 sons drawn from the chapter itself, that John vi. ought not to be 
 interpreted of the Eucharist. Nevertheless, he very well knew, 
 and did not forget to observe, that it may properly be applied or 
 accommodated to the Eucharist, and is of great weight and force 
 for that very purpose. 
 
 'As the bread is outwardlie eaten indeede in the Lordes 
 Supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten 
 indede of all them that come thereto in such sorte as thei ought 
 to doe ; which eating nourysheth them unto everlasting lyfe. 
 And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the 
 vi. of John, where Christ saith, He that eateth my flesh, and 
 drincketh my bloud, hath lyfe everlasting z . You be the first 
 that ever excluded the wordes of Christe from his Supper. And 
 St. Augustine mente, as well at the Supper, as at all other 
 tymes, that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be understanded 
 carnally with our teeth a ,' &c. 
 
 The sum then of Archbishop Cranmer's doctrine on this head 
 is : i. That John vi. is not to be interpreted of oral manducation 
 in the Sacrament, nor of spiritual manducation as confined to the 
 Eucharist, but of spiritual manducation at large, in that or any 
 other sacrament, or out of the Sacraments. 2. That spiritual 
 manducation, in that chapter, means the feeding upon Christ's 
 death and passion, as the price of our redemption and salvation. 
 3. That in so feeding we have a spiritual or mystical union with 
 his human nature, and by that with his Godhead, to which his 
 humanity is joined in an unity of Person. 4. That such spiritual 
 manducation is a privilege belonging to the Eucharist, and 
 therefore John vi. is not foreign to the Eucharist, but has such 
 relation to it as the inward thing signified bears to the outward 
 signs. 
 
 To Archbishop Cranmer I may subjoin Peter Martyr, who 
 about ten years after engaged in the same cause, in a large 
 Latin treatise printed A.D. 1562. No man has more clearly 
 shewn, in few words, how far John vi. belongs not to the Eucha- 
 rist, and how far it does. He considers the general principles 
 z Cranmer, p. II. a Ibid. p. 35.
 
 vi. according to John vi. 127 
 
 there taught as being preparatory to the institution of the 
 Eucharist, which was to come after. Our Lord in that chapter 
 gave intimation of spiritual food, with the use and necessity of 
 it : afterwards, in the institution, he added external symbols, for 
 the notifying one particular act or instance of spiritual mandu- 
 cation, to make it the more solemn and the more affecting. 
 Therefore John vi., though not directly spoken of the Eucharist, 
 yet is by no means foreign, but rather looks forward towards it, 
 bears a tacit allusion to it, and serves to reflect light upon it : 
 for which reason the ancient Fathers are to be commended for 
 connecting the account of inward grace with the outward sym- 
 bols, the thing signified with the signs afterwards added, and 
 so applying the discourse of that chapter to the case of the 
 Eucharist b . 
 
 From what has been observed of these two eminent Reformers, 
 we may judge how John vi. was understood at that time : not of 
 doctrines, nor of sacramental feeding, but of spiritual feeding at 
 large, feeding upon the death and passion of Christ our Lord. 
 This, I think, has been the prevailing construction of our own 
 Divines all along : and though it has been much obscured of late 
 (for half a century, perhaps, or more) by one or other hypothesis, 
 yet has it never been lost , neither, I suppose, ever will be. 
 
 b ' De sexto capite Joannis, an ad Imo Patres illos libenter recipimus, 
 Eucharistiam pertineat, nos ita re- qui ilia verba ad hoc negotium tran- 
 spondemus. Sermonem ibi de Sacra- stulerunt. Quid enira aliud sibi vo- 
 mento coenae non institui ; ibi enim lunt panis et vinum, quae postea 
 coena cum symbolis non ordinatur. addita sunt in coena, nisi ut magis 
 Nam nee panis, nee calicis, nee gra- excitemur ad manducationem ilJam 
 tiarum actionis, nee fractionis, nee corporis et sanguinis Domini, quae 
 distributions, nee testamenti, nee multis verbis diligentissime tractata 
 memoriae, nee annuntiationis mortis fuerat in sexto Joannis. Satis ergo 
 Christimentio ullaeo loco instituitur. apparet quemadmodum nos ista con- 
 Hue spectabant illi, qui dixerunt jungimus.' Petr. Mart. pp. 114, 115. 
 illud caput ad Eucharistiam non per- Cp. Chamier, de Eucharist, lib. xi. 
 tinere, &c. Quoniam res ipsa (id c. 3, &c. 
 
 est, corporis et sanguinis Christi c Dean Fogg, in his excellent Com- 
 
 spiritualis manducatio et potus) ibi pendium of Divinity, published A.D. 
 
 luculenter traditur, ad quara postea 1712, has fully and distinctly ex- 
 
 Evangelistae, adfinemhistoriaesuae, pressed the sense of John vi. in two 
 
 declarant Christum adjunxisse sym- lines : 
 
 bola externa panis et vini, idcirco ' Christus ibi loquitur, non de man- 
 
 nos caput illud a Sacramento Eucha- ducatione sacramentali, sed spirituali, 
 
 ristae non putamus esse alienum et de pane significato, non signifi-
 
 128 Spiritual Eating and Drinking, fyc. CHAP. 
 
 A late very judicious Prelate of our Church, in a sermon on 
 John vi. 53, has well expressed the sense of our Church in this 
 matter, in the words here following : ' The body and blood of 
 Christ are to be understood in such a sense as a soul can be 
 supposed to feed upon a body, or to receive strength and 
 nourishment by feeding upon it. But now the body of Christ 
 can be no otherwise as food for the strengthening and refresh- 
 ing our souls, than only as the spiritual benefits of that body 
 and blood, that is to say, the virtue and effects of Christ's 
 sacrifice upon the cross are communicated to it ; nor is the 
 soul capable of receiving those benefits otherwise than by faith. 
 So that the body and blood of Christ, in the sense of our 
 Church, are only the benefits of Christ's passion ; that is to say, 
 the pardon of sin, and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and a 
 nearer union with Christ : and our eating and drinking of that 
 body and blood, is our being partakers of those benefits ; and 
 the mouth whereby we thus eat and drink, that is, the means 
 whereby we are made partakers of those benefits, is our true 
 and lively faith d .' This account is formed upon our Cate- 
 chism, and upon the old principles of our first Reformers, and 
 the next succeeding Divines, before any refined speculations 
 came in to obscure or perplex a plain notion, and a very im- 
 portant truth. All I have to observe further upon it, by way of 
 explanation, is as follows : i . When the learned author says, 
 that 'the soul is not capable of receiving those benefits other- 
 wise than by faith,' I understand it of adult Christians, and of 
 what they are ordinarily capable of : God may extraordinarily 
 apply the benefits of Christ's passion wherever there is no moral 
 obstacle, as he pleases. And it should be noted, that, properly 
 speaking, we do not apply those benefits to ourselves, we only 
 receive, or (by the help of God's grace) qualify ourselves for 
 receiving : it is God that applies e , as it is als6 God that justifies ; 
 
 cante.' Fogg. Theolog. Specul. Sche- instituted.' Wall, Inf. Bapt. part ii. 
 
 ma, p. 309. c. 9. p. 448, 3rd ed. 
 
 Dr. Wall says : * The words of our d Archbishop Sharp, vol. vii. serm. 
 
 Saviour to the Jews, John vi. 53, do xv. p. 366. 
 
 no way appear to belong to the sa- e ' Fides magis proprie dicitur ac- 
 
 cramental eating, which was not then cipere et apprehendere, quam vel
 
 vn. Sacramental or Symbolical feeding \ 129 
 
 and he does it ordinarily in and by the sacraments to persons 
 fitly prepared. 2. When it is said, that the body and blood of 
 Christ, in the sense of our Church, are only the benefits of Christ's 
 passion, I so understand it, as not to exclude all reference to our 
 Lord's glorified body now in heaven, with which we maintain a 
 mystical union, and which is itself one of the benefits consequent 
 upon our partaking of Christ's passion ; as seems to be intimated 
 by the author himself, where he reckons a nearer union with 
 Christ among the benefits. 3. The judicious author rightly makes 
 faith to be the mouth only, by which we receive, not the meat or 
 drink which we do receive ; the means only of spiritual nutri- 
 ment, not the nutriment itself : for the nutriment itself is pardon 
 and grace coming down from above, flowing from the spiritual 
 and gracious presence of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 whose temple we are, while we are living members of Christ. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Concerning Sacra/mental or Symbolical Feeding in the 
 EUCHARIST. 
 
 AFTER considering spiritual manducation by itself, inde- 
 pendent of any particular modes, forms, or circumstances, it 
 will next be proper to take a view of it, as set forth in a sensible 
 way, with the additional garniture of signs and symbols. Under 
 the Old Testament, besides the ordinary sacrifices, the manna 
 and the waters of the rock were signs and symbols of spiritual 
 manducation, according to St. Paul's doctrine, where he teaches, 
 that the ancient Israelites 'did all eat the same spiritual meat, 
 and did all drink the same spiritual drink f> which Christians 
 do ; the same with ours as to the spiritual signification of it : so 
 I understand the place, with many judicious interpreters, both 
 
 polliceri, vel praestare. Sed verbum a multis Roman ensibus nobis objici- 
 
 Dei et promissio cui fides innititur, tur, quasi crederemus hanc Christi 
 
 non vero fides hominum, praesentia praesentiam et communicationem in. 
 
 reddit quae promittit ; quernadmo- Sacramento, per nudam fiderutantum 
 
 dum inter reforinatos et pontificios effici.' Cosin. Histor. Transubst. c. ii. 
 
 aliquot consensum est in Collatione sect. 8. pp. 17, 18. 
 
 Sangermani habita 1561. Male eniin f i Cor. x. 3,4. 
 
 K
 
 130 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 ancients? and moderns \ As the heavenly meat and drink of the 
 true Israelites was Christ, according to the Apostle, and Christ 
 also is ours, the Apostle must be understood to teach that they 
 fed upon the same heavenly food that we do ; only by different 
 symbols, and in a fainter light The symbols are there called 
 spiritual meat and drink, that is, mystical ; for they signified the 
 true food, which none but the true Israelites were fed with, 
 while all received the signs. In the New Testament, the bread 
 and wine of the Eucharist are the appointed symbols of the 
 spiritual blessings, but under clearer and brighter manifesta- 
 tions. For proof hereof we must look back to the original 
 institution of the Sacrament, and particularly' to the words, 
 ' This is my body,' &c., and ' This is my blood,' &c. To under- 
 take the exposition of them is entering into the most perplexed 
 and intricate part of the whole subject ; made so by an odd 
 series of incidents, in a long tract of time, and remaining as 
 a standing monument of human infirmities : in consideration 
 whereof, moderns, of all parties, may perhaps see reason not to 
 bear themselves high above the ancients, in point of wisdom or 
 sagacity. The plain obvious notion, which nobody almost could 
 miss of for six or seven centuries, came at length to be obscured 
 in dark ages, and by degrees to be almost totally lost. It was 
 no very easy matter to recover it afterwards, or to clear off the 
 mists at once. Contentions arose, even among the elucidators : 
 and what was worst of all, after that in every scheme proposed, 
 at the Reformation, some difficulties remained, which could not 
 of a sudden be perfectly adjusted, there appeared at length some 
 enterprising persons, who, either for shortening disputes, or for 
 other causes, laboured to depreciate the Sacraments themselves, 
 as if they were scarce worth the contending for : which was 
 pushing matters to the most dangerous and pernicious extreme 
 that could be invented. But I pass on. 
 
 For the clearer apprehending what that plain and easy notion 
 
 f Axistin, Bede, Bertram, and on the Sacrament. Mede, Discourse 
 
 others. xliii. p. 325, &c. Bishop Moreton on 
 
 h Besides commentators, see Arch- the Sacrament, book v. c. 2. sect. 3. 
 
 bishop Cranmer on the Sacrament, p. 314. 
 p. 86, &c. Bishop Jewel, Treatise
 
 viz. feeding in the Eucharist. 131 
 
 was, which I just now spake of, I choose to begin with a famous 
 passage of St. Bernard, often quoted in this subject, and very 
 useful to give the readers a good general idea of the symbolical 
 nature of the Sacraments. He compares them with instruments 
 of investiture, (into lands, honours, dignities,) which are significant 
 and emblematical of what they belong to, and are at the same 
 time means of conveyance 1 . A book, a ring, a crosier, and the 
 like, have often been made use of as instruments for such pur- 
 pose. They are not without their significancy in the way of 
 instructive emblem : but what is most considerable, they are 
 instruments to convey those rights, privileges, honours, offices, 
 possessions, which in silent language they point to. Those small 
 gifts or pledges are as nothing in themselves, but they are highly 
 valuable with respect to what they are pledges of, and what they 
 legally and effectively convey : so it is with the signs and symbols 
 of both Sacraments, and particularly with the elements of bread 
 and wine in the Eucharist. They are, after consecration, called 
 by the names of what they are pledges of, and are ordained to 
 convey ; because they a*e, though not literally, yet in just con- 
 struction and certain effect, (standing on Divine promise and 
 Divine acceptance,) the very things which they are called, viz. 
 the body and blood of Christ to all worthy receivers. In them- 
 selves they are bread and wine from first to last : but while they 
 are made use of in the holy service, they are considered, construed, 
 understood, (pursuant to Divine law, promise, covenant,) as 
 standing for what they represent and exhibit. Thus, frequently, 
 in human affairs, things or persons are considered very differently 
 from what they really are in themselves, by a kind of construction 
 of law : and they are supposed to be, to all intents and pur- 
 poses, and in full legal effect, what they are presumed to serve 
 for, and to supply the place of. 
 
 A deed of conveyance, or any like instrument under hand and 
 seal, is not a real estate, but it conveys one ; and it is in effect 
 
 1 'Variae sunt investiturae secun- rebus est, sic et divisiones gratiarum 
 dum ea quibus investimur : verbi diversis sunt traditae sacramentis. ' 
 gratia, investitur canoiiicus per li- Bernard, de Coen. Domini, serm. i. 
 brum, abbas per baculum et annulum p. 145. 
 simul : sicut, inquam, in ejusmodi 
 
 K 2
 
 132 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 the estate itself, as the estate goes along with it ; and as the 
 right, title, and property (which are real acquirements) are, as it 
 were, bound up in it, and subsist by it k . If any person should 
 seriously object, in such ja case, that he sees nothing but wax 
 and parchments, and that he does not apprehend how they can 
 be of any extraordinary value to him, or how he is made richer 
 by them ; he might be pitied, I presume, for his unthinking 
 ignorance or simplicity: but if, in a contrary extreme, he should 
 be credulous enough to imagine, that the parchments themselves 
 are really and literally the estate, are so many houses or tenements, 
 or acres of glebe, inclosed in his cabinet, he could not well be 
 presumed to be far short of distraction. I leave it to the intel- 
 ligent reader, to make the application proper to the present 
 subject. I have supposed, all the while, that the cases are so 
 far parallel : but whether they really are so must now be the 
 point of inquiry; for I am sensible that the thing is too im- 
 portant to be taken for granted. 
 
 Come we then directly to consider the words, ' This is my 
 body,' and ' This is my blood.' What can they, or what do they 
 mean? 
 
 1. They cannot mean, that this bread and this wine are really 
 and literally that body in the same broken state as it hung upon 
 the cross, and that blood which was spilled upon the ground 
 1700 years ago. Neither yet can they mean that this bread 
 and wine literally and properly are our Lord's glorified body, 
 which is as far distant from us, as heaven is distant : all sense, 
 all reason, all Scripture, all antiquity, and sound theology, reclaim 
 against so wild a thought. 
 
 2. Well then, since the words cannot be understood literally, 
 or with utmost rigour, they must be brought under some figure 
 
 k Our very judicious Hooker has as I make myself wholly theirs, so 
 
 explained this matter much the same I give them in hand au actual pos- 
 
 way, in these words, as spoken by session of all such saving grace as 
 
 our Lord : my sacrificed body can yield, and as 
 
 ' This hallowed food, through the their souls do presently need: this 
 
 concurrence of Divine power, is in is to them my body.' Hooker, vol. ii. 
 
 verity and truth, unto faithful re- p. 337. Cp. Cosin. Histor. Tran- 
 
 ceivers, Snstrumentally a cause of subst. pp. 57, 58. 
 that mystical participation, whereby
 
 vn. feeding in the Eucharist. ,133 
 
 or other, some softening explication, to make them both sense 
 and truth. 
 
 3. But there may be danger of undercommenting, as well as 
 of interpreting too high : and men may recede so far from the 
 letter as altogether to dilute the meaning, or break its force. 
 As nothing but necessity can warrant us in going from the letter 
 at all, we ought not to go further than such necessity requires. 
 There appears to be something very solemn and awful in our 
 Lord's pointed words, ' This is my body,' and ' This is niy blood.' 
 Had he intended no more than a bare commemoration, or re- 
 presentation, it might have been sufficient to have said, Eat this 
 bread broken, and drink this wine poured out, in remembrance 
 of me and my passion, without declaring in that strong manner 
 that the bread and wine are his body and blood, at the same 
 time commanding his Disciples to take them as such. We ought 
 to look out for some as high and significant a meaning as the 
 nature of the thing can admit of, in order to answer such em- 
 phatical words and gestures. 
 
 4. Some, receding from the letter, have supposed the words 
 to mean, this bread and this wine are my body and blood in 
 power and effect, or in virtue and energy : which is not much 
 amiss, excepting that it seems to carry in it some obscure con- 
 ception either of an inherent or infused virtue resting upon the 
 bare elements, and operating as a mean, which is not the truth 
 of the case ; excepting also, that it leaves us but a very dark 
 and confused idea of what the Lord's body or blood means, in 
 that way of speaking, whether natural or sacramental, or both 
 in one. 
 
 5. It appears more reasonable and more proper to say, that 
 the bread and wine are the body and blood (viz. the natural 
 body and blood) in just construction, put upon them by the law- 
 giver himself, who has so appointed, and who is able to mak_e it 
 good. The symbols are not the body in power and effect, if those 
 words mean efficiency : but, suitable dispositions supposed in the 
 recipient, the delivery of these symbols is, in construction of 
 Gospel law, and in Divine intention, and therefore in certain 
 effect or consequence, a delivery of the things signified. If God
 
 134 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 hath been pleased so to order that these outward elements, in 
 the due use of the Eucharist, shall be imputed to us, and accepted 
 by him, as pledges of the natural body of our Lord, and that 
 this constructional intermingling his body and blood with ours, 
 shall be the same thing in effect with our adhering inseparably to 
 him, as members or parcels of him ; then those outward symbols 
 are, though not literally, yet interpretatively, and to all saving 
 purposes, that very body and blood which they so represent 
 with effect : they are appointed instead of them \ 
 
 This notion of the Sacrament, as it is both intelligible and 
 reasonable, so is it likewise entirely consonant to Scripture 
 language ; considered first in the general ; next, with respect to 
 the Jewish sacrifices and sacraments ; then with regard also to 
 Christian Baptism ; and lastly, with respect to what is elsewhere 
 taught of the Eucharist. Further, it appears to have been the 
 ancient notion of all the Christian churches for six centuries or 
 more ; and was scarce so much as obscured, till very corrupt and 
 ignorant ages came up; and was never totally lost, though 
 almost swallowed up for a time by the prevailing growth of 
 transubstantiation. These particulars I shall now endeavour to 
 prove distinctly, in the same order as I have named them. 
 
 i. I undertake to shew that the interpretation here given is 
 favoured by the general style or phraseology of Scripture ; which 
 abounds with examples of such figurative and constructional ex- 
 pressions, where one thing is mentioned and another understood, 
 according to the way which I have before intimated. I do not 
 here refer to such instances as are often produced in this subject ; 
 as metaphorical locutions, when our Lord is styled a door, a vine, 
 a star, a sun, a rock, a lamb, a lion, or the like ; which amount 
 only to so many similitudes couched, every one respectively, 
 under a single word. Neither do I point to other well known 
 instances, of seven kine being seven years, and four great beasts 
 being four kings, and the field being the world, reapers being 
 angels, and the like : which appertain only to visional or para- 
 bolical representations, and come not up to the point in hand. 
 
 1 Tb irorhpiw tv raftt a"fj.aros {jytia-Qat is the phrase of Victor Antioche- 
 nus, who wrote about A.D. 401. Vid. Albertin. p. 832.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 135 
 
 The examples which we are to seek for, as similar and parallel 
 to the expressions made use of by our Lord in the institution, 
 must be those wherein some real thing is in just construction 
 and certain effect allowed to be another thing. 
 
 Moses was a God to Pharaoh m , not literally, but in effect. 
 The walking tabernacle, or moving ark, being a symbol of the 
 Divine presence, was considered as God walking 11 among his 
 people. Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness , or 
 sinless perfection ; not that it strictly or literally was so, but it 
 was so accepted in God's account. John the Baptist was Elias P, 
 not literally, but in just construction. Man and wife are one 
 flesh 9, not in the utmost strictness of speech, but interpretatively, 
 or in effect ; they are considered as one. He that is joined to 
 an harlot is one body r , not literally, but in construction of Divine 
 law : and he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit 8 , is con- 
 sidered as so, and with real effect. The Church is our Lord's 
 body*, interpretatively so. Levi paid tithes in Abraham, not 
 literally, but constructionally, or as one may say u . Abraham 
 received his son Isaac from the dead, not really, but in just 
 construction, and in a figure x . The Apostle tells his new 
 converts, 'Ye are our epistle,' and the 'epistle of Christy;' 
 that is to say, instead of an epistle, or equivalent thereto, the 
 same thing in effect or use. These examples may suffice to 
 shew, in the general, that Scripture is no stranger to the sym- 
 bolical or constructional language, expressing one thing by another 
 thing, considered as equivalent thereto, and amounting to the 
 same as to real effects or purposes. 
 
 2. This will appear still plainer from the sacrificial language 
 and usage in the Old Testament. Blood, in sacrificial language, 
 was the life of an animal : and the shedding the blood for sacri- 
 fice, together with the sprinkling it, were understood to be giving 
 
 m Exod. vii. I. r I Cor. vi. 16. 
 
 11 Levit. xxvi 11,12. Deut. xxiii. s Ibid. 17. 
 14. ' Ephes. i. 23. See Spinkes against 
 
 Gen. xv. 6. Rom. iv. 3, 9, 22. Transubstant. pp. 29, 30. 
 Gal. iii. 6. u Hebr. vii. 9. 
 
 P Matt. xvii. 12. Mark ix. 13. x Hebr. xi. 19. 
 
 1 I Cor. vi. 16. T i Cor. iii. 2, 3.
 
 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 life for life z . The fumes of some sacrifices were considered as 
 sweet odours a , grateful to God when sent up with a pure mind. 
 The altar was considered as God's table 13 : and what was offered 
 upon it, and consumed by fire, was construed and accepted as 
 God's meat, bread, food, portion, or mess c . Not that it was 
 literally so, but it was all one to the supplicants ; with whom 
 God dealt as kindly, as if it had really been so : it was the same 
 thing in legal account, was symbolically the same, and therefore 
 so named. The laying hands upon the head of the victim was, 
 in construction of Divine law, transferring the legal offences upon 
 the victim* 1 : more particularly, the people's performing that 
 ceremony towards the scape-goat was considered as laying their 
 iniquities upon him, which accordingly the goat was supposed to 
 bear away with him e ; all which was true in legal account. The 
 priests, in eating the sin offering of the people, were considered 
 as eating up their guilt, incorporating it with themselves, and 
 discharging the people of it f : and the effect answered. But 
 when the people feasted on the peace offerings, it was symboli- 
 cally eating peace, and maintaining amity with God : to which 
 St. Paul alludes in a noted passage g, to be explained hereafter. 
 From hence it may be observed, by the way, that symbolical 
 phrases and symbolical services were what the Jews had been 
 much and long used to, before our Lord's time : which may be 
 one reason why the Apostles shewed no surprise at what was 
 said to them in the institution of the Eucharist, nor called for 
 any explanation. 
 
 From the Jewish sacrifices, we may pass on to their sacra- 
 ments, which, taking the word in a large sense, were many, but 
 in the stricter sense were but two, namely, Circumcision and the 
 Passover. With respect to those also, the like figurative and 
 symbolical language prevailed. We find St. Paul declaring of 
 the manna and of the waters of old, that they were spiritual 
 
 1 Gen. ix. 4. Levit. xvii. 10, n. Numb, xxviii. 2, 24. Ezek. xliv. 7. 
 
 a Gen. viii. *i. Exod. xxix. 18, d Levit. i. 4; viii. 14, 15. 
 et passim. e Levit. xvi. 11, 11. 
 
 b Ezek. xli. 22 ; xliv. 16. Mai. i. f Levit. x. 17. Hos. iv. 8. 
 7, 12. s i Cor. x. 18. Compare Levit. 
 
 c Levit. iii. n ; xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22. vii. 1 8, and Ainsworth in loc.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 137 
 
 food ; and accordingly he does not scruple, while speaking of the 
 rock from whence the waters flowed, to say that ' that rock was 
 Christ V It typified Christ : yea and more than so, the waters 
 which it yielded, typified the blood and water which should 
 afterwards flow from our Lord's side, and were to the faithful of 
 that time spiritual pledges of the benefits of Christ's passion, 
 like as the sacramental wine is now 1 . This consideration fully 
 accounts for the strong expression which the Apostle in that 
 case made use of, ' that rock was Christ :' it was so in effect to 
 every true Israelite of that time. 
 
 Circumcision of the flesh was a symbolical rite, betokening the 
 true circumcision of the heart ; which was the condition of the 
 covenant between God and his people, on their part k , and God's 
 acceptance of the same on his part 1 , to all saving purposes : 
 therefore circumcision had the name of covenant, and the sign 
 was called what it literally was not, but what it really and truly 
 signified, and to the faithful exhibited 111 . 
 
 The like may be observed of the Passover, which was feasting 
 upon a lamb, but was called the Lord's Passover, as looking 
 backwards, plainly, to the angel's passing over the Hebrews, so 
 as to preserve them from the plague n then inflicted on the 
 Egyptians, and mystically looking forwards to God's passing over 
 the sins of mankind, for the sake of Christ the true paschal 
 lamb . Such is the customary language of Scripture in those 
 cases, denominating the signs by the things signified, and at the 
 same time exhibited in a qualified sense. 
 
 3. I proceed to the consideration of Baptism, a sacrament of 
 the New Testament ; a symbolical rite, full of figure and mys- 
 tery; representing divers graces, blessings, privileges, and ex- 
 hibiting the same in the very act : for which reason the Scrip- 
 ture language concerning it is very strong and emphatical, like 
 to what our Lord made use of with respect to the Eucharist. 
 St. Paul does not barely intimate that we ought to be buried 
 with Christ in Baptism, or that we signify his burial, but he says 
 
 h i Cor. x. 4. i Gen. xvii. 7. 
 
 ' See above, p. 129. m Gen. xvii. 10, 13, 14. 
 
 k Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6. Levit.xxvi. n Exod. xii. u, 13, 13. 
 
 41. Jerem. iv. 4. Rom. ii. 28, 29. i Cor. v. 7.
 
 138 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 plainly, ' we are buried ; ' and likewise that ' we have been planted 
 together in the likeness of his death/ and that ' our old man is 
 crucified,' and that we are ' freed from sin,' and ' dead with 
 Christ P.' The reason is, because the things there mentioned are 
 not merely represented, but effectuated always on God's part, if 
 there be no failure or obstacle on ours. The spiritual graces of 
 Baptism go along with the ceremony, in the due use of it, and 
 are supposed by the Apostle to be conveyed at that instant. 
 i. Actual remission of sinsi. 2. Present sanctification of the 
 Spirit 1 ". 3. Actual communion with Christ's body, with Christ 
 our head 3 . 4. A certain title, for the time being, to resurrection 
 and salvation*. 5. A putting on Christ u . I take the more 
 notice here of the last article of putting on Christ, as being of 
 near affinity with feeding upon Christ in the other sacrament. 
 Both of them express a near conjunction and close intimacy : 
 but the latter is the stronger figure, and the more affecting 
 emblem. Christ is, in a qualified sense, our clothing, and our 
 food ; our baptismal garment, and our eucharistical banquet : 
 but what enters within us, and is diffused all over us, and 
 becomes incorporate with us, being considered as a symbol of 
 Christ, expresses the most intimate union and coalition imagin- 
 able. Probably this symbol was made choice of for the Eucha- 
 rist, as it is the top perfection of Christian worship or service. 
 Baptism is for babes in Christ, this for grown men : Baptism 
 initiates, while the Eucharist perfects : Baptism begins the 
 spiritual life, the Eucharist carries on and finishes it. And there- 
 fore it is that the Eucharist has so frequently been called TO 
 
 P Rom. vi. 4, 6, 7, 8. 'Deipsobap- 8 I Cor. xii. 13. 
 
 tismo Apostolua, Consepulti, inquit, * Rom. vi. 8, 9. Tit. iii. 5. i Pet. 
 
 sumus Christo per baptismum in mor- iii. 21. Coloss. ii. n, 12, 13. Add 
 
 tern. Non ait sepulturam significavi- I Cor. xv. 29. For so I understand 
 
 mus, sed prorsus ait, consepulti su- ' baptizing for the dead ;' in order to 
 
 mus : sacrameutum ergo tantae rei have our dead bodies raised. Vid. 
 
 non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncu- Chrysost. in i Cor. x. Horn, xxiii. 
 
 pavit.' August. Ep. 98. ad Boni- p. 389 ; et in i Cor. xv. 29. Horn. xl. 
 
 fac. p. 268. ed. Bened. p. 513. ed. Sav. Isidor. Pelus. Epist. 
 
 i Acts xxii. 16 ; ii. 38. Coloss. ii. lib. i. Ep. 221. Theodorit. in i Cor. 
 
 13. i Cor. vi. ii. xv. 29. 
 
 r John iii. 5. Acts ii. 38. I Cor. u Gal. iii. 27. Cp. Wolfius in loc. 
 
 xii. 13; vi. ii. Ephes. v. i6. Tit. iii. Deylingius, Obs. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 
 
 5. Heb. x. 22. 330.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 139 
 
 x , the perfecting service, and the Sacrament of sacraments y ; 
 or emphatically the Sacrament, which obtains at this day. I may 
 add that, though Baptism represents the burial and the resurrection 
 of our Lord, and entitles us to a partnership in both, yet there 
 is something still more awful and venerable in representing (not 
 merely his acts or offices, but) his very Person, in part, which 
 is done in the Eucharist, by the symbols of bread and wine, 
 representing his body and blood. 
 
 From what hath been said under this last article concerning 
 Baptism, we may observe, that it is not literally going into the 
 grave with Christ, neither is it literally rising from the dead 
 with him ; but it is so interpretatively and in certain effect, 
 proper dispositions supposed on our part : and it is not barely a 
 representation of a thing, but a real exhibition. So likewise in 
 the Eucharist : the elements are not literally what they are called, 
 but they are interpretatively and in effect the same thing with 
 what they stand for. Such appears to be the true account of 
 the symbolical phrases of the institution. 
 
 4. To this agrees what we meet with further in St. Paul's 
 account of this Sacrament. It is the Communion of the body 
 and blood of Christ z . Which expresses communication on the 
 part of the donor, and participation on the side of the receiver. 
 There is communication from God, and a participation by us, 
 of Christ's crucified body directly, and of the body glorified con- 
 sequentially. Yet this grant and this reception of our- Lord's 
 body are not to be understood with utmost rigour, but after the 
 manner of symbolical grants and conveyances ; where the sym- 
 bols are construed to be, in real and beneficial effect, what they 
 supply the place of. But of this text I may have occasion to 
 say more in a distinct chapter, and so may dismiss it for the 
 present. 
 
 x Vid. Casaub. Exercit. xvi. n. 48. guinis Christi in coena Dominica : 
 
 p. 411, alias 573. Suicer. Thesaur. nullus enim restat alius modus, quo 
 
 torn. ii. p. I2J9. in terns versantes arctius cum 
 
 ' Conjunctions nostrae cum Christo, Christo, capite nostro, conjungamur.' 
 
 cujus instrumenta sunt verbum Dei Casaub. ibid. 
 
 et sacramenta, veluti colophonem im- * Tektruv T*A.T^. Pseudo-Dionys. 
 
 pouit participatio corpora et san- cap. iii. p. 282. * i Cor. x. 16.
 
 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 St. Paul, in the same Epistle, speaks of the unworthy receiver, 
 as ' guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,' and as ' eating 
 and drinking damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's 
 body a :' all which is easily and naturally accounted for, upon 
 the principles before mentioned. Our Lord's body is interpre- 
 tatively delivered, with all the emoluments thereunto pertaining, 
 to as many as receive worthily: the same body is interpreta- 
 tively offered b to as many as receive, though ever so unworthily. 
 The unworthy receiver, through his own fault, disqualifies him- 
 Belf from partaking of what is offered, namely, from partaking of 
 the things signified : which being our Lord's own body and blood, 
 he is therefore guilty, not only of profaning holy things, (as 
 even the symbols themselves, when consecrated, are holy,) but 
 also of slighting and contemning our Lord's own body and blood, 
 which had been symbolically offered to him c . He incurs the 
 just judgment of God, for not discerning, that is, not esteeming, 
 not reverencing, not receiving d the Lord's body when he might, 
 and when both duty and interest required his most grateful 
 and most devout acceptance. Nay further, he is guilty of con- 
 temning the blood of the covenant, and the author of our salvation, 
 by so profane an use of what so nearly concerns both. This must 
 
 a I Cor. xi. 27, 29. both being equally a neglect of the 
 
 b 'Credentibus fit corpus vivificum, same thing. There must be more 
 
 quia illi panis caelestia et corporis in unworthy reception : it is not 
 
 Christi vere sunt participes : aliis merely neglecting the inward grace, 
 
 vere tarn nnn recipientibus quam but it is profaning also the outward 
 
 non credentibus licet antitypon sit, means. 
 
 tamen illis nequaquam est, nee fit d The wicked receive the signs of 
 
 corpus Christi.' Cosin. Histor. Eccl. the Lord's body and blood, not the 
 
 p. 69. body and blood ; that is, not the 
 
 c 'Non idcirco vocat Paulus reos thing signified. So the Fathers dis- 
 
 quod ipsum corpus Christi ederint, tinguish commonly on this bead, 
 
 neque idcirco illi judicium sibi arces- The testimonies of Origen, Ambrose, 
 
 sunt quod sumpserint, sed quod su- Jerome, Chrysostom, Austin, and 
 
 mere corpus Domini neglexerint.' others, may be seen collected and 
 
 Lamb. Danaeus Apolog. pro Helvet. explained in Albertinu*, pp. 549, 
 
 Eccl. p. 30, alias 1479. 586. Sometimes the Fathers do in- 
 
 N. B. This account is right as to deed speak less accurately, of the 
 
 fact, that the unworthy do not re- unworthy receiving the body and 
 
 ceive the Body, but as to guilt in blood, meaning the outward symbols, 
 
 approaching the holy table, it is giving the name of the thing signi- 
 
 insufficient ; because, by this account, fied to the signs, by a metonymy, 
 
 there would be no difference between Compare Moreton, p. 320. 
 absenting, and unworthy receiving ;
 
 vi i. feeding in the Eucharist. 141 
 
 be so, in the very nature of the thing, if we suppose (as we here 
 do) that the sacramental symbols are interpretatively, or in just 
 construction, by Divine appointment, the body and blood of 
 Christ. But this point also must be more minutely considered 
 in its proper place. 
 
 5. I proceed, in the last place, to examine the sentiments of 
 the ancients on this head : and if they fall in with the account 
 here given, we can then want nothing to set this matter in the 
 clearest light, or to fix it beyond all reasonable dispute. 
 
 A. D. 107. Ignatius. 
 
 Ignatius, occasionally reflecting on some persons who rejected 
 the use of the Eucharist, delivers his mind as here follows : 
 'They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they 
 admit not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his good- 
 ness raised from the dead : they therefore thus gainsaying the 
 gift of God, die in their disputes e .' It is to be noted, that those 
 misbelievers (probably the old visionaries, in Greek Docetae) 
 did not allow that our Lord had any real flesh or blood, con- 
 ceiving that his birth, passion, and resurrection were all ima- 
 ginary, were mere show and appearance. Thereupon they rejected 
 the Eucharist and the prayers thereto belonging, as founded 
 in the doctrine of our Lord's real humanity. Now, Ignatius 
 here intimates that the elements of bread and wine in the 
 Eucharist are, in just construction, the body, or flesh and blood 
 of Christ as dying, and as raised again : therefore he bore 
 about him a real body. The Eucharist being representative, and 
 also iuterpretatively exhibitive of such real flesh and blood, was 
 itself a standing memorial of the truth of the Church's doctrine 
 concerning our Lord's real humanity. Ignatius could not ima- 
 gine that the symbols were literally flesh and blood ; no one was 
 then weak enough to entertain so wild a thought : but if they 
 
 e E&XOpurrfaf KCU irpoo-fvxris air- iroT'Jjp frytiptv' ol olv a.vri\4yovrts Tp 
 
 ixovrai, Sia -rb /j.}) 6fj.o\ojf7v tv\a.p- Scapta rov eov, ffv^rjrovvrts airodvl)* 
 
 iffriav ffdpKa elvat TOV ffarrrjpos TJ/UWC ffxovffi. Ignat. ad Smyrn. cap. 7. 
 
 'ITJCTOV Xptorov, TTJV vitfp auapriiov Vid. Albertin. p. 286, &c. 
 T,p.;jiiv iraOovffco', *<)v rfj \pi\ff-r6rriri A
 
 143 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 were constructionally or interpretatively so, it was sufficient, being 
 all that his argument required. The Eucharist, so understood, 
 supposed a real body of flesh and blood belonging to our blessed 
 Lord, both as dying and rising again : for, without that suppo- 
 sition, the Eucharist was no Eucharist at all, a representation of 
 nothing, or a false representation f ; and that the misbelievers 
 themselves were very sensible of, and therefore abstained from 
 it. I may further observe, that Ignatius here supposes not, with 
 the consubstantiators, a natural body of Christ locally present, 
 and a sacramental one besides ; but it is all one symbolical body 
 in the Eucharist, supplying the place of the natural, in real 
 effect, and to all saving purposes. The Eucharist, that is, the 
 bread and wine, is (constructionally) the flesh of Jesus, &c. It 
 is not said, that it is with the flesh, or that one is in, with, or 
 under the other : so that Mr. Pfaffius had no occasion to triumph 
 here ?. 
 
 That Ignatius admitted of real and beneficial effects will be 
 plain from another passage : ' Breaking one bread, which is the 
 medicine of immortality, a preservative that we should not die, 
 but should live for ever in Jesus Christ V In what sense he 
 understood the thing so to be, will appear more fully when we 
 come to other Fathers, somewhat later in the same century. There 
 is one place more of this apostolical writer worth the reciting: 
 
 1 Chrysostom's reasoning, in like beyond all reasonable dispute ; as 
 
 case, is here very apposite, in Matt, every impartial reader will find, who 
 
 Horn. liii. p. 783. Ei y&p ^ air- will but be at the pains to look into 
 
 (Qavm & 'Irjffovs, rivos ovn&o\a TCI him, p. 286, &c. 
 
 rf\ov/j.fifa ; ' If Jesus did not really h "Eva &prov KAwiTts, 'As fort <f>dp- 
 
 die, what are the eucharistical ele- JUCUCOP aOavcurias, avriSoros TOV ^ 
 
 ments symbols of?' N. B. The argu- axoBavfiv, oAAa 77 v in 'Irja-ot! Xpurrf 
 
 ment did not require or suppose a 8ia ira.vr6s. Ignat. ad. Ephes. cap. 
 
 corporal presence : a symbolical one 20. This was no flight, but the 
 
 was sufficient to confute the gain- standing doctrine of the author, 
 
 sayers, if Chrysostom had any judg- which he expresses without any 
 
 ment. Cp. Pseud. Origen. Dialog, figure elsewhere. Epist. ad Sinyrn. 
 
 contr. Marcion, p. 853. cap. 7 : ffvvfQfpfv 8e avrots aycurav, 
 
 e Pfaffius (p. 263) appears to tri- Iva. KCU cuxtfaaiv. ' It behoves them 
 
 umph over Albertinus, with respect to celebrate the feast of the Eucha- 
 
 to this passage of Ignatius : but Al- rist, (so I understand aycarav, with 
 
 bertinus had very justly explained it, Cotelerius in loc.), that they may 
 
 and defended his explication with rise to life.' 
 great learning and solid judgment,
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 143 
 
 ' The flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is but one, and the cup one 
 unto the unity of his blood'.' He alluded, probably, to i Cor. 
 x. 1 6, ' communion of the blood of Christ,' and so the meaning is, 
 for the uniting us to Christ, first, and then, in and through him, 
 to one another, his one blood being the cement which binds head 
 and members all together. 
 
 A. D. 140. Justin Martyr. 
 
 Justin, another early Christian teacher and martyr, comes 
 next : I shall cite as much from him as may suffice to clear the 
 point in hand. ' This food we call the Eucharist : which no 
 one is allowed to partake of, but he that believes our doctrines to 
 be true, and who has been baptized in the laver of regeneration 
 for remission of sins, and lives up to what Christ has taught. 
 For we take not these as common bread and common drink : but 
 like as Jesus Christ our Saviour, being incarnate by the Word 
 of God, bore about him both flesh and blood for our salvation ; 
 so are we taught that this food which is blessed by the prayer of 
 the Word that came from him [God], and which is changed 
 into the nourishment of our flesh and blood, is the flesh and 
 blood of the incarnate Jesus. For the Apostles in their com- 
 mentaries, called the Gospels, have left it upon record, that Jesus 
 so commanded them ; for he took bread, and when he had given 
 thanks, he said, Do this in remembrance of me ; this is my 
 body : in like manner also he took the cup, and when he had 
 given thanks, he said, This is my blood k .' Upon this passage of 
 Justin may be observed as follows : i. That he supposed the 
 elements to be blessed or sanctified by virtue of the prayer of the 
 Word or Logos, first made use of in the institution, and remain- 
 ing in force to this day, in such a sense as I have explained above, 
 in the chapter of Consecration. 2. That Justin also supposed 
 the same elements, after consecration, to continue still bread 
 and wine, only not common bread and wine : for while he says, 
 
 1 Mlo 7&p fopl TO" Kvptov r)/j.eav k Justin Martyr. Apol. i. pp. 96, 
 
 'iTjcroG XpiiTToD, /cal v irorrjpiov eis 97. ed. Lond. See also above, chap. 
 
 tvoKTiv rov atuaros avrov. Ignat. ad iii. p. 503, where part of the same 
 
 Philad. cap. 4. passage is cited for another purpose.
 
 144 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 it is not common bread, he supposes it to be bread. 3. That while 
 he supposes the consecrated elements to be changed into our 
 bodily nutriment, he could not have a thought of our Lord's 
 natural body's admitting such a change. 4. That nevertheless he 
 does maintain that such consecrated food is, in some sense or 
 other, the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus ; and he quotes 
 the words of the institution to prove it. 5. He supposes no 
 other flesh and blood locally present in the Eucharist, but that 
 very consecrated food which he speaks of; for that is the flesh 
 and blood. Therefore he affords no colour for imagining two 
 bodies, natural and sacramental, as locally present together, in 
 the way of consubstantiation. 6. It remains then, that he could 
 mean nothing else but the representative or symbolical body of 
 Christ, answering to the natural, (once upon the cross, and now 
 in heaven,) as proxies answer to their principals, as authentic 
 copies or exemplifications to their originals, in use, value, and 
 legal effect. For, that Justin cannot be understood of a bare 
 figure, or naked representation, appears from hence, that he sup- 
 poses a Divine power, the power of the Logos himself, (which 
 implies his spiritual presence,) to be necessary for making the 
 elements become such symbolical flesh and blood : whereas, if it 
 were only a figure, or representation, men might easily make it 
 themselves by their own power, and would need only the original 
 commission to warrant their doing it. 7- Though Justin (ad- 
 dressing himself to Jews or Pagans) does not speak so plainly of 
 the great Christian privileges or graces conferred in the Eucharist, 
 as Ignatius, writing to Christians, before him did, yet he has 
 tacitly insinuated the same things ; as well by mentioning 
 the previous qualifications requisite for it, as also by observing 
 that the [symbolical] flesh and blood of Christ are incorporate with 
 ours : from whence by just inference all the rest follows, as every 
 grace is implied in such our interpretative union with Christ 
 crucified or glorified. Besides that our author supposed, as I 
 before noted, a real spiritual presence of the Divine nature of 
 our Lord in or with the elements, to make them effectually the 
 body and blood of Christ : and he carries it so high, as to draw 
 a comparison from the presence of the Logos to our Lord's
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 145 
 
 humanity, whereof the Eucharist is a kind of emblem, though in 
 a loose general way, faint and imperfect 1 . Thus much however 
 is common to both : that there is a presence of the Logos with 
 something corporeal ; a presence with something considered 
 his body ; and a presence operating in conjunction with that 
 body for the uniting all his true members together under him 
 their head. But that such comparisons help to clear the subject 
 is more than I will say ; being sensible that they are far from 
 exact, and may want distinctions to make them bear, or other- 
 wise may be apt to mislead : it is enough, if we can but come at 
 the true and full sense of the authors. 
 
 A.D. 176. Irenaeus. 
 
 Irenaeus's doctrine of the Eucharist, so far as concerns this 
 present chapter, may be understood from the passages here fol- 
 lowing, together with some explanatory remarks which I mean 
 to add to them. 
 
 ' How can they say that the flesh goes to corruption, and never 
 more partakes of life, when it is fed with the body of our Lord, 
 and with his blood 1 . . As the terrestrial bread upon receiving the 
 invocation of God is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, 
 consisting of two things, terrestrial and celestial ; so also our 
 bodies, upon receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, 
 having an assurance of a resurrection to all eternity m .' ' But if 
 this flesh of ours has no title to salvation, then neither did our 
 Lord redeem us with his own blood, nor is the cup of the Eucha- 
 rist the communion [communication] of his blood, nor the bread 
 which we break the communion [communication] of his body. 
 For it is not blood, if it is not of the veins and flesh, and what- 
 
 1 See the Doctrinal Use of the eof, owe trt Kotvbs &pro$ itrrlv, dAA' 
 
 Sacraments considered, vol. v. p. tvxapKrria, /c Svo irpayfidruii' trvvea- 
 
 114. rrjKvia, tiriyfiov re Kal ovpaviov OVTWS 
 
 m Tlios r^v ffdpKa \4yovffiv tls <f>6o- Kal ra (ru/f-MTa TtfuSiv /j.eTa\an/3di>orTa 
 
 pav xvpw, /cat (*fy fjitrx ftv T '}* C o '*} s T *)s fvxapurrias fj.f]Keri flfai <p6apT&, 
 
 TTJV axb TOV <Tta/j.aTos roii Kvpiov Kal T^V t\tri$a rrjs tls aioovas avaffrdo-eus 
 
 rov a'lfj.aros aurov Tpetyofj.fvrjj' ; .... $x ovra - Iren. lib. iv. cap. 1 8. p. 251. 
 
 els yctp airb yfis &pros irpocr\a.fj.0av- ed. Bened. 
 6fj.tvos HKK\T)(TU> [forte MK\rj(ni>] TOV
 
 146 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 ever else makes up the substance of the human frame, such as 
 the Word was really made n .' A little after, the author adds 
 this large explanatory passage, worth the noting : ' The crea- 
 ture of the cup he declared to be his own blood, with which he 
 imbues our blood ; and the creature of bread he affirmed to be 
 his own body, out of which our bodies grow up. When there- 
 fore the mingled cup and the created bread receive the Word of 
 God, and the Eucharist becomes Christ's body, and by these the 
 substance of our flesh grows and consists, how can they say, that 
 the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, (namely, life eternal,) 
 when it is fed with the body and blood of Christ, and is member 
 of him 1 To this purpose speaks St. Paul in his Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, that we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of 
 his bones, Ephes. v. 30. . . . The flesh is nourished by the cup 
 which is his blood, and is increased by the bread which is his 
 body. And like as a branch of the vine put into the ground 
 brings forth fruit in its season, and a grain of wheat falling into 
 the ground and there dissolved, riseth again with manifest in- 
 crease, by the Spirit of God that containeth all things ; and 
 those afterwards by Divine wisdom serve for the use of man, 
 and receiving the Logos [Word] of God, become the Eucharist, 
 which is the body and blood of Christ : so also our bodies being 
 fed by it, [viz. the Eucharist,] and laid in the ground, and dis- 
 solving there, shall yet arise in their season, by means of the 
 Divine Logos vouchsafing them a resurrection to the glory of 
 God the Father / 
 
 From these several passages thus laid together, I take the 
 liberty to observe : i. That our author had no notion of the 
 elements being changed, upon consecration, into the natural body 
 of Christ ; for he supposes them still to remain as the earthly 
 part, and to be converted into bodily nutriment ; which to affirm 
 of our Lord's body, crucified or glorified, would be infinitely 
 
 n 'Si autem non salvetur haec Sanguis enim non est nisi a venis et 
 
 [caro], videlicet nee Dominus san- carnibus, et a reliqua quae secundum 
 
 guine suo redemit nos, neque calix hominem est substantia, qua vere 
 
 Eucharistiae communicatio sanguinis factum est Verbum Dei.' Iren. lib. 
 
 ejus est, neque panis quern fran<ji- v. cap. 2. p. 293. 
 mus communicatio corporis ejus est. Iren. lib. v. p. 294.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 147 
 
 absurd P. 2. Neither does our author at all favour the notion of 
 Christ's natural body being literally and locally present under or 
 with the elements : for the heavenly thing supposed to super- 
 vened in the consecration, and to be present, is not Christ's 
 natural body, but the Logos, or Divine nature of our Lord, or 
 the Holy Spirit. Or if he did suppose the heavenly thing to be 
 Christ's glorified body, yet even that amounts to no more 
 than saying that our mystical union with his body is made or 
 strengthened in the Eucharist; not by any local presence of that 
 body, but as our mystical union with all the true members is 
 therein perfected, at whatever distance they are : so that whether 
 we interpret the heavenly part of the Logos, or of the body of 
 Christ, Irenaeus will not be found to favour the Lutheran notion 
 of the presence. 3. But least of all does he favour the figurists 
 or memorialists ; for his doctrine runs directly counter to them 
 almost in every line. He asserts over and over, that Christ's 
 body and blood are eaten and drank in the Eucharist, and our 
 bodies thereby fed ; and not only so, but insured thereby for 
 a happy resurrection : and the reason he gives is, that our 
 bodies are thereby made or continued members of Christ's 
 body, flesh, and bones : and his conclusion is built on this 
 principle, that members follow the head, or that the parts 
 go with the whole : which reasoning supposes that the sacred 
 symbols, though not literally, are yet interpretatively, or con- 
 structionally, the body and blood r . 4. To make the symbols 
 
 P Compare a fragment of Irenaeus, body, which they suppose to be lo- 
 p. 343, concerning Blandina ; from cally present : or that any feeding 
 which it is manifest that the Chris- is a pledge of a happy resurrection, 
 tians despised the Pagans for imagin- since they suppose the feeding com- 
 ing that Christ's body and blood were nion both to good and bad. Hence 
 supposed to be literally eaten in the it is, that they can make no sense of 
 Eucharist : they rejected the thought Irenaeus's argument. See Pfaffius, 
 with abhorrence. pp. 72, 7.3, 84, 85, 104. Deylingius, 
 
 1 1n like manner, Nazianzen makes Obse:v. Miscellan. pp. 75, 76. They 
 
 Baptism to consist of two things, might perceive, if they pleased, from 
 
 water and the Spirit ; which answers this plain mark, that their scheme 
 
 to Irenaeus's earthly and heavenly has a flaw in it, and cannot stand, 
 
 parts in the Eucharist. Gregor. Na- The mistake is owing to the want of 
 
 zianz. Orat. xi. p. 641. considering the nature of symbolical 
 
 r N.B. The Lutherans know not language and symbolical grants. Our 
 how to allow, in their way, that our bodies are not literally, but symbol- 
 bodies are so fed with the Lord's ically fed with our Lord's body ; 
 
 L 2
 
 148 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 answer in such a view, he supposes the concurrence of a 
 Divine power to secure the effect, a spiritual presence of the 
 Logos. 5. One thing only I conceive our author to be inaccu- 
 rate in, (though perhaps more in expression than real meaning,) 
 in superinducing the Logos upon the symbols themselves, 
 rather than upon the recipients, which would have been better. 
 But in a popular way of speaking, and with respect to the 
 main thing, they may amount to the same : and it was not 
 needful to distinguish critically about a mode of speech, while 
 there was no suspicion of wrong notions being grafted upon it, 
 as hath since happened. 6. Lastly, I may note that these larger 
 passages of Irenaeus may serve as good comments upon the 
 shorter ones of Ignatius before cited : and so Ignatius may lend 
 antiquity to Irenaeus's sentiments, while Irenaeus's add light and 
 strength to his. 
 
 A.D. 192. Clemens of Alexandria. 
 
 This Clemens was a person of infinite reading, and of great 
 reputation in the Christian Church. His pieces are all of them 
 learned, though not always so clear as might be wished. In a 
 very full head, ideas are often crowded, and have not room to be 
 distinctly ranged. Our author appears to have had elevated 
 sentiments of the Christian Eucharist, but such as require close 
 attention to see to the bottom of. He writes thus : 
 
 ' The blood of the Lord is twofold, the carnal by which we 
 are redeemed from corruption, and the spiritual by which we 
 are anointed : to drink the blood of Jesus is to partake of our 
 Lord's immortality. Moreover, the power of the Word is the 
 Spirit, as blood is of the flesh. And correspondently, as wine 
 is mingled with water, so is the Spirit with the man : and as 
 the mingled cup goes for drink, so the Spirit leads to immor- 
 tality. Again, the mixture of these two, viz. of the drink and 
 
 which in effect is tantamount : there lingius concludes, however it be. (that 
 
 lies the whole mystery of the matter ; is, though he can make no consistent 
 
 and thereupon hangs Irenaeus's ar- sense of his author,) yet Irenaeus is 
 
 gument. Good men are considered in clear for real presence. Not at all in 
 
 that action as so fed ; and it will be the Lutheran or the Popish sense ; 
 
 imputed to them, and accepted by but only so far as symbolical and 
 
 God, as if it literally were so. Dey- effectual amount to real.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 149 
 
 of the Logos together, is called the Eucharist, viz. glorious and 
 excellent grace, whereof those who partake in faith are sanc- 
 tified, both body and soul. The Father's appointment mysti- 
 cally tempers man, a Divine mixture, with the Spirit and the 
 Logos : for, in veiy deed, the Spirit joins himself with the soul 
 as sustained by him, and the Logos with the flesh, for which the 
 Logos became flesh s .' What I have to observe of these lines of 
 Clemens may be comprised in the particulars here following : 
 
 i. The first thing to be taken notice of, is the twofold blood 
 of Christ : by which Clemens understands the natural blood shed 
 upon the cross, and the spiritual blood exhibited in the Eucha- 
 rist, namely, spiritual graces, the unction of the Holy Spirit, and 
 union with the Logos, together with Avhat is consequent there- 
 upon. As to parallel places of the Fathers, who speak of the 
 anointing, in the Eucharist, with the blood of Christ through the 
 Spirit, the reader may consult Mr. Aubertine fc ; or Bishop Fell 
 in his notes upon Cyprian u . St. Jerome seems to have used the 
 like distinction with Clemens between the natural and spiritual 
 body and blood of Christ x . If we would take in all the several 
 kinds of our Lord's body, or all the notions that have gone under 
 that name, they amount to these four : i. His natural body, 
 considered first as mortal, and next as immortal. 2. His typical 
 
 s AITTOI/ 8e TO aijua rov Kvplov' rb 8e trap!;, Ty \6ycf 5j' fyv 6 \6yos 
 
 /j.(f yap eo-nv avrov ffapKinbv $ rrjs ytyove fftip. Clem. Alex. Paedag. 
 
 tpOopas \e\vr p& fitOa' rb Se irvfv/j.ari- lib. ii. c. 2. pp. I77> !7^- Compare 
 
 KOC, rovrtffTLv 3i Kt^pia /j.t6a' Kal rovr' Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part 
 
 firrtv TTttiv rb alfta rov 'Irjcrov, TTJS KV- i. p. 188. 
 
 ptaxris jueraAa/SeiV a(p6ap<rias. 'Icrxvs * Albertinus de Eucharistia, p. 
 
 5e roO \6yov rb trvtvp.a, us af/ua (rap- 380. 
 
 K<$S. ' A.va\6y<>>5 roivvv tctpvarcu, 6 u Cyprian. Ep. Ixx. p. 190. Note 
 
 ^.e*' olvos T<f vSart, ry 8e avOptairtf that the words in that edition are, 
 
 rb irvev/Lia. Kal rb fj.tv els iria-riv 'Eucharistia est unde baptizati un- 
 
 [leg. ir6ffiv] fixaxf?, rb fcpa/ua 1 rb Se guntur, oleum in altari sanctifica- 
 
 (1s afyQapaiav oSrjyei, rb irytvfji.a,' TJ Se turn.' But in the Benedictine edition, 
 
 a.fj.<pa7v avBts Kpcuns, irorou re Kal \6- p. 125, the latter part is corrected 
 
 you, tvx.apiffrta (ce/cArjTai, x^P iS 6 1ra " / " into ' oleo in altari sanctificato.' 
 ov/j.evri KOI Ka\rf ^s ol Kara iriffnv x ' Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi 
 
 HerahanBdvovres, ayi.doi>rai Kal <ru>/jia et caro intelligitur : vel spiritualis 
 
 Kal ^/vx^v rb Bfiov Kpa/j.a, rbv avSpia- ilia atque divina, de qua ipse dixit 
 
 Troy, ToO irarptKov 0ouA^/naros irvtv- Joan. vi. 54, 56 ; vel caro, et sanguis, 
 
 yuan Kal \6yif ffvyKipvavros HVVTIKUS' quae crucifixa est, et qui militis ef- 
 
 Kal yap us a\-rj9ias fj.tv rb irvtvfj.a (pKei- fusus est lancea.' Hieron. in Eph. 
 
 urai ry KTT' avrov (pfpofifi/ri tyvxfi' i} c. i. p. 328.
 
 150 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 or symbolical body, viz. the outward sign in the Eucharist. 
 3. His spiritual body, in or out of the Eucharist, viz. the thing 
 signified. 4. His mystical body, that is, his Church. But I 
 proceed. 
 
 2. The next observation to be made upon Clemens is, that he 
 manifestly excludes the natural body of Christ from being lite- 
 rally or locally present in the Sacrament, admitting only the 
 spiritual ; which he interprets of the Logos .and of the Holy 
 Spirit, one conceived more particularly to sanctify the body, and 
 the other the soul, and both inhabiting the regenerate man. 
 Which general doctrine, abstracting from the case of the Eucha- 
 rist, is founded in express Scripture y, and may by just and clear 
 consequence be applied to the Eucharist, in virtue of the words 
 of the institution, and of John vi. and other texts, besides the 
 plain nature and reason of the thing. 
 
 3. Another thing to be observed of Clemens is, that as he 
 plainly rejects any corporal and local presence, so does he as 
 plainly reject the low notions of the figurists or memorialists : 
 for no man ever expressed himself more strongly in favour of 
 spiritual graces conveyed in the Eucharist. 
 
 4. It may be further noted, which shews our author's care and 
 accuracy, that he brings not the Logos and Holy Spirit so much 
 upon the elements, as upon the persons, viz. the worthy receivers, 
 to sanctify them both in body and soul. He does indeed speak 
 of the mixture of the wine and the Logos ; and if he is to 
 be understood of the personal, and not vocal, Word, he then 
 supposes the Eucharist to consist of two things, earthly and 
 heavenly, just as Irenaeus before him did : but even upon that 
 supposition, he might really mean no more than that the com- 
 municant received both together, both at the same instant. They 
 were only so far mixed, as being both administered at the same 
 time, and to the same person, receiving the one with his mouth, 
 and the other with his mind, strengthened at once both in body 
 and in soul z . Clemens, in another place, cites part of the insti- 
 
 y John xiv. 16, 17, 23. I Cor. iii. considerantur, tanquam unum aggre- 
 
 16, 17 ; vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 1 6. gatum, idque ob conjunctam ambo- 
 
 z ' Signum signatumque conjunctim rum exhibitionem et participationem
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 151 
 
 tution, by memory perhaps, as follows : ' He blessed the wine, 
 saying, Take, drink ; this is my blood. The blood of the grape 
 mystically signifies the Word poured forth for many, for the 
 remission of sins, that holy torrent of gladness a .' Three things 
 are observable from this passage : one, that the wine of the 
 Eucharist, after consecration, is still the blood of the grape : 
 another, that it is called the blood of Christ, or blood of the 
 Logos, (as Origen also b styles it,) symbolically signifying and 
 exhibiting the fruits of the passion : lastly, that those fruits are 
 owing to the union of the Logos with the suffering humanity. 
 These principles all naturally fall in with the accounts I have 
 before given. 
 
 A.D. 200. Tertullian. 
 
 The sentiments of the African Christians, in those early days, 
 may be probably judged of by Tertullian, a very learned and 
 acute writer, who thus expresses them : ' Bread is the Word 
 of the living God, which came down from heaven ; besides 
 that his body also is understood in bread : This is my body. 
 Therefore in asking our daily bread, we ask for perpetuity in 
 Christ, and to be undivided from his body 6 .' Here our author 
 teaches that the Divine nature of our Lord is our bread, and 
 likewise that his human nature is our bread also, given us in 
 or under the symbol of the sacramental bread. So Rigaltius d 
 interprets the passage, quoting a similar passage of St. Austin : 
 
 in usu legitimo. Quam conjunctionem b Orig. in Levit. Horn. ix. p. 243. 
 
 vulgo vocant unionem sacramenta- See above, p. 54, and compare Cy 
 
 lem, sed non usque adeo convenien- rill. Alex, contra Nestor. 1. v. p. 
 
 ter ; cum non signatum cum signo, 123. 
 
 sed nobiscum uniatur, eoque potius, c ' Panis est Sermo Dei vivi, qui 
 minus saltern ambigue, conjunctio descendit de caelis. Turn quod et 
 pacti debeat nominari.' Vossius, de corpus ejus in pane censetur : Hoc est 
 Sacram. Vi et Effic. p. 250. Cp. corpusmeum. Itaque petendo panem 
 Bucer. Script. Anglican, p. 544. quotidianum, perpetuitatem postula- 
 a Kai tv\6yri(riv ye rbv olvov, tlir<\>v, mus in Christo, et individuitatem a 
 Aa$eTe, ir'ttrf rovr6 jiiou fffrlv rb corpore ejus.' Tertullian. de Orat. 
 oTua. Af/xa TTJS a/j.Tre\ov rbv \6yov C. vi. pp. 131, 132. 
 r)>v irtpi iro\\&i> tKxtd/J-tvov fls &(f>ecni> d ' Sic videtur explicari posse : Per 
 afj.apTi.cav, fvtfipoffvvqs ayiov a\\r]yo- panis sacramentum commendat cor- 
 ps? 1/a.fj.a. Clem. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. pus suum : quemadmodum Augusti- 
 2. p. 186. I have altered the com- nus 1. i. Quae^t. Evang. 43. dixit, 
 mon pointing, for the improving the Per vini sacramentum commendat 
 sense. sanguinoin suum.' Eigalt. in loc.
 
 152 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 but the reader may compare Albertinus 6 . We can allow the 
 Romanists here to understand Christ's real and natural body 
 given in the Sacrament, but mystically, spiritually, and inter- 
 pretatively given; as a right may be given us to a distant 
 possession. Tertullian seems to understand body, of the body 
 glorified, because he speaks of our being undivided from it, and 
 may best be explained of the mystical union between Christ and 
 his members, perfected in this Sacrament : which kind of union, 
 as I have more than once hinted, supposes no local corporal 
 presence, nor infers any. 
 
 Tertullian elsewhere speaks of our bodies as being fed with 
 the body and blood of Christ, that our souls may be feasted with 
 God, or may feed upon God f . There I understand body and 
 blood of Christ, of the sacramental, symbolical body and blood, 
 that is, of the bread and wine, which literally nourish the body of 
 man, and symbolically the soul. Signs often bear the names of 
 the things signified, as Tertullian more than once intimates with 
 reference to this very case z. And when he says, that Christ 
 made the bread his own body h , he must be understood of the 
 symbolical body, (the figure, or symbol of the natural body,) 
 representing i and exhibiting the thing signified. 
 
 But I must observe further, that when Tertullian builds an 
 argument for the resurrection of the body upon this consideration, 
 that our bodies are fed with the symbolical body of Christ, (as 
 I have explained it,) he cannot be understood to mean less than 
 that the symbolical body is constructionally or interpretatively 
 the real body ; and so our bodies are literally fed with one, while 
 mystically and spiritually fed with the other also. Without this 
 supposition, there is no force at all in his argument for the 
 
 e Albertinus de Eucharist, p. 344. ' Panem corpus suum appellans.' 
 
 He understands it thus: that bread Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. x. p. 196. 
 
 is a name for the sacramental body, contr. Mar. lib. iii. cap. 19. p. 
 
 as well as for common bread, and for 408. 
 
 spiritual food, i.e. Christ himself. h 'Acceptumpanemetdistributum 
 
 1 'Caro cor pore et sanguine Christ! discipulis corpus ilium suum fecit, 
 
 vescitur, ut et anima de Deo sagine- Hoc EST COBPUS MEUM dicendo : id 
 
 tur : non possunt ergo separari in est, figuracorporismei.' Contr. Marc, 
 
 mercede, quas opera conjungit.' Ter- I. iv. cap. 40. p. 458. 
 
 tull. de Resur. Carn. cap. viii. p. 330. ' ' Panem quo ipsum corpus suum 
 
 Cp. Albertin. p. 340. repraesentat. 1 Contr. Marc. lib. L
 
 vii. feeding in the Eiickarist. 153 
 
 resurrection. Our bodies are considered as fed with Christ's 
 natural body, therefore they are considered as pertaining to, or 
 mingled with his body; therefore they are in construction one flesh 
 with him ; therefore, as his body is glorified, so also will ours be, 
 head and members together. Such is the tour of the argument, 
 such the chain of ideas that forms it \ Which is confirmed by 
 what he adds, viz. that soul and body being partners in the work, 
 will share also in the reward. What is the work 1 The work of 
 feeding upon Christ : both feast together here upon the same 
 Lord, therefore both shall enjoy the same Lord hereafter. Which 
 inference implies that even our bodies are in some sense (namely, 
 in the mystical and constructional sense) fed with our Lord's 
 natural body, as crucified, or as glorified. Enough has been 
 said, to give the reader a competent notion of Tertullian's 
 doctrine on this head. I shall only take notice further, that the 
 acute and learned Pfaffius, following the Lutheran hypothesis, 
 has collected many testimonies seemingly favouring that side, 
 but then, very ingenuously, has matched them with others which 
 are directly repugnant to it ; and he has left them facing each 
 other 1 , unreconciled, irreconcilable. How easily might all have 
 been set right, had he but considered a very common thing, 
 called construction of law, or duly attended to the symbolical 
 language which Scripture and Fathers abound in. To what 
 purpose is it to cite Fathers in any cause, without reconciling 
 the evidence 1 Self- contradictory evidence is null or none. But 
 I proceed. 
 
 A.D. 240. Origen. 
 
 Bullinger, in his treatise against Casaubon, cites a passage as 
 Origen's which runs thus : ' He that partakes of the bread, par- 
 takes also of the Lord's body : for we look not to the objects of 
 sense lying before us, but we lift up the soul by faith to the body 
 of the Logos. For he said not, This is the symbol, but This is 
 
 fc A collection of other ancient though he does not account for it in 
 
 testimonies, so far as concerns that the same way. 
 
 argument, may be seen in Johnson, ' Vid. Pfaffius de Consecrat. Vet. 
 
 (Unbl. Sacr. part ii p. no, &c.), Euchar. pp. 465, 470, 471.
 
 154 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 the body ; to prevent any one's thinking that it was a type m .' 
 Albertinus throws off this passage as spurious, and as the pro- 
 duct of some modern Greek n . Huetius comes after, and blames 
 him for arbitrarily cutting the knot , as he supposes. But 
 there would be no great difficulty in untying the knot, were it 
 certain that the words are Origen's. I will suppose that they 
 are ; and indeed I see no good reason why they may not. He 
 seems to have intended nothing more but to raise up vulgar 
 minds from grovelling apprehensions to heavenly contemplations. 
 Such exhortations to the populace are frequent in other Fathers. 
 Origen admits not of naked signs, or mere figures : he was no 
 Sacramentarian. He thought, very rightly, that the words of 
 the institution were too strong and emphatical to submit to so 
 low a meaning. He conceived that, under the symbolical body, 
 was to be understood the natural body of Christ, the body of the 
 Logos. If we take in another passage of Origen's, out of one of 
 his Homilies P, and join it with this, there will then appear a 
 threefold, elegant gradation in his whole account, as thus : Look 
 not to the typical body, but raise your minds higher up to the 
 natural flesh of Christ : yea, and stop not there, but ascend still 
 higher, from human to Divine, conceiving that flesh as personally 
 united with the Divine Logos, or as the body of God. All which 
 is true and sound doctrine, and very proper subject-matter for 
 Christian exhortations : I need not add, that the whole is ex- 
 tremely suitable to what I have been maintaining all along in 
 this chapter. 
 
 A.D. 250. Cyprian. 
 
 It is frequent with Cyprian to speak of the sacred elements 
 under the name of our Lord's body and blood. I need not cite 
 passages to prove what no one who has ever looked into that 
 author can doubt of : in what sense he so styled them, pursuant 
 
 m Kol yao 6 aprov Ai T f'x" TW contr. Casaub. p. 617. 
 
 a&ttaros Kvplov jteTaAajtjSavei' ov yap n Albertin. de Eucharist, lib. ii. 
 
 irpoffexo/J-f TJJ Qvfffi -ruv alff6i)Tios cap. 3. p. 367. 
 
 irpoKetufvwv, aAV avdyonfv T^V ^i>xV Huetii Origeniana, p. 182. 
 
 8ia in<rrM M rb TOV \6yov aw/j.a. P 'Non baereas in sanguine carnis, 
 
 oil yap flire, rovrA 3<m ffv/j.Bo\ov, sed disce potius sanguinem Verbi, ' 
 
 oA\a rovr6 imi ffu/j-a' 5i/cTiai$, 'iva. &c. Orig. in Levit. Horn. is. p. 
 
 p.)) von'ifo Tts Tviiov (Ifcu. Bulling 243.
 
 vii. feeding in the EucJiarist. 155 
 
 to the words of the institution, is the single question. He says, 
 in a certain place, that our Lord, in the original Eucharist, 
 offered up bread and wine, viz. his own body and blood q. It 
 is plain that he thought not of trausubstantiation, since he calls 
 the elements bread and wine, even after consecration, and sup- 
 poses besides, that Christ offered the same in substance that Mel- 
 chizedeck had offered long before the incarnation. Neither could 
 Cyprian think of consubstantiation, since he admits of no other 
 body and blood as there present, and literally offered, but the 
 same individual bread and wine : they were the body and blood. 
 But how were they such, since they were not so, strictly and 
 literally? I answer, they were figuratively such, according to our 
 author : not that the elements were by him supposed to be mere 
 figures, or memorials, or representations; but what they repre- 
 sented, that they represented with effect, and so amounted in 
 just construction and beneficial influence to the same thing. This 
 was the notion he had of them, as will sufficiently appear from 
 several clear passages. He supposes the natural blood of Christ 
 by which- we are redeemed, to be in the cup, in some sense or 
 other, when the sacred wine is there r : the wine represents it, 
 stands for it, and is interpretatively the same thing. He could 
 not well mean less than this, by saying, that the blood is signified 
 (ostenditur) in the wine, and that it is supposed to be in the cup, 
 ' videtur esse in calice,' is looked upon as being there. Not 
 literally to be sure, but constructionally, and in effect : for the 
 effects, according to him, upon every faithful receiver, are remis- 
 sion of sins 3 , and spiritual strength against the adversary 4 , and 
 
 i ' Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, ' Epotato sanguine Domini et po- 
 et obtulit hoc idem quod Melchise- culo ealutari, exponatur memoria 
 dech obtulerat, id est, panem et veteris hominis, et fiat oblivio con- 
 vinum, suum scilicet corpus et san- versationis pristinae saecularis, et 
 guinem.' Cypr. Epist. Ixiii. p. 105. moeatum pectus et triste, quod prius 
 ed. Bened., alias p. 149. peccatis angentibus premebatur, Di- 
 
 r 'Nee potest videri sanguis ejus, vinae indulgentiae laetitia resolva- 
 
 quo redempti et vivificati sumus, tur.' Cypr. Ep. Ixiii. p. 107, alias 
 
 esse in calice quando vinum desit 153. 
 
 calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur, * ' Protectionesanguinis et corporis 
 
 qui Scripturarum omnium Sacramen- Christ! muniainus ; et cum ad hoc 
 
 to ac testimonio praedicatur.' Ep. fiat Eucharistia, ut possit accipienti- 
 
 Ixiii. p. 104. bus esse tutela, quos tutos esse con-
 
 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 life eternal 11 . So far was he from the low and degrading notions 
 of the figurists in this article ; and yet sufficiently guarded (as I 
 have before hinted) against another extreme. 
 
 There are no more considerable authorities to be met with, so 
 far as concerns this article, till we come down to the fourth cen- 
 tury, and so on ; and there they are innumerable : all following 
 the same tenor of doctrine, all, when rightly understood, teach- 
 ing the same thing, in the main, with what I have here repre- 
 sented from their predecessors ; so that I know not whether it 
 might not be tedious to my readers, to proceed any further in a 
 recital of this kind. But I may single out one, as it were, by 
 way of specimen, leaving the rest to be judged of by that . and 
 that one may be Cyril of Jerusalem, as proper a sample perhaps 
 as any. 
 
 A.D. 348. Cyril of Jerusalem. 
 
 I do not know any one writer, among the ancients, who has 
 given a fuller or clearer, or in the main juster account of the 
 holy Eucharist, than this the elder Cyril has done ; though he 
 has often been strangely misconstrued by contending parties. 
 The true and ancient notions of the Eucharist came now to be 
 digested into somewhat of a more regular and accurate form, 
 and the manner of speaking of it became, as it were, fixed and 
 settled upon rules of art. Cyril expresses himself thus : ' Receive 
 we [the Eucharist] with all fulness of faith, as the body and 
 blood of Christ : for, under the type [or symbol] of bread, you 
 have his body given you, and under the type [or symbol] of 
 wine, you receive his blood ; that so partaking of the body and 
 blood of Christ, you may become flesh of his flesh, and blood of 
 his blood. For, by this means, we carry Christ about us, in as 
 much as his body and blood is distributed into our members : 
 thus do we become, according to St. Peter, partakers of the 
 Divine nature x .' The doctrine here taught is, that in the Eucha- 
 
 tra adversarium volumus, munimen- tiamjurecommunicationisaccipiunt.' 
 to Dominicae saturitatis armemus.' Cypr. de Orat. pp. 209, 210. 
 Ep. liv. p. 77> a li aa Ep. Ivii. p. * Mera irairTjs 7rA.7jpo<popt'as, ais 
 117- (TtafjLHTos /cat aVuaros fifra\a/j.0ayca- 
 u ' Manifestum est eos vivere qui fiev Xf<rroG' ev rinry yap aprov, Si- 
 corpus ejus attiugunt, et Eucharis- Sorai aoi rb a5>p.a, KO.\ Iv Tinrcp olvou
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 157 
 
 rist we receive (not literally, but symbolically) the natural body 
 and blood of Christ ; just as the priests of old, in eating the 
 sacrifices symbolically, but effectually, ate up the sins of the 
 people, or as the faithful Israelites, in eating manna and drink- 
 ing of the rock, effectually fed upon Christ. The symbolical 
 body and blood are here supposed by our author to supply the 
 place of the natural, and to be in construction and beneficial 
 effect (not substantially) the same thing with it ; and so he 
 speaks of our becoming by that means one flesh and one blood 
 with Christ, meaning it in as high a sense, as all the members of 
 Christ are one body, or as man and wife are one flesh. We 
 carry Christ about us, as we are mystically united to him. His 
 body and blood are considered as intermingled with ours y, when 
 the symbols of them really and strictly are so : for the benefit is 
 completely the same ; and God accepts of such symbolical union, 
 making it, to all saving purposes and intents, as effectual as any 
 the most real could be. Cyril never thought of any presence of 
 Christ's natural body and blood in the Sacrament, excepting 
 in mystery and figure, (which he expresses by the word 'type,') 
 and in real benefits and privileges. 
 
 He goes on to observe, that our Lord once told the Jews 
 (John vi. 54) of eating his flesh, &c. And they not understanding 
 
 SlSorai ffoi rb al/j.a. 'Iva yti>7}, p-tra- 272. Cp. in Matt. Horn. Ixxxiii. 
 
 ActyS&j' ffttifj.a.Tos Kal a'1/j.aTos XpiaroC, p. 788. 
 
 arva-<Toi/j.os Kal awat^os O.VTOV. OUTOI ' To shew the fervour of his affec- 
 
 yap Kal xP i<rTO( P^P ' ytv6fif6a. rov tion towards us, he has mingled 
 
 crcl>fj.aros avrov Kal rov afytaroy tls himself with us, and diffused his 
 
 TO -f)fj.fTfpa avaSiSo/j.fvou jueA.7j. OUTGO, own b >dy into us, that so we may 
 
 Kara rbv fj.aK<ipiov Tlfrpov, Oftas KUL- become one thing, as a body joined 
 
 vtuvol (pvfffws ytv6/ji.e6a. Cyrill. Hie- with the head.' Cp. Cyril. Alex, 
 
 rosol. Mystag. iv. sect. 3. p. 320. In Joan. pp. 365, 862. De Sanct. 
 
 ed. Bened. Trin. p. 407. Isidor. Pelus. lib. iii. 
 
 y Chrysostom, in like manner, ep. 195. p. 333. 
 
 speaks of Christ's intermingling his N.B. Cnrysostom else where speaks 
 
 body with ours, in the Eucharist ; as highly of Baptism, and of the min- 
 
 but explains it, at length, by the gling with our Lord's body, in that 
 
 mystical union therein contracted, or Sacrament also, [in Coloss. Horn. vi. 
 
 perfected between Christ the head, p. 201]; all which means nothing but 
 
 and us his members avf/j.i^fi' the mystical union. Chamier has dis- 
 
 favrbv i]fj.1v, Kal avf<pvpf rb ff<a/j.a cussed this whole matter at large, if 
 
 aiiroD els rind.?, 'Iva. '4v TI inrdp(a[j.ei>, the reader desires further satisfac- 
 
 Ko.Qa.irfp ffu/j.a Kf<pa\rj (rvvri/j.^tvov. tion. De Eucharist, lib. xi. cap. 8, 9. 
 
 Chrysost. in Joan. Horn. xlvi. p. p. 633, &c.
 
 158 
 
 Sacramental or Symbolical 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 that it was spoken spiritually, [but taking the thing literally,] 
 were offended at it, as if he had been persuading them to devour 
 his flesh z . Hence it appears further, that our author was no 
 friend to the gross, literal construction. He proceeds as follows : 
 ' Under the New Testament we have heavenly bread, and a cup 
 of salvation, sanctifying both body and soul : for as bread 
 answers to body, so the Logos suits with the soul a .' This 
 thought may be compared with another of Clemens above, some- 
 what like, and somewhat different. But both agree in two main 
 points, that the Eucharist sanctifies the worthy receiver both in 
 body and soul, and that Christ is properly present in his Divine 
 nature. Wherefore Cyril had the more reason for pressing his 
 exhortation afterwards in high and lofty terms : ' Consider them 
 [the elements] not as mere bread and wine ; for by our Lord's 
 express declaration, they are the body and blood of Christ. 
 And though your taste may suggest that to you, [viz. that they 
 are mere bread and wine,] yet let your faith keep you firm. 
 Judge not of the thing by your taste, but under a full persuasion 
 of faith be you undoubtedly assured, that you are vouchsafed the 
 body and blood of Christ 1 '.' This he said to draw off the minds 
 
 apry Kal Tip otv<f' <reofj.a yap Kal ai'/ua 
 Xpiffrov, Kara SfairoriKTjv rvyx af>fi 
 airdtyaffiv. El yap Kal TJ afoOnffis ffoi 
 TOVTO inrof)(i\\fi, aAA" fi irlffris ffe 
 
 ''E.Kttvoi /j. 
 T>V Xfyo/ 
 
 (is TO. 6iri<T(i>, vo/j.i<it>Tes %TI 
 firl irapKo^aytaf avrovs irporpfirtTat. 
 Cyril, ibid. p. 321. 
 
 Toutte"e, the Benedictine, here 
 blames our learned Milles for ren- 
 dering ' quae spiritualiter dicebantur, 
 non intelligerent,' instead of ' quae 
 dicebantur, spiritualiter non intelli- 
 gerent.' The criticism appears too 
 nice, making a distinction without 
 a difference ; for the sense is the 
 same either way. The Capernaites 
 were here censured for not spiritu- 
 ally construing what was spiritually 
 intended ; for taking literally, what 
 was meant spiritually : which is what 
 either translation at length resolves 
 into. 
 
 a "Ev rrj Kaivrj 8ia<W)K?, lipros ovpd- 
 vios, Kal iror-fipiov crcarripiov, \]/vx?l v Ka ^ 
 ff<afj.a ayiafwra' &airep yap & apros 
 (T(afj.an KaTaAA.7jA.oy, ovrw Kal 6 \6yot 
 rrj ifuxj? ap/uJSios. Cyril, ibid. p. 231. 
 
 rb Ttpay/na. a\\' airb rrjs 
 ir\rtpo<f>opov avevSidffrtas ffta^aTos Kal 
 atjuaros Kpiffruv Karat(a6fis. Ibid. 
 p. 321. 
 
 N.B. The first Nicene Council (if 
 we may credit Gelasius) had words 
 to the same effect with these of Cy- 
 ril : not with any intent to declare 
 the nature or substance of the con- 
 secrated elements, (which none could 
 doubt of,) but to engage the atten- 
 tion to their appointed use, and to 
 the graces therein signified and con- 
 veyed. Vid. Gelas. Cyzicen. part 2. 
 concil. torn. i. p. 427. ed. Hard. 
 Cp. Albertin. p. 384, &c. Bishop 
 Moreton has largely explained it, b. 
 iv. chap. ii. sect. ii. p. 302, &c.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 159 
 
 of his audience from low and carnal apprehensions, that so they 
 might view those mysteries with the eye of faith, and not merely 
 with the eye of sense ; might look through the outward sign, to 
 the inward thing signified, and regale their spiritual taste more 
 than the sensual. This is what Cyril really meant : though 
 some moderns, coming to read him either with transubstantia- 
 tiou or consubstantiation in their heads, have amused themselves 
 with odd constructions of very innocent words. 
 
 As to his exhorting his audience not to take the elements for 
 mere bread and wine, it is just such another kind of address as 
 he had before made to them, first in relation to the waters of 
 Baptism, and next with regard to the Chrism. ' Look not to this 
 laver, as to ordinary water, but (attend) to the grace conferred 
 with the water c .' Would any sensible man conclude from hence, 
 that the water was transubstantiated, according to our author, 
 into some other substance 1 Let us go on to what he says of 
 the Chrism. ' Have a care of suspecting that this is ordinary 
 ointment, [or mere ointment] ; for, like as the sacramental 
 bread, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no more 
 bare bread, but the body of Christ, so also this holy unguent is 
 no more bare ointment, nor to be called common, after the invo- 
 cation ; but it is the grace of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, 
 endowed with special energy by the presence of his Godhead : 
 and it is symbolically spread over the forehead and other parts 
 of the body. So then the body is anointed with the visible 
 unguent, but the soul is sanctified by the enlivening Spirit d .' 
 
 I cite not this, as approving all that Cyril has here said of the 
 Chrism, (not standing upon Scripture authority,) but to give 
 light to what he has said of the Eucharist, which he compares 
 
 c Mr; is v'SoTi Atro5 irp6ffe^f T<j5 ovS' a>s civ ftiroi -ns K.OIVOV JUT' firi- 
 
 Xourpy, a\\a -rfi fjLfra TOV vSaros KX-r\aiv a\\a Xpicrrov x^P" T l Jia Ka ^ 
 
 SiSo/utV?; x V 1T <- Cyrill. Catech. iii. Trvevp.a.'ros ayiov, irapowla rfjs avrov 
 
 p. 40. Vid. Albertin. 429. Cp. Chry- Oe^Tifros fi/fpytriK^v yiv&p.tvov. oirtp 
 
 sostom.in Matt. Horn. Ixxxiii. p. 787. ffv/j.f3u\iKcos firl nerdnrov Kal TUV &\- 
 
 d 'AAA' '6pa fj.^j unwo^tnjs txtlvo rb \<av ffov xplerat alff0ijTT)pi<av. Kal ry 
 
 /j.vpov if/i\bv flvai' Siffirtp yap o &pros (patt'o/j.fvw ftvpy rd ffca/^a xpifrai, rif 
 
 rrjs *i>xaprr/as, /uera r^jv 4ir'iK\T)(nv 5t ayicp Kal faiojroia) irvtv/j.ari f) ^v\r] 
 
 TOV aylov iri/tvfuaTos, OVK fn apros ayideTat. Mystag. iii. p. 3 1-7. 
 
 Airor, aAAa o-Si/j.a Xpitrrov, ovrca KOJ. Cp. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism. 
 
 r<5 ayiov TOVTO /j.vpov OVK TI \l/t\ov, torn. iii. p. 369.
 
 160 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 with the other, while he supposes the cases parallel. He con- 
 ceived the elements in one case, and the unguent in the other, to 
 be exhibitive symbols of spiritual graces, instrumentally convey- 
 ing what they represent. The bread and wine, according to his 
 doctrine, are symbolically the body and blood : and by symboli- 
 cally he means the very same thing which I have otherwise 
 expressed by saying, that they are the body and blood in just 
 construction and beneficial effect. What Cyril feared with respect 
 to Baptism, and the Eucharist, and the Unction, was, that many in 
 low life (coming perhaps from the plough, the spade, or the pale) 
 might be dull of apprehension, and look no higher than to what 
 they saw, felt, or tasted. Upon the like suspicion was grounded 
 the ancient solemn preface to the Communion Service, called 
 Sursum Corda by the Latins : wherein the officiating minister 
 admonished the communicants to lift up their hearts, and they 
 made answer, We lift them up unto the Lord e . 
 
 To make the point we have been upon still plainer, let Cyril 
 be heard again, as he expresses the thing in a succeeding lecture. 
 ' You hear the Psalmist with divine melody inviting you to the 
 communion of the holy mysteries, and saying, Taste and see 
 how gracious the Lord is. Leave it not to the bodily palate to 
 judge : no, but to faith clear of all doubting. For the tasters 
 are not commanded to taste bread and wine, but the antitype 
 [symbol] of the body and blood of Christ f .' Here our author 
 plainly owns the elements to be types, or symbols (as he had 
 done also before,) and therefore not the very things whereof they 
 are symbols ; not literally and strictly, but interpretatively, mys- 
 tically, and to all saving purposes and intents ; which suffices s. 
 
 e "A.vw ras KapSias. Cyril. Mystag. TCU yev<raa6a.i, aAAa avriTvirou craJ/ua- 
 
 v. p. 326. Cyprian, de Orat. Domiu. ros Kal afytaros rov Xpio-rov. Mystag. 
 
 p. 213, alias 152. Cp. Bingham, b. v. p. 331. 
 
 xv. c. 3. sect. 3. Renaudot. Liturg. K Deylingius seems to wonder at 
 
 Orient, vol. i. p. 226. Mr. Aubertine and Mr. Claude for 
 
 f 'AKOvere rov ^dAAoi/ros, jtsri fit- under-commenting, as he conceives, 
 
 \ovs Ofiov irporpfTrofj.fi>ov fytas ts TV with respect to Cyril : Deyling. Ob- 
 
 Koivuvlav riav ayiwv nvffrrjp'uev, Kol serv. Miscell. p. 157. But he attempts 
 
 Ae-yoj/Tos, ytvaaffQe ical fSere art xP"n~ no * to confute what they had said : it 
 
 ffrbs 6 Kvpios. M^7 rtj> \dpvyyi ry <TO>- was wiser to forbear. The utmost 
 
 /uaTc tTrirptirere ro Kpinic6v. ouxi. that any one can justly make of the 
 
 oAAa TTJ a.vtv5oidffr<f irlffrfi. ytvope- very strongest expressions in Cyril, 
 
 voi yap OVK Itprov Kal olvov Kt\fvoi>- can amount only to a mystical union
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 161 
 
 It is no marvel, if Mr. Toutte h and other Romanists interpret 
 Cyril to quite another purpose : but one may justly wonder how 
 the learned and impartial Dr. Grabe should construe Cyril in 
 that gross sense, which he mentions under the name of aug- 
 mentation i. I presume, he read Cyril with an eye to modern 
 controversy, and did not consider him as speaking to mechanics 
 and day-labourers : or, he was not aware of the difference there 
 is betAveen telling men what they are to believe, and what they 
 ought to attend to, which was Cyril's chief aim. As to believing, 
 he very well knew that every one would believe his senses^ 
 and take bread to be bread, and wine to be wine, as himself 
 believed also : but he was afraid of their attending so entirely 
 to the report of their senses, as to forget the reports of sacred 
 Writ, which ought to be considered at the same time, and with 
 closer attention than the other, as being of everlasting concern- 
 ment. In short, he intended no lecture of faith against eyesight : 
 but he endeavoured, as much as possible, to draw off their atten- 
 tion k from the objects of sense to the object of faith, and from 
 the signs to the things signified. 
 
 It has been urged, as of moment, that Cyril compared the 
 change made in the Eucharist to the miraculous change of water 
 into wine wrought by our Lord in Cana of Galilee \ It is true 
 that he did so : but similitudes commonly are no arguments of 
 anything more than of some general resemblance. There was 
 power from above in that case, and so is there in this : and it 
 
 of Christ's body with the faithful com- (Deyling. Observat. Miscell. Exercit. 
 
 muuicaiits, as members of him; which ii. p. 163, &c.) Only I may note, by 
 
 is such an union as St. Paul resembles the way, that he has strained some 
 
 to that whereby man and wife are one things in favour of the Lutheran prin- 
 
 flesh, (Eph. v. 30, 31,) and which un- ciples, and has better confuted the 
 
 doubtedly is a moral union, indepen- Romanists than he has established 
 
 dent of local presence. his own hypothesis. 
 
 h Touttee, Dissert, iii. prefixed to ' Grabe, ad Tren. lib. v. cap. 2. in 
 his new edition of Cyril, c. ix. p. 204, notis, p. 399. Cp. Deyling. Obser- 
 &c. The reader may compare Alber- vat. Miscellan. p. 177. 
 tinus, (p. 422,) who had sufficiently k 'In Sacramentis non quid sint, 
 obviated everything pleadable on the sed quid ostendant, attenditur ; quo- 
 side of the Romanists. Compare also niam signa sunt rerum, aliud existen- 
 Johnson, (Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. tia et aliud significantia.' Augustin. 
 p. 257,) who has well defended Cyril contr. Max. lib. iii. cap. 22 : cp. de 
 on this head, and Deylhigius, who in Doct. Christ, cap. 7. 
 a set discourse has replied to Toutte"e. J Cyril. Mystag. iv. sect. 2. p. 320. 
 
 M
 
 1 62 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 may be justly called a supernatural power m ; not upon the ele- 
 meuts to change their nature, but upon the communicants to add 
 spiritual strength to their souls. The operation in the Eucharist 
 is no natural work of any creature, but the supernatural grace 
 of God's Holy Spirit. Therefore Cyril's thought was not much 
 amiss, in resembling one supernatural operation to another, 
 agreeing in the general thing, differing in specialities. In a 
 large sense of the word miracle, there are miracles of grace, as 
 well as miracles of nature ; and the same Divine power operates 
 in both, but in a different way, as the ends and objects are 
 different. 
 
 I shall proceed no further with the Fathers on this head, be- 
 cause it would be tedious, and in a manner endless. None of 
 them, that I know of, carried the doctrine higher than this 
 Cyril did; but most of them, somewhere or other, added par- 
 ticular guards and explanations". All intended to say, that 
 the elements keeping their own nature and substance, aiid not 
 admitting a coalition with any other bodily substance, are sym- 
 bolically or in mystical construction, the body and blood of Christ ; 
 being appointed as such by Christ, accepted as such by God the 
 Father, and made such in effect by the Holy Spirit, to every faith- 
 ful receiver. So ran the general doctrine from the beginning 
 and downwards : neither am I aware of any considerable change 
 
 m 'Nequequaerituraut con trover- ' Sacramentum corporis et sangui- 
 
 titur an panis et vinum supernatural! nis ejus, quod est in pane et calice 
 
 virtu te, et omnipotentia divina a com- consecrato, corpus ejus et sanguinera 
 
 muni elementorum usu, in sublimi- dicimus : non quod proprie corpus 
 
 orem usum et dignitatem transmu- ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis, 
 
 tentur : fatemur enim in Sacramen- sed quod in se mysterium corporis 
 
 tis omnino necesse esse, caelestem et ejus sanguinisque contineant. Hinc 
 
 Bupernafruralemmutationem superve- et ipse Dominus benedictum panem 
 
 nire, nee posse fieri Sacramentum nisi et calicem, quern discipul is tradidit, 
 
 per onmipotentiam Dei, cujus solius corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. 
 
 est Sacramenta in ecclesia instituere, Quocirca, sicut Christi fideles, Sacra- 
 
 ipsisqne efficaciam tribuere.' Cosin. mentum corporis et sanguinis ejus 
 
 Hist. Transubst. cap. iv. p. 35 ; cp. accipientes, corpus et sanguinem 
 
 p. 1 24. Compare Johnson, Unbloody Christi recte dicuntur accipere ; sic 
 
 Sacrifice, part i. p. 258, alias 261. Al- et ipse Christus Sacramentum adop- 
 
 bertin. 855. tionis filiorum cum suscepisset, potuit 
 
 n For a specimen, we may take recte dici adoptionem filiorum ac- 
 
 notice of Facundus, as late as the cepisse.' Facund. Hermian. lib. ix. 
 
 middle of the sixth century, who cap. 5. Cp. Ephraem. Antioch. in 
 
 writes thus: Phot. Cod. 229. p. 793.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 163 
 
 made in it till the dark ages came on, the eighth, ninth, tenth, 
 and following centuries . The corruptions which grew up by 
 degrees, and prevailed more and more till the happy days of 
 reformation, are very well known P, and need no particular 
 recital. 
 
 Luther first, and afterwards Zuinglius, attempted a reform in 
 this article : but it was difficult to clear off the thick darkness 
 all at once ; and so neither of them did it to such perfection as 
 might have been wished. One threw off transubstantiation very 
 justly, but yet retained I know not what corporal, local presence, 
 and therefore did not retrench enough : the other threw off all 
 corporal and local presence very rightly, but threw off withal 
 (or too much neglected) the spiritual presence and spiritual 
 graces : which was retrenching a great deal too much q. It must 
 however be owned, that apologies have been since made for 
 Zuinglius, as for one that erred in expression rather than in real 
 meaning, or that corrected his sentiments on second thoughts r . 
 And it is certain that his friends and followers, within awhile, 
 came into the old and true notion of spiritual benefits 8 , and left 
 the low notion of naked signs and figures to the Anabaptists of 
 those times ; where they rested, till again revived by the Socin- 
 ians, who afterwards handed them down to the Eemonstrants. 
 
 Calvin came after Zuinglius, and refined upon his scheme, 
 steering a kind of middle course, between the extremes. He 
 appears to have set oift right, laying his groundwork with 
 good judgment : and had he but as carefully built upon it after- 
 
 See 1'Arroque, Hist, of the Eu- edit. Bened. A. D. 1215, the doc- 
 
 charist, part ii. cap. 12, 13, &c. trine was made an article of faith by 
 
 P In the year 787 the second Coun- the Lateran Council, under Innocent 
 
 cil of Nice began with a rash deter- the Third. Afterwards, it was re- 
 
 mination, that the sacred symbols established in the Trent Council, 
 
 are not figures or images at all, but A. D. 1551, and at length in Pope 
 
 the very body and blood. About Pius's Creed, A. D. 1 564. 
 
 831, Paschasius Radbertus carried it i Vid. Calvin, de Coena Domini, 
 
 further, even to transubstantiation, p. 10. et contr. Westphal. pp. 707, 
 
 or somewhat very like to it. The 774. 
 
 name of transubstantiation is sup- r See Archbishop Wake, Discourse 
 
 posed to have come in about A. D. on the Holy Eucharist, p. 83. 
 
 1 100, first mentioned by Hildebertus See Hooker, vol. ii. p. 327. 
 Cenomanensis of that time, p. 689. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 wards, no fault could have been justly found. In the first edition 
 of his Institutions, (printed at Basil A. D. 1536,) he writes thus : 
 'We say that they [the body and blood] are truly and efficaciously 
 exhibited to us, but not naturally. By which we mean, not that 
 the very substance of his body, or that the real and natural body 
 of Christ are there given, but all the benefits which Christ pro- 
 cured for us in his body. This is that presence of his body 
 which the nature of a Sacrament requires *.' This came very 
 near the truth, and the whole truth : only there was an ambiguity, 
 which he was not aware of, in the words there given ; and so, 
 for want of a proper distinction, his account was too confused. 
 He should have said, that the natural body is there given, but 
 not there present, which is what he really meant. The mystical 
 union with our Lord's glorified body is there (or in that service) 
 strengthened, or perfected ; as a right may be given to a distant 
 possession : and such union as we now speak of, requires no 
 local presence of Christ's body. Here that great man and illus- 
 trious reformer was somewhat embroiled, and could never suffi- 
 ciently extricate himself afterwards. He was well aware, that 
 to assert only an application of the merit or virtue of Christ's 
 passion, in the Eucharist, came not fully up to many strong 
 expressions of the ancient Fathers relating to our union with 
 the natural and now glorified body : nay, it appeared to fall short 
 of St. Paul's doctrine, which represents the true disciples of 
 Christ, as members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones u . 
 I say, Calvin was well aware of this difficulty, and more especially 
 after he had been warmly pressed on that head, in his disputes 
 with the Lutherans. So he found himself to be under a neces- 
 sity of bringing in the natural body some way or other w , but did 
 
 * ' Dicimus vere et efficaciter exhi- w 'Neque enim mortis tantum ac 
 
 beri, non autem naturaliter. Quo sci- resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis 
 
 licet significamus, non substantiam offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum iu 
 
 ipsam corporis, seu verum et naturale quo passus est et resurrexit. Con- 
 
 Christi corpus illic dari, sed omnia cludo, realiter, hoc est vere, nobis in 
 
 quae in suo corpore nobis beneficia coena dari Chi isti corpus, ut sit ani- 
 
 Christus praestitit. Ea est corporis mis nostris in cibum salutarem In- 
 
 praesentia quaoi Sacramenti ratio telligo, substantia corporis pasci ani- 
 
 postulat.' Calvin. Instit. apud Wake, mas nostras, ut vere unum efficiamur 
 
 p- 47- cum eo : vel, quod idem valet, vim 
 
 u Ephes. v. 30. ex Christ! carne vivificam in nos per
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 165 
 
 it a little confusedly, and out of course. He made it the ground x , 
 instead of reckoning it among the fruits : and he supposed the 
 glorified body to be, as it were, eaten in the Eucharist, when he 
 should only have said, that it became more perfectly united with 
 ours : and he further invented an obscure and unintelligible 
 notion of the virtue of Christ's flesh being brought down from 
 heaven and diffused all around, by the power of the Holy Spirit v . 
 All which perplexity seems to have been owing to the wrong 
 stating of a notion, which yet was true in the main, and which 
 wanted only to be better adjusted, by a more orderly ranging of 
 ideas, or by new casting it; which has been done since. 
 
 Our Divines, who came after Calvin, had some advantage in 
 point of time, and a greater still in the rule or method which 
 they pitched upon, as most proper to proceed by : which was, 
 not to strike out any new hypothesis or theories by strength of 
 wit, but to inquire after the old paths, and there to abide. Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer took this method : he was a judicious man, and 
 a well-read Divine ; and more particularly in what concerns the 
 Eucharist. We have the sum of his doctrine in the first page 
 of his preface. 
 
 'Where I use to speake sometymes, (as the olde authours 
 doo,) that Christe is in the Sacramentes, I meane the same as 
 they dyd understand the mattier : that is to say, not of Christes 
 carnall presence in the outwarde Sacrament, but sometymes of 
 his sacramentall presence ; and sometyme by this woorde sacra- 
 ment I meane the whole mynistration and receyvynge of the 
 Sacramentes, eyther of Baptisrne or of the Lordes Supper. And 
 
 Spiritum diffundi. quamvis longe a hensibili spiritus virtute ex carnis 
 
 nobisdistat, nee raisceatur nobiscum.' Christi substantia in nos diffundi.' 
 
 Calvin, in I Cor. xi. 24. p. 392. Cp. Calvin, contr. Westphal. p. 842. 
 
 contr. Westphal. pp. 774, 784. cp. 843. 
 
 1 Vid. Beza, Orat. apud Placaei 'Corpus quod nequaquam cernis, 
 
 Comment, de Stat. Relig. p. 1 12. Bi- spirituale est tibi alimentum. In- 
 
 shop Cosin follows the same way of credibilehocvidetur,pasci nos Christ 
 
 speaking ; Histor. Transubstan. pp. carne, quae tarn procul a nobis dis- 
 
 35- 43' 44) 45- **t? memineiimus, arcanum et miri- 
 
 y 'Plus centies occurrit in scriptis ficum esse. Spiritus Sancti opus, 
 
 meis, adeo me non rejicere substan- quod intelligentiae tuae modulo me- 
 
 tiae nomen, ut ingenue et libere pro- tin sit nefas.' Calvin, in I Cor. xi. 
 
 fitear spiritualem vitam, incompre- 24. p. 392.
 
 1 66 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 so the olde writers many tymes dooe say, that Christe and the 
 Holy Ghoste be present in the Sacramentes ; not meanynge by 
 that manner of speache, that Christe and the Holy Ghoste be 
 presente in the water, bread, or wyne, (whiche be only the out- 
 ward vysyble Sacramentes,) but that in the dewe mynistration 
 of the Sacramentes, accordynge to Christes ordynance and insti- 
 tution, Christe and his Holy Spirite be trewly and indede present 
 by their mighty and sanctifying power, virtue, and grace in all 
 them that worthily receyve the same. Moreover, when I saye 
 and repeate many tymes in my booke, that the body of Christ 
 is present in them that worthyly receave the Sacramente, leaste 
 any man shulde mystake my woordes, and thynke that I mean, 
 that although Christe be not corporally in the outward visible 
 sygnes, yet hee is corporally in the persones that duely receive 
 them ; this is to advertise the reader, that I meane no suche 
 thynge : but my meanyng is, that the force, the grace, the virtue, 
 and benefyte of Christes bodye that was crucifyed for us, and 
 of his bloudde that was shedde for us, be really and effectually 
 present with all them that duely receave the Sacramentes. But 
 all this I understande of his spiritual presence, of the whyche 
 hee saythe, I wyll bee with you untyll the worldes ende : and, 
 Wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, 
 there am I in the myddes of them : and, He that eateth my 
 fleshe, and drynketh my bloude, dwelleth in me, and I in hym. 
 Nor no more truely is he corporally or really presente in the 
 due mynistration of the Lordes Supper, than he is in the due 
 mynistration of Baptisme z .' It is observable, that our judicious 
 author wisely avoids saying anything of the eating of Christ's 
 glorified body, for he speaks of the crucified only, and justly ex- 
 plains the spiritual manducation of it. He drops all mention here 
 of the mystical union with the body glorified, and so his account 
 may be thought a little defective as to that particular : but he 
 frequently takes notice of it in his book, as one of the effects or 
 
 1 Cranmer's Answ. to Gardiner, ever in the Scripture it is said that 
 
 edit. 1551. In the edition of 1580 Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost is 
 
 there is added, to the passage cited, in any man, the same is understood 
 
 as follows : ' That is to say, in both spiritually by grace.' 
 spiritually by grace : and whereso-
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 167 
 
 fruits of the spiritual manducation in the Eucharist, which 
 strengthens and confirms the worthy receivers as members of 
 Christ's natural body a . 
 
 I may spare myself the trouble of reciting the sentiments of 
 Bishop Ridley, and Bishop Latimer, and Mr. Bradford of that 
 time, and of Bishop Jewel who came not long after : for they all 
 agreed, in the main things, with Archbishop Cranmer, who may 
 therefore be looked upon as 'instar omnium,' while in him we 
 have all. I shall only take notice how our acutest Divines have, 
 time after time, hit off the difficulties which were once very 
 perplexing, by the use of proper distinctions, between the body 
 crucified and the body glorified ; as likewise between manduca- 
 tion and union. It will be sufficient to name two of them : one 
 wrote as early as the days of Queen Elizabeth, and the other as 
 late as King James the Second. 
 
 Dr. William Barlow b , in the year 1601, published a treatise 
 entitled, A Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Religion ; 
 which he dedicated to Bancroft, then Bishop of London : he 
 occasionally says something upon our present subject, which 
 may be worth the noting, though the style is not the most 
 commendable. 
 
 ' Great difference there is (perchance not observed by many) 
 between our eating of Christ, and our uniting with him c 
 
 ' i. We eat him as our Passover d ; that as the Israelites 
 ate the one " mortuum et assum," dead and roasted e , so we him 
 " crucifixum et passum," dead and slain. And so that speech of 
 St. Austin is true, we have him here " in pabulo" as he was " in 
 patibulo," torn and rent : as himself ordained the Sacrament " in 
 pane fracto," not " integro," the bread broken, not the whole loaf ; 
 thereby signifying, yea saying, that in doing it we must remember 
 him, not as living among us, but as dying for us ; " ut in cruce, 
 non in caelo," as he was crucified, not as he is glorified. Whereby 
 
 a Cranmer, pp. 16, 27, 43,44, 161, Bishop of Rochester in 1605, trans- 
 
 174, 199. Compare Jewel, Answ. to lated to Lincoln in 1608, died 1613. 
 Harding, art. v. p. 354, &c. c Barlow's Defence, &c. p. 124, 
 
 b The same that published a rela- &c. 
 tion of the Hampton Court Con- d 2 Cor. v. 7. 
 ference in 1604, an< l wa ^ made e Exod. xii. 9.
 
 1 68 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 we conclude, first, for his presence, that his body is so far forth 
 there " quatenus editur," as it is eaten : but his body is eaten 
 as dead and slain ; so himself appointed it, This is my body, 
 and stayeth not there, but adds withal, Which is given for you. 
 And his blood is drunk, not as remaining in his veins, but as 
 shed : so himself speaketh, This is my blood of the new testa- 
 ment SHED for many. Now, his body bruised, and his blood 
 poured out, can no otherwise be present in the Eucharist, but 
 by a representation thereof in the bread broken, and in the wine 
 effused, of the one side ; and on the communicant's part, by a 
 grateful recordation of the benefits, a reverent valuation of the 
 sacrifice, a faithful application of his merits in his whole passion : 
 and therefore his presence must be saci*arnental, and our eating 
 spiritual ; for, " non quod videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit," 
 saith St. Austin. 
 
 ' 2. For the union, we are united to him "ut viventi," as our 
 living head, " et nos vivificanti," and making us his lively mem- 
 bers. It is true which Christ saith, that He which eateth my flesh, 
 abideth in me, and I in him f . Not that this union is first 
 begun in our participation of that holy Supper, (for none can 
 truly eat the body of Christ, unless he be first united with him, 
 and ingrafted into him : " nee vere edit corpus Christi, qui non 
 est de corpore Christi," saith St. Austin,) because " prima unio," 
 (saith Aquinas,) the first union between God and man is begun 
 in Baptism by one Spirit ?, as the Apostle speaketh, and con- 
 tinueth, by faith, hope, and charity ; all these the operation of 
 the same Spirit. 
 
 ' But if we truly eat the body, and drink the blood of Christ, 
 then by the power of the Holy Ghost, and faith co-operating, this 
 union is strengthened, the vigour and effects whereof, after a 
 true participation, we shall feel within ourselves more forcible 
 and lively. ... Is not Christ as present in Baptism, as in the 
 Eucharist 1 for in them both we communicate with him ; bred 
 anew in the one, fed anew in the other : and yet Christ's real 
 presence is not challenged for Baptism. If they say : No, because 
 of the Eucharist it was said, This is my body and blood, not so 
 1 John vi. 56. I Cor. xii. 13.
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. 169 
 
 of Baptism ; I answer : As much, if not more, was spoken by 
 the Apostle ; They which are baptized have put on Christ h . 
 Put him on we cannot, unless he be present : and the putting 
 him on is even the very same which he elsewhere calleth Christ's 
 dwelling in us \ namely, that in Baptism we are so transformed, 
 as now not we, but Christ alone doth live within us k ; as near 
 an unity as may 1 . And in truth St. Austin is out of doxibt, 
 that in Baptism the true member of Christ " corporis et sanguinis 
 Domini particeps fit," is partaker of the body and blood of the 
 Lord m : and therefore no reason withstands, but that he should 
 be really present in both, or in neithei*.' Thus far Bishop Barlow, 
 whose words I have here quoted at length, chiefly for the sake 
 of the distinction (as it is a very good one) between the mandu- 
 cation and the union; the former relating properly to Christ 
 considered as crucified and slain, and the latter to Christ con- 
 sidered as glorified and living for evermore. We eat him as from 
 the cross ; that is, we partake of the merits of his passion ; and 
 one of the fruits of his passion is our mystical union with his body 
 now glorified in heaven. One thing only I think wants correcting 
 in Barlow's account, that he seems to make the union antecedent 
 in natural order to the manducation ; which, I conceive, was 
 needless with respect to his argument, and is besides wrong in 
 itself, since our reconciliation by the death of Christ is, in 
 
 h Gal. iii. 27. Cp. Phot. Amphi- Christ is so really present in both 
 
 loch, apud Wolf. Cur. Crit. vol. ult. Sacraments, or in neither. If Christ 
 
 p. 737. means whole Christ, he must be as 
 
 1 Ephes. iii. 17. N. B. The obser- much present in body, to be put on 
 
 vation here urged appears to be per- in Baptism, as to be orally taken in 
 
 fectly just, and may be of great use the Eucharist : but who sees not that 
 
 for discovering the weakness of the this is straining figurative expressions 
 
 pleas made for the real and local pre- to a most extravagant excess ? 
 sence in the other Sacrament. The k Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 learnedBuddseus.forinstance, pleads, * I may here note, that the learned 
 
 that the giving of the body cannot Wolfius on Gal. iii. 27 allows, that 
 
 be understood without such real pre- the putting on Christ implies 'arctis- 
 
 sence of the body ; and that no com- simam communionem,' (p. 740,) the 
 
 munion can be without such real closest communion. Now compare 
 
 presence : ' Koivtavia inter res quae sibi Buddaeus's argument, or maxim, built 
 
 invicem praesentes non sunt, esse upon the word communion, as imply- 
 
 nequit.' In>titut. Theol. Dogmat. ing real presence, and then jiidge of 
 
 lib. v. cap. i. p. 1094. ^ ie ar g u " the conclusion resulting from the 
 
 ment manifestly proves too much ; premises, 
 proving (as Bar'ow well notes) that m See Fulgentius above, p. 564.
 
 170 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 natural oi'der of conception, prior to all the blessings and privi- 
 leges arising from it. It is true that Baptism must be before 
 the Eucharist, and that the mystical union is begun in Baptism : 
 but then, (as our author himself afterwards very justly observes) 
 we partake of our Lord's body broken, and blood shed, that is, 
 of his death and passion, even in Baptism ; and that is the 
 ground and foundation of all our other Christian privileges. 
 
 Another excellent writer, whom I had in my eye, and now 
 intend to cite, is Dr. Aldrich, who in the year 1687 published a 
 valuable pamphlet, entitled a Reply to Two Discourses, where, 
 in a very clear and elegant style, and with great acuteness, he 
 has hit off the main difficulties relating to the real presence. He 
 writes thus : 
 
 ' The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a two- 
 fold consideration in the Eucharist : 
 
 ' i. As a body dead : under which notion we are said to eat it 
 in the Sacrament, and to drink the blood as shed ; as appears 
 by the words of the institution, Take and eat ; this is my body, 
 which is given or broken for you : drink ye all of this ; for this 
 is my blood, which is shed for you : in which words, as Mr. 
 Bradford long ago observed, what God has joined, we are not to 
 put asunder. 
 
 '2. As a glorified body : in which condition it now sits at the 
 right hand of God, and shall there continue till the restitution 
 of all things, imparting grace and influence, and all the benefits 
 purchased by the sacrifice of the dead body, to those that, in 
 the holy Eucharist most especially, are through faith and the 
 marvellous operation of the Holy Ghost, incorporated into Christ, 
 and so united to him, that they dwell in Christ and Christ in 
 them, they are one with Christ and Christ with them, they are 
 made members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones ; and by 
 partaking of the spirit of him their head, receive all the graces 
 and benefits purchased for them by his bitter death and passion. 
 
 'Wherefore it is evident, that since the body broken, and blood 
 shed, neither do nor can now really exist, they neither can be 
 really present, nor literally eaten or drank ; nor can we really 
 receive them, but only the benefits purchased by them. But the
 
 vii. feeding in the Eucharist. iji 
 
 body which now exists, whereof we partake, and to which we 
 are united, is the glorified body : which is therefore verily and 
 indeed received . . . and by consequence said to be really present, 
 notwithstanding its local absence ; because a real participation 
 and union must needs imply a real presence, though they do not 
 necessarily require a local one. For it is easy to conceive, how 
 a thing that is locally absent may yet be really received, ... as 
 we commonly say, a man receives an estate, or inheritance, when 
 he receives the deeds or conveyances of it. ... The reception is 
 confessedly real, though the thing itself is not locally or circum- 
 scriptively present, or literally grasped in the arms of the re- 
 ceiver The Protestants all agree, that we spiritually eat 
 
 Christ's body, and drink his blood ; that we neither eat, nor drink, 
 nor receive the dead body, nor the blood shed, but only the bene- 
 fits purchased by them ; that those benefits are derived to us by 
 virtue of our union and communion with the glorified body 11 , 
 and that our partaking of it and union with it is effected by 
 the mysterious and ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit. . . . 
 
 ' Now though it be easy, as I said before, to conceive how a 
 natural substance may be said to be really received, though not 
 locally present, it is not so easy to conceive it really present, 
 when at the same time it is locally absent. Therefore the Church 
 of England has wisely forborne to use the term of " real presence," 
 in all the books that are set forth by her authority. We neither 
 find it recommended in the Liturgy, nor the Articles, nor the 
 Homilies, nor the Church's, nor Nowell's Catechism. ... So that 
 if any Church of England man use it, he does more than the 
 Church directs him : if any reject it, he has the Church's 
 
 example to warrant him Yet it must not be denied but the 
 
 term may be safely used amongst scholars, and seems to be 
 grounded upon Scripture itself . . . . 
 
 ' So much for the use of the word ; which when we of the 
 Church of England use, we mean thus : A thing may be said to 
 be really received, which is so consigned to us, that we can really 
 
 D How this is to be understood, see above, pp. 96, 97. 
 Here the author refers to several texts, Matthew xviii. 20 ; xxviii. 20 ; 
 I Cor. v. 3.
 
 172 Sacramental or Symbolical CHAP. 
 
 employ it to all those purposes for which it is useful in itself, 
 and we have occasion to use it. And a thing thus really received 
 may be said to be really present, two ways, either physically or 
 morally, to which we reduce sacramentally. ... In the holy Eu- 
 charist, the Sacrament is physically, the res sacramenti morally 
 present ; the elements antecedently and locally ; the very body 
 consequentially and virtually, but both really present. . . . When 
 we say that Christ is present ... in the Sacrament, we do not 
 
 mean in the elements, but in the celebration This doctrine is 
 
 sufficiently removed from what the pamphlet calls Zuinglianism, 
 (how truly, I will not now inquire,) for we do not hold that we 
 barely receive the effects and benefits of Christ's body, but we 
 hold it really present inasmuch as it is really received, and we 
 actually put in possession of it, though locally absent from us P.' 
 
 I have transcribed thus much, because the account is just, and 
 because the pamphlet and defence of it are not, it may be, com- 
 monly known. The sum of all is, that sacramental or symbolical 
 feeding in the Eucharist is feeding upon the body broken and 
 blood shed, under the signs and symbols of bread and wine : the 
 result of such feeding, is the strengthening or perfecting our 
 mystical union with the body glorified ; and so, properly speak- 
 ing, we feed upon the body as dead, and we receive it into closer 
 union as living, and both in the Eucharist when duly celebrated. 
 
 Nothing now remains, before I close up this chapter, but to 
 hint very briefly the use of the foregoing principles for the clear- 
 ing off difficulties, and for the removing the objections raised by 
 contending parties of various kinds. 
 
 i. To the Romanists, who plead warmly for the very body and 
 blood in the Eucharist, we make answer, that we do receive the 
 very body and blood in it, and through it, as properly as a 
 man receives an estate, and becomes possessed of an inheritance 
 by any deeds or conveyances : and what would they have more ? 
 Will nothing satisfy, except the wax and parchments be tran- 
 substantiated into terra firma, or every instrument converted 
 into arable 1 Surely, that is pushing points too far, and turn- 
 ing things most serious into perfect ridicule. 
 
 P Dr. Aldrich's Reply to Two Discourses, pp. 13 18.
 
 vii. feeding In the Eucharist. 173 
 
 2. To the Lutherans, who seem to contend for a mixture of 
 the visible elements with the body invisible, we have this to 
 reply, that we readily admit of a symbolical delivery, or convey- 
 ance, of one by the other ; which effectually answers every good 
 end and purpose, as it suits also extremely well with the Scrip- 
 ture phraseology in those cases. And though we admit not, that 
 our Lord's body is locally present in the Sacrament, or any where 
 so present but in heaven ; yet so long as it is really united in 
 one mystical body with ours, or rather is considered as the head 
 with the members, we think that may suffice ; and we need not 
 desire any closer alliance, on this side heaven, than such an union 
 amounts to. 
 
 3. To the Calvinists of the ancient stamp, (if any such remained 
 now,) we might reply, that though we eat not Christ's glorified 
 body in the Eucharist, yet we really receive it, while we receive 
 it into closer mystical union than before : and, though we know 
 nothing of the diffusion of any virtue of Christ's flesh, (which 
 would not profit,) yet we have the power and presence of his 
 Godhead with us, and, at the same time, a virtual or mystical 
 union Avith his body, sufficient to make us, in Divine construction 
 and Divine acceptance, one with him : ' For we ai - e members of 
 his body, of his flesh, and of his bones Q.' 
 
 4. To the Zuinglian Sacramentarians, old Anabaptists, Soci- 
 nians, and Remonstrants, who will not admit of any medium 
 between local corporal presence, and no presence at all as to 
 beneficial effects, no medium between the natural body itself, and 
 mere signs and figures ; to them we rejoin, that there is no 
 necessity of falling in with either extreme ; because there is a 
 medium, a very just one, and where indeed the truth lies. For 
 though there is no corporal presence, yet there is a spiritual one, 
 exhibitive of Divine blessings and graces : and though we eat 
 not Christ's natural glorified body in the Sacrament, or out of it, 
 yet our mystical union with that very body is strengthened and 
 perfected in and through the Sacrament, by the operation of the 
 Holy Spirit. This appears to be both sense and truth ; and 
 shall be more largely made out in the sequel. 
 
 i Eplies. v. 30,
 
 174 Sacramental feeding in the Eucharist. CHAP. 
 
 5. To those who admit not that the natural body of Christ is 
 in any sense received at all, but imagine that the elements, as 
 impregnated or animated with the Spirit, are the only body 
 received, and are made our Lord's body by such union with the 
 Spirit r ; I say, 'to those we make answer, that the union of the 
 Spirit with the elements (rather than with the persons) appears 
 to be a gross notion, and groundless : and if it were admitted, yet 
 could it not make the elements, in any just sense, our Lord's 
 body, but the notion would resolve into a kind of impanation of 
 the Spirit, for the time. Besides that the consequence would be, 
 that the Lord's body is received by all communicants, worthy or 
 unworthy s , which is not the truth of the case. Wherefore to 
 avoid all such needless suppositions and needless perplexities, let 
 us be content to teach only this plain doctrine ; that we eat 
 Christ crucified in this Sacrament, as we partake of the merits 
 of his death : and if we thus have part in his crucified body, we 
 are thereby ipso facto made partakers of the body glorified ; 
 that is, we receive our Lord's body into a closer union than 
 before, and become his members by repeated and stronger ties ; 
 provided we come worthily to the holy table, and that there is 
 no just obstacle, on our part, to stop the current of Divine 
 graces. 
 
 I may shut up this account with the excellent words of Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer, as follows, only put into the modern spelling : 
 
 'The first Catholic Christian faith is most plain, clear, and 
 comfortable, without any difficulty, scruple, or doubt : that is to 
 say, that our Saviour Christ, although he be sitting in heaven, 
 
 r This seems to be Mr. Johnson's stood merely of the essential presence 
 
 notion, in the Unbloody Sacrifice, &c. extending equally to all creatures, 
 
 part 5. p. 247. And it is very near but of a gracious presence : and if 
 
 akin, so far, to that of the modern such gracious presence is vouchsafed 
 
 Greek Church, as represented by Mr. to the unworthy as well as worthy, 
 
 Claude in his Catholic Doctrine of then the benefits must be common 
 
 the Eucharist, part i. book iii. c. 13. to all, and none can eat and drink 
 
 p. 218. their own damnation. The funda- 
 
 If the elements are supposed to mental error of this hypothesis, (as 
 
 be united to, or enriched with the also of the Lutheran and the Romish,) 
 
 Spirit, all that receive must of course is the connecting the grace of the 
 
 receive the Spirit, and be sanctified Sacrament with the elements, in- 
 
 by him. For the presence of the stead of looking for it in the person* 
 
 Spirit, in this case, is not to be under- only.
 
 vm. i Cor. x. 16, &c. explained. 175 
 
 in equality with his Father, is our life, strength, food, and sus- 
 tenance ; who by his death delivered us from death, and daily 
 nourishes and increases us to eternal life. And in token hereof, 
 he hath prepared bread to be eaten, and wine to be drunk of us 
 in his holy Supper, to put us in remembrance of his said death, 
 and of the celestial feeding, nourishing, increasing, and of all the 
 benefits which we have thereby : which benefits, through faith 
 and the Holy Ghost, are exhibited and given unto all that 
 worthily receive the said holy Supper. This the husbandman at 
 his plough, the weaver at his loom, and the wife at her rock, can 
 remember, and give thanks unto God for the same : this is the 
 very doctrine of the Gospel, with the consent Avholly of all the 
 old ecclesiastical doctors V 
 
 My readers, I hope, will excuse it, if in the course of this chapter 
 I have been obliged sometimes to suppose some things, which are 
 hereafter to be proved : I could not avoid it, without rendering 
 the whole intricate and obscure. What relates to spiritual graces 
 in particular, as conveyed in the Eucharist, shall be distinctly con- 
 sidered in its place, and the proofs produced at large : but there 
 was no explaining what sacramental or symbolical feeding means, 
 (which was the design of this chapter,) without taking some pre- 
 vious and general notice of the spiritual graces, which are the 
 food conveyed from heaven, by and under the symbols of bread 
 and wine in the Eucharist. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 I Cor. x. 1 6, &c. explained, and vindicated from Misconstructions. 
 
 ST. PAUL'S doctrine concerning the Eucharist, in the tenth 
 chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, though but 
 occasionally delivered, will yet deserve a distinct chapter by 
 itself, as it is of great moment, and much depends upon a true 
 and faithful construction of it. It will be proper, in the first 
 place, to produce the whole passage, but correctly rendered, as 
 near as may be to the Greek original. 
 
 Verse 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a 
 
 * Cranmer against Gardiner, p. 396. first edit.
 
 . 
 
 176 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 communion of the blood of Christ ? the bread which we break, is 
 it not a communion of the body of Christ ? 
 
 17. For since the bread is one, we, being many, are one body: 
 for we are all partakers of that one bread. 
 
 1 8. Behold Israel after the flesh : are not they who eat of the 
 sacrifices communicants of the altar? 
 
 19. What say I then 1 ? that the idol is anything, or that what 
 is offered in sacrifice to the idol is anything ? 
 
 20. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they 
 sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and I would not have you 
 become communicants of devils. 
 
 2t. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of 
 devils : you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the 
 table of devils. 
 
 I have varied a little from the common rendering, partly for 
 better answering the difference of phrase in the Gi'eek, between 
 pcTfxfiv and xoivtovtlv, (be they equivalent or otherwise",) and 
 partly for the better expressing the three communions, here 
 brought in as corresponding to each other in the analogy ; 
 namely, tUat of Christ's body and blood in the first place, next, 
 that of the Jewish altar, and lastly, of devils. Our translation 
 has, in some measure, obscured the analogy, by choosing, in one 
 place, the word partakers (though it means the same thing) in- 
 stead of communicants, and in another place, by saying communion 
 with devils, instead of saying of devils : KMTCMWVS r>v Satfjioviav, 
 v. 20. I use the phrase ' communicants of to express the partici- 
 pating in common of anything : which perhaps is not altogether 
 agreeable to the strict propriety of the English idiom. But I 
 could not think of anything better, that would answer the pur- 
 pose in other respects ; and since I have now intimated what I 
 mean by it, the phrase, I suppose, may be borne with. But let 
 us come to the business in hand. 
 
 n In strictness, /ueT*'x' signifies standing, the words are sometimes 
 
 the taking a part or parcel of any- used promiscuously. Chrysostom, 
 
 thing, with others, who have likewise upon the place, takes notice of the 
 
 their separate shares or parcels of it : distinction, and makes his use of it, 
 
 but Koiv<evtiv is the partaking with for explaining the text, and doing 
 
 others, ' in commune,' of the same justice to the suhject. 
 whole, undivided thing. Notwith-
 
 viii. Explained and Vindicated. 177 
 
 Before we can make a just use of St. Paul's doctrine in this 
 place, as concerning the holy Communion, it will be necessary to 
 understand the argument which he was then upon, with the 
 occasion of it. The Christians of Corinth, to whom the Apostle 
 writes, were encompassed with Pagan idolaters, and were in 
 great danger of being insidiously drawn in, by specious pretences, 
 to eat of meats which had been offered up, in the way of sacrifice, 
 to their idols. Such eating (if Christians were aware that the 
 meat had been so offered) was, in just construction, participating 
 in common with the Pagan idolaters, of devils, to whom those 
 idols or statues belonged. Whereupon St. Paul exhorts his 
 new converts to beware of such dangerous practice, reminding 
 them of the grievous judgments of God, which formerly came 
 upon their forefathers the Israelites, for the sin of idolatry. 
 ' Neither be ye idolaters,' says he, ' as were some of them w :' 
 and a little lower, 'Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from 
 idolatry V But because they seemed not yet fully sensible 
 that such practice of theirs was really idolatry, but they had 
 several artificial evasions to shift off the charge, (as, that an idol 
 was nothing in itself, and that they had no design by eating of 
 such meats to signify any consent of theirs with idolaters, or to 
 give any countenance to them,) I say, because the new converts 
 were not readily convinced of the sin and danger of such practice, 
 the Apostle undertakes to argue the case with them, in a very 
 friendly, but strong and pressing manner, both upon Jewish and 
 Christian principles, prefacing what he had to urge with this 
 handsome compliment to them : ' I speak as to wise men,' (I 
 appeal to your own good sense and sagacity,) 'judge ye what I 
 sayy.' Then he proceeds to argue in the way of parallel, or 
 by parity of reason, from the case of the Christian Eucharist, 
 and the Jewish feasts upon peace-offerings, in order to infer from 
 both, that as the Eucharist is interpretatively a participating of 
 Christ's body and blood, and as the Jewish feasts were participating 
 of the altar ; so the eating of idol-meats was interpretatively a 
 participating of devils. To take the Apostle's argument in its 
 just and full view, we must consider him as bearing in mind 
 w I Cor. x. 7. * i Cor. x. 14. r i Cor. x. 15.
 
 178 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 two distinct things which he had upon his hands to prove by 
 one and the same argument : the first was, that eating of the idol- 
 sacrifices (knowingly) was interpretatively consenting with the 
 idolaters, or communicating with them, though they might mean 
 nothing less ; and the second was, that such consenting with 
 the idolaters was interpretatively, or in effect, participating of 
 devils. Such heing the case, it could not but appear to be of 
 very dangerous consequence, knowingly to eat of things offered 
 to idols. 
 
 From this view of the Apostle's argument, I pass on to con- 
 sider what we may hence infer with respect to his doctrine of the 
 Eucharist, thus occasionally delivered as the true and well-known 
 doctrine of Christ. His account of it is briefly expressed, in its 
 being a communion of Christ's body and blood ; that is to say, 
 of the body considered as broken, and of the blood considered as 
 shed ; as is very plain from the terms of the institution : and it 
 is not improbable that the Apostle here so distinctly mentioned 
 both, to intimate that they were to be considered as divided and 
 separate, which was the case at his crucifixion, and not after. 
 By communion, the Apostle certainly intended a joint communion, 
 or participating in common with others, as appears by the words 
 immediately following; ' We being many are oae body,' &c. 
 Besides that his argument required it, as I have already hinted. 
 For he was to convince the Corinthians, to whom he wrote, that 
 eating of idol-meats was interpretatively consenting with idolaters, 
 and of consequence partaking in common with them, of what they 
 were supposed to partake of. And I presume, that it was with 
 this particular view, and to make out his whole argument, con- 
 sisting of two main points, that the Apostle threw in the words 
 of verse the ifth. So then, w may thus far construe the Apo- 
 stle's doctrine of the Eucharist to mean, that Christians feeding 
 upon the consecrated symbols, in due manner, are supposed 
 therein to be joint partakers of, or communicants in, Christ's 
 body and blood, whatever that means, and also to be mystically 
 united with each other. Now we come to the main point of all, 
 namely, what that partaking, or that communion, of our Lord's 
 body and blood strictly or precisely signifies. Moderns have been
 
 viii. Explained and Vindicated, 179 
 
 strangely divided about it, (though it was anciently a very plain 
 thing,) and perhaps it may be thought a piece of respect due to 
 them, to mention their several interpretations, though we must 
 reject all but one, as late devices, and more or less foreign to the 
 Apostle's argument. 
 
 1. To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood 
 means the receiving his natural flesh and blood into our mouths, 
 under the forms, accidents, or appearances of bread and wine, is 
 manifestly a forced and late interpretation ; not heard of for 
 eight hundred years or more, and, besides, absurd, contradictory, 
 and impossible. If we may trust to our reason or to our senses, 
 (and if we may not, what is there that we can trust to 1} the 
 bread and wine do remain, after consecration, the same in sub- 
 stance as before, changed only as to their uses, relations, or offices. 
 Besides, Christ's body broken and blood shed 1700 years ago, are 
 no more in that capacity, nor ever will be ; and therefore it is 
 absolutely impossible that they should be literally present in the 
 Sacrament, or made food to the communicants. To all which 
 may be added, that the elements, after consecration, are still 
 expressly called bread and wine in this very place, and therefore 
 supposed to be what they are called. 
 
 2. To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood 
 means the receiving his natural flesh and blood into our mouths, 
 together with the symbols, would be running into the like absurd- 
 ities with the former. Christ's body as crucified, and blood as 
 spilled, are no more : his body glorified is as far distant as heaven 
 and earth, and therefore not present in the Sacrament ; or if it 
 were, could not properly be eaten, nor be of use if it could, since 
 the ' flesh profiteth nothing.' Besides, the text speaks not of 
 two bodies, or bloods, as present in the Sacrament. The symboli- 
 cal body and blood (bread and wine) are there present : the rest 
 is present only in a figure, or under certain construction. A 
 mystical union of Christ's glorified body with our bodies is indeed 
 intimated in the text, or may, by just consequence, be inferred from 
 it ; but the direct doctrine of the text relates only to the body as 
 crucified, and to the blood as shed : and therefore here the proper 
 distinctions should be made between the eating Christ's dead body, 
 
 N 2
 
 480 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 and the uniting with his living body, (as above 2 ,) as also between 
 the express doctrine of the text, and the consequences deducible 
 from it by the help of reason, and of other texts compared. 
 
 3. To say that the communion here signifies the eating Christ's 
 glorified body by faith, or with the mind, is not a just interpre- 
 tation : because whatever is corporeal cannot be literally the food 
 of the soul ; as also because what is represented and eaten in 
 the Sacrament is not the body glorified, but the body crucified 
 and blood shed, which are no more, and which therefore cannot 
 be received either with mouth or mind, excepting only in a qua- 
 lified and figurative sense. A mystical union indeed (as before 
 said) with Christ's glorified body is strengthened or perfected in 
 the Eucharist : though that is a doctrine rather insinuated, than 
 expressed here : while certainly collected both from the nature of 
 the thing, and from divers other texts of the New Testament. 
 
 The three constructions hitherto mentioned have been all 
 owing to too strict and servile an adherence to the letter, with- 
 out reason, and against reason, and not countenanced by the 
 ancients rightly understood. There are some other constructions 
 which are faulty in the contrary extreme, receding too far from 
 the letter, and degrading the Sacrament into a kind of empty or 
 fruitless ceremony. There is the less excuse for so doing, con- 
 sidering how highly the Apostle speaks of the Sacrament, both 
 in this and the next chapter : for though necessity will justify 
 our receding from the letter, as far as such necessity extends, 
 yet reason requires that we adhere to it as closely as we may, 
 and extremes are always bad. But I proceed to take notice 
 of some misconstructions in this way of under-commenting. 
 
 4. Some interpret communion here to mean no more than a 
 joint partaking of the outward signs, symbols, or memorials of 
 Christ's body and blood. But St. Paul must undoubtedly mean 
 a great deal more, by his emphatical expressions ; and his argu- 
 ment also requires it, as shall be shewn in due place. He does 
 not say, that the Service is a commemoration of Christ's body 
 and blood, but a partaking or communion of them a . So likewise, 
 
 1 See above, p. 167, &c. glossae Socini, quandoquidem panem 
 
 . * 'S. Apostolus refragatur penitus et poculum eucharisticam dicat esse
 
 vin. Explained and Vindicated. i8l 
 
 with respect to the Jews, he does not say that they comme- 
 morated the altar, but they were partakers of the altar : and the 
 idolaters whom he speaks of did not barely commemorate devils, 
 (if they did it at all,) but they were partakers of devils. Besides, 
 to interpret the communion of a joint partaking of the symbols, 
 or memorials, is inventing a sense too flat and jejune to be 
 fathered upon the Apostle ; for indeed it is mere tautology. It 
 is no more than saying, that partaking of the bread and wine is 
 partaking of the bread and wine. There is good sense in saying, 
 that the partaking of one thing is, in just construction, the par- 
 taking of some other thing : but to make all sign, and nothing 
 signified, or to reckon the outward signs twice over, dropping 
 the inward things signified, is unsuitable to the turn of the 
 whole passage, and entirely defeats the Apostle's argument. 
 The eating of the sacrifices was not again mere eating of sacri- 
 fices, but it was, by interpretation, communicating with idolaters : 
 and communicating with idolaters was not again communicating 
 with idolaters, but it was, in just construction, partaking of 
 devils b. Thus we find strong and admirable sense in the 
 Apostle's discourse : but in the other way all is dull and insipid. 
 Take we the next parallel instance : the joint partaking of the 
 Jewish sacrifices was not again the joint partaking of the same 
 sacrifices ; but it was partaking of the altar, whatever that 
 means : in like manner, a joint partaking of the symbols or 
 memorials of bread and wine is not again a joint partaking of 
 the same symbols or memorials, but of something else (by the 
 Apostle's argument) which they represent, and call to our mind, 
 and which in just construction, or in effect, they are. Had 
 St. Paul meant only, that the bread which we break is the joint 
 eating of the bread, and the cup which we bless is the joint 
 
 communicationem corporis et san- lagius's, well express the sense of 
 
 gninis Christi. Ubi subject! loco, . . the Apostle : 
 
 panem et poculum benedictionis 'Panisidololatriae daemonum par- 
 
 constituit, in praedicato vero, non ticipatio esse monstratur ; . . si cum 
 
 eommemorationem, aut memoriale idololatris de uno pane comedimus, 
 
 corporis aut sanyuinis Christi, sed unum cum illis corpus efficimur. . , 
 
 communicationem ejusdem ponit.' Non potestis et Dei et daemonum 
 
 Calovius de Eucharist, p. 279. esse participes.' Hieronym. Opp. 
 
 b The commentaries under the torn., v. p. 995. ed. Bened. 
 name of Jerome, supposed to be Pe-
 
 1 82 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 drinking of the cup, why should he have changed the terms 
 l>read and cup into other terms, body and blood, instead of using 
 the same over again 1 Or if body and blood mean only bread and 
 cup, then see what sense can be made of Chap. xi. 27, which 
 must run thus : Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this 
 cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bread and cup 
 of the Lord. It is not using an inspii'ed Apostle with any 
 proper respect, to put such an odd (not to say ridiculous) sense 
 upon him. The case is plain, that the four terms, bread, wine, 
 body, and blood, have severally their respective meanings, and 
 that the two first express the signs, to which the other two 
 answer as things signified, and so all is right. Add to this, that 
 the eating and drinking in the Eucharist, upon the foot of the 
 other construction, would be rendered insignificant : for the 
 breaking of the bread, and the pouring out of the wine, would be 
 sufficient for a bare representation or memorial of our Lord's 
 death : the feeding thereupon adds nothing to the representation, 
 but must either signify our receiving something spiritual under 
 that corporeal symbol, or signify nothing. And it would appear 
 very strange, if the feeding itself should not be symbolical, some 
 way or other, as well as the rest ; especially considering that 
 other places of Scripture (particularly John vi.) do insist very 
 much upon spiritual feeding, and that the quantity of meat and 
 drink in the Eucharist has all along been so small, that it might 
 be difficult to say what use it could be of as a banquet, unless 
 allowed to be significative or symbolical of some spiritual enter- 
 tainment received by the communicants c . Upon the whole, 
 this fourth interpretation must be rejected, as being altogether 
 low and lame, or rather totally repugnant to all the circum- 
 stances of text and context. 
 
 5. Others therefore, perceiving that there must be both a sign 
 and a thing signified, (or in other words, a corporal manducation, 
 and a spiritual one also,) and yet being unwilling to admit of 
 any present benefits in the Eucharist, have contrived this turn, 
 
 c Ato tovro yap otire iro\v \afj.0dv- Concil. Nicaen. in Gelas. Cyzicen. 
 0/j.fv, a\\' o\iyov, 'Iva yvSififv Sri Labb. et Cossart. torn. ii. p 234. 
 OVK (
 
 vni. Explained and Vindicated. 183 
 
 that the sacramental feeding shall signify spiritual feeding, yea, 
 and spiritual communion with Christ, before, and in, and after the 
 Sacrament, but that this spiritual feeding shall mean only the 
 receiving Christ's doctrine and promises ; or that the Eucharist 
 shall not import anything then received, (more than at other 
 times,) but shall be declarative only of what was received before, 
 or is to be received then, or after. The design of all which is to 
 evade any pretence of receiving graces from above, in or by this 
 Sacrament : and this is the scheme which the Socinians com- 
 monly take into d . Yea, they sometimes scruple not to own, 
 that under spiritual feeding is contained remission of sins, and 
 present right to life eternal : but still they will not have it said, 
 that God conveys or confers these benefits in or by the Sacra- 
 ment, but that we in the Sacrament do declare and testify that 
 we are partakers of those benefits e , having brought them with us, 
 not receiving them there, more than elsewhere. 
 
 But these fine-spun notions, being only the inventions of men, 
 can never be able to stand against the truth of God. St. Paul 
 does not say, that the Eucharist is a declaration of communion, 
 but a communion : nor does he say, communion with Chi-ist our 
 
 d ' Hinc vero patet usum panis et proinde alanvur et confirmemur, ac 
 
 calicis non ideo Christ! corporis et cibo potuque corpora nostra ad vitam 
 
 sanguinis communionem dici, quod terrenam et corporalem sustentan- 
 
 per istum usum demum communio tur : non quidem quod in hac tantum 
 
 ista fiat ; sed quod per eum com- aotione, Christi carnem et sangui- 
 
 inunio ac societas ista, quae jam est, nem spiritualiter edamus et bibamus 
 
 et esse debet, significetur et de- . . sed quod pia mortis Christi medi- 
 
 claretur. ' Crellius in loc. p. 307. tatione, et vera in eum fide id per- 
 
 Cp. Socin. Quod Re. Polon. p. 701. ficiatur, ac porro etiam extra hunc 
 
 'Hoc ritu testamur nos corpus ritum a nobis fiat, quam diu medi- 
 
 Christi pro nobis crucifixum habere tatio ilia ac fides inde concepta in 
 
 pro spiritual! animae nostrae cibo, animis nostris viget.' Volkelius, p. 
 
 et sanguinem ejusfusum pro salutari 310, alias 687. Cp. Schlicting. cont. 
 
 potu, nosque communionem illius Meisner. pp. 751, 788, 789. 
 
 habere, et sic ad novum foedus per- e ' Hac ceremonia profitemur nos, 
 
 tinere, &c. quae omnia fidem per ea qua dictum est ratione, corpus 
 
 charitatem efficacem postulant.' lia- Christi edere, et sanguinem ejus 
 
 cov. Cat. p. 242. bibere, et sic eorum bonorum quae 
 
 ' Panem ilium edendo atque ex po- morte sua cruenta Christus nobis 
 
 culo bibendo palam testamur et pro- peperit (h. e. remissionis peccatorum, 
 
 fitemur nos corpus Christi fractum et vitae sempiternae, quam spe certa 
 
 ac crucifixum pro animae cibo, san- in hoc saeculo veluti praecipimus) 
 
 guinem pro potu habere, quo ad esse participes.' Volkelius, p. 312, 
 
 vitam spiritualem et sempiternam alias 688.
 
 184 i Corinthians x. i6 } &c. CHAP. 
 
 head, (though that indeed is a remote consequence of the other,) 
 but communion of the body and blood of Christ. In the parallel 
 instances, eating of idol-meats was not a declaration of what had 
 been done before, nor a declaration of what was to be done after, 
 (perhaps it was the first time, and might be the last,) but that 
 single action was taking part with idolaters, and that amounted 
 to partaking of devils. It was so with respect to the Jewish 
 sacrifices, the partaking of them was not merely declaring their 
 participation of the altar, but it was actual participating at that 
 very time, and by that very act. St. Paul's words are express, 
 ' are partakers of the altar,' (not proclaimers of it,) and his 
 argument requires that sense f . Had the Corinthians suspected 
 that the Apostle was talking of declarations only, virtual decla- 
 rations, they would soon have replied, that they were ready to 
 declare to all the world, that they intended no such thing as 
 communicating with idolaters, or of devils, by their eating of the 
 idol-meats, and that such express counter-declarations would more 
 than balance any other. But that would have been protestation 
 against fact, and would have availed nothing : for St. Paul had 
 plainly told them what the nature of the action was ; viz. com- 
 municating with idolaters, and not only so, but partaking of 
 devils. Therefore, by analogy and parity of reason, the nature 
 of our eucharistical service is an actual partaking of the death of 
 Christ with the fruits thereof. 
 
 If there were need of any further arguing in so plain a case, I 
 might add, that such kind of declaring as they speak of, (declar- 
 ing their spiritual eating,) appears not so modest, or so reverent, 
 as one might wish, if we consider what they mean by spiritual 
 meat. They commonly intend by it the whole faith and practice 
 of a Christian, together with pardon of sins and a right to life 
 eternal consequent upon it. So then, their coming to the Lord's 
 table to declare their spiritual feeding, what is it but proclaiming, 
 before God and man, how righteous, how holy, and how perfect 
 they are, and what claims they make on that score : which would 
 be much more like to the boasting of a Pharisee, than to the 
 
 f Compare Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, in answer to the same pretence 
 about declaring, &c. part i. p. 172, alias 175, &c.
 
 vin. Explained and Vindicated. 185 
 
 proper penitent behaviour of an humble Christian, appearing 
 before God. It may be thought, perhaps, that such declara- 
 tions are of great use, because men will be cautious of telling a 
 solemn lie in the presence of God, and will of course take care to 
 be as good as they declare themselves to be&. But it might be 
 rather suspected, that the effect would be quite contrary, and 
 such a method of ostentation Avould be much more likely to 
 harden men in their sins. 
 
 However, to soften the matter, they sometimes so explain this 
 their declaration, as to amount only to a good resolution, or pro- 
 mise, for the time to come, or a protestation that they look upon 
 a good life as the proper food of their souls. This indeed is 
 more modest, but then it is going still further off from the text 
 of St. Paul than before : for, in this view, the receiving the 
 Sacrament is neither eating anything spiritual, nor so much as a 
 declaration of eating, but it is a declaration only of their own 
 judgment concerning it. Let them therefore turn this matter 
 which way they please, they will never come up to the true 
 meaning or force of St. Paul's words. In the meanwhile, we 
 readily accept, what they are pleased to allow, that pardon of 
 sins, aud present right to life eternal, ought to be looked upon as 
 part of the spiritual food : and we think it decent and modest, 
 as well as just, to believe, that we receive our spiritual food at 
 the altar, from the hands of Christ, and do not bring it thither 
 ourselves; especially considering that Christ himself delivered the 
 corporal food to the disciples, which was the symbol of spiritual. 
 And though we ought to take care to come properly qualified to 
 the holy Communion, yet we come not to declare how rich we 
 were before, but to deplore our poverty, and to beg fresh relief, 
 and new supplies, from above. 
 
 6. Some think it sufficient to say, that the Eucharist imports 
 our holding communion or fellowship \vith Christ our head. But 
 this interpretation is low and insufficient, expressing a truth, but 
 
 s ' Ideo simul etiam cogitandum ut tails quam priraum evadas, nee 
 
 est tibi, ut talis sis qualem te in hoc committendum ut irritum postea sit 
 
 ritu profiteris ; nee Deo et Christo hoc aniini tui decretum.' Racov. 
 
 mentiaris. Quod si talis nondura Cat. pp. 242, 243. 
 sis, id saltern omnino constituendum,
 
 1 86 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 not the whole truth. The Apostle's expression is very strong, 
 communion of, not communion with, and of Christ's body and 
 blood, not simply of Christ. So in the parallel instances : they 
 that ate of the idol-meats held communion indeed with the 
 idolaters, but were partakers of devils, not with devils : and 
 they that ate of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the altar. 
 Therefore Bishop Patrick well says, with regard to the word com- 
 munion in this place, ' In its full signification it denotes, not 
 merely our being made of his (Christ's) society, but our having 
 a communication of his body and blood to us : so the word 
 Koivaveat is rendered, Gal. vi. 6, Phil. iv. 15 V In short, the com- 
 munion here spoken of must either mean merely the outward 
 profession of Christianity, and then it is an interpretation much 
 too low, and is liable to most of the objections with that of 
 the preceding article ; or else it means a vital union with 
 Christ, as his living members, and then it implies partaking in 
 his death, resurrection, &c., and coincides with the common con- 
 struction. The greatest fault therefore of this interpretation is, 
 that it is loose, general, equivocal ; no explication of the text, 
 because not determinate, but darker than the text itself, and 
 therefore fitted only to disguise and perplex the Apostle's 
 meaning, and to deceive an unwary reader. 
 
 7. Having considered, and, as I conceive, confuted the several 
 wrong constructions of St. Paul's words, it is now time to return 
 to the true, easy, natural, and ancient * interpretation, before 
 hinted, and now to be more largely enforced or confirmed. The 
 Eucharist in its primary intention, and in its certain effect to all 
 worthy communicants, is a communion of Christ's body broken 
 and blood shed, that is to say, a present partaking of, or having 
 a part in our Lord's passion, and the reconcilement therein made, 
 and the blessed fruits of it. This is plain good sense, and 
 undeniable truth. ' The body and blood of Christ are verily and 
 indeed received of the faithful : that is, they have a real part 
 and portion given them in the death and sufferings of the Lord 
 Jesus, whose body was broken and blood shed for the remission 
 
 h Bishop Patrick's Christian Sacrifice, p. 52. 
 1 See above, pp. 99, 101, 143.
 
 vni. Explained and Vindicated. 187 
 
 of sins. They truly and indeed partake of the virtue of his 
 bloody sacrifice, whereby he hath obtained eternal redemption for 
 us V It is observable tha.t St. Paul, (his own best interpreter,) 
 instead of saying, Ye do shew the Lord's body and blood, broken 
 and shed, says, ' Ye do shew the Lord's death till he come V 
 Which makes it plain, that ' body broken and blood shed' are, in 
 this case, equivalent to the single word ' death' with its fruits ; 
 and that is the thing signified in our sacramental service. And 
 if that be the thing signified, it is that which we partake of, or 
 spiritually receive : and we are in this Sacrament ingrafted, as it 
 were, into the death of Christ, in much the same sense, and to 
 the same effect, as in the other Sacrament we are said to be 'bap- 
 tized into his death m ,' and ' planted together in the likeness of 
 his death n .' All the difference is that the same thing is repre- 
 sented and exhibited, here and there, under different signs or 
 symbols. There we have our right and title to the merits and 
 benefits of his passion delivered to us under the symbol of water 
 inclosing us, as a grave incloses a dead body ; here we have the 
 same right and title again delivered under the symbols of bread 
 and wine , received by us, and incorporated with us. But of 
 the analogy of the two Sacraments, I have spoken before P, and 
 need not repeat. Only let it be remembered, that Baptism does 
 not only represent our Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, 
 but exhibits them likewise in their fruits and virtue, and makes 
 the baptized party, if fitly qualified, partaker of them. And as 
 there undoubtedly is a near correspondence and analogy between 
 the two Sacraments, in their general nature, ends, and uses, we 
 may justly argue from one Sacrament to the other ; and the 
 argument carries in it, if not the force of demonstration, yet very 
 considerable weight. There is this further use in it, that it fur- 
 nishes us with a clear and full answer to the objections made 
 against the supposition of such and such privileges being con- 
 ferred by or annexed to a single act of religion : for if they are 
 
 k Bishop Patrick's Christian Sacri- 1% bvainaKTov Ovtrias Si' TJJ 
 
 fice, p. 53. ^ ijfjifis Tif Xpurrip Koivcavovfj.fi', Kai 
 
 I Cor. xi. 20. TUV ira.Ori/j.a.Toiii' Kal rfjs Of6rttros, 
 
 m Kom. vi. 3. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. iii. p. 70. 
 n Kom. vi. 5. P See above, ch. vii. p. 138.
 
 1 88 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 annexed to or conferred by Baptism, a single act of religion, why 
 may they not by the Eucharist also, though a single act ? Such 
 objections either strike at both Sacraments, or can really hurt 
 neither : or if it be allowed (as indeed it must) that Baptism, 
 notwithstanding, has such privileges annexed to it, by the 
 express words of Scripture, it must be allowed that the Eucha- 
 rist, at least, may have the same. If, for instance, remission of 
 sins, sanctification of the Spirit, mystical union with Christ, 
 present right to a resurrection and life eternal, are (as they 
 certainly are) conferred in and by Baptism, to persons fitly 
 qualified ; it is in vain to object, in the case of the Eucharist, 
 that those privileges cannot be annexed to or conferred by a 
 single act. 
 
 But let us return to our positive proofs, that such blessings 
 are annexed to a due receiving of the Holy Communion. This 
 passage of St. Paul, rightly considered, is a demonstration of 
 it, as I have already intimated. The Socinians themselves, as I 
 have before observed, are obliged to allow, that spiritual mandu- 
 cation carries with it present remission of sins, and present right 
 to everlasting life : and they are pleased to allow further, that 
 in the Sacrament (though they will not say, by the Sacrament) 
 there may be, or often is, spiritual manducation. Indeed, Smal- 
 cius seems to hesitate a little upon it, or comes with great 
 reluctance to it ; but after all is forced to submit to so glaring 
 a truth. First, he pretends, that we are so far from feeding 
 spiritually upon Christ in the Eucharist, that we must have done 
 it before, or we are not worthy to come at alii. Well : why may 
 we not have done it before, and now much more so ? He is 
 pleased, soon after, to allow, that spiritual manducation is a kind 
 of constant perpetual act, or habit, supposed in every good 
 Clmstian, in the whole course of his life, and in all his actions r . 
 
 i ' Diciinus tantuin abesse, ut in r 'Ut manducatio spiritualis cor- 
 
 coena Domini corpus Christi come- poris, et bibitio sanguinis Christi est 
 
 datur, et sanguis ejus bibatur, ut qui aliquid perpetuum, quod in nobis 
 
 antea Christi corpus spiritualiter non inesse debet, sic in omnibus vitae 
 
 i n and u caver it, manducatione hac pa- nost? - ae factis considerari poterit et 
 
 niscarnali plane indignus sit.' Smalc. debet.' S mule. ibid. p. 340. 
 contr. Frantz. p. 336.
 
 viu. Explained and Vindicated. 189 
 
 Why then not in the sacramental action ? At length, he allows 
 it, with some reluctance, even in that also s ; as he could not 
 avoid it by his own principles. 
 
 Thus far then we are advanced, even upon the concessions of 
 adversaries, that there may be (or that there certainly is, to pious 
 and good Christians) a spiritual feeding in the Eucharist, and 
 that such spiritual feeding carries in it present remission, and 
 present right to life eternal *. Where then do we differ ] Per- 
 haps here ; that we say, by the Sacrament, and they, in the 
 Sacrament, like as in all other good offices. But we do not say, 
 that the Sacrament does it by its own virtue : no, it is God only 
 that grants remission, or spiritual rights, whether in the Sacra- 
 ment or out of it; and while we assert that he does it in and by 
 the Eucharist, we do not presume to say, or think, that he does 
 i; not in Baptism also, or in other religious services. What then 
 is the point of controversy still remaining 1 It appears to be this 
 principally, that we assert the very act of communion (in persons 
 fitly disposed) to be spiritual manducation ; a present receiving 
 of spiritual blessings and privileges, additional to what was 
 before : this they deny, alleging that there are no special benefits 
 annexed to the Eucharist u as such, nothing more conferred 
 
 8 'Quia spiritualis manducatio cor- dium : quippe Christi praeceptorum 
 
 pt ris Christi perpetuum aliquid est, officiique nostri pars non postrema ; 
 
 d:ci quidem potest, tune etiam illam uti qui id facere negligat, non plus 
 
 fieri, cum coena Domini celebratur.' juris habeatin Christi corpore, quara 
 
 Sinalc. ibid. p. 340. Petrus habiturus erat communio- 
 
 Schlictingius carries it higher, or nis cum Christo, si pedes sibi la- 
 expresses it stronger, though indeed vare volenti praefracte restitisset.' 
 he afterwards goes off into the de- Schlicting. contr. Meis. p. 750. 
 darative notion, seeming to pre- * See Volkelius above, p. 183. 
 f c-r it. n Christian! quia mortem Christi 
 
 'Quid igitur est, inquies, Christi commemorant.etproeagratiasagimt, 
 
 corporis proprie Koivtavia. ? Commune non praesens beneficiuni requirunt/ 
 
 jus est, (at ipsa vox indicat) Christi &c. Smalcius, p. 333. 
 
 corporis pro nobis fracti, et sic bono- 'Nequaquam in eumfinem hie ritus 
 
 rum inde manantium. Sacrum igitur est institutus, ut aliquid ex eo repor- 
 
 panem qui frangunt et comedunt, temus, sed ut jam antea acceptum 
 
 modo digne id faciant, bonorum isto- beneficium commemoremus.' Volke- 
 
 rum participss fiunt ; ut hoc sensu lius de Vera Relig. p. 313, alias 691. 
 
 sacri panis fractio, et comestio cor- 'Nou in huncfinem coenam Domini- 
 
 poris Christi, communio dicatur per cam constitutam esse, ut ex ejus usu 
 
 metonymiam effecti ; quod scilicet aliquemfructumreportemus.' Volke- 
 
 communionis istius causa sit et me- lius, ibid. p. 684.
 
 190 I Corinthians x. 16, &e. OHAP. 
 
 than what is constantly conferred to good men, at all other 
 times, and in all other good offices, or common duties x . Now, 
 in defence of our doctrine, we plead St. Paul's authority, who 
 asserts, that the Eucharist is actually a communion of Christ's 
 body and blood : let them shew, that any common service, or any 
 other service, office, or duty, (except Baptism,) is so ; and then 
 they will come close to the point. It hath been observed above, 
 that eating of idol-meats, knowingly, was ipso facto communica- 
 ting with idolaters, and that communicating with idolaters was 
 ipso facto partaking of devils, and that the eating of the Jewish 
 sacrifices was ipso facto partaking of the altar : therefore also 
 receiving the holy Communion, fit dispositions always supposed, 
 is ipso facto, (in that very act, and at that present time, by 
 that act) partaking of the death of Christ, with the fruits or pri- 
 vileges of it. Since therefore the very nature of the act supposes 
 it and implies it, (which is more than the nature of every other 
 act, service, or duty does,) therefore there is some peculiar force, 
 virtue, and efficacy annexed to the Eucharist, above what is 
 ordinarily annexed to common duties. Duties, as such, are 
 conditions only on our part, applications of men to God, and 
 therefore are not properly instruments in the hand of God for 
 conveying his graces : but sacraments are applications of God to 
 men, and therefore are properly his instruments of conveyance, 
 his appointed means or conduits, in and by which he confers his 
 graces. Gospel duties are the conditional causes of spiritual 
 blessings, while Sacraments are properly the instrumental convey- 
 ances. Neither repentance, nor faith, nor even sacraments, con- 
 sidered merely as duties, or as acts of ours, are properly channels 
 of grace, being, as I said, conditions only : but sacraments 
 considered as applications of God to men are properly channels 
 
 * ' Negat Socinus hunc ritum pro- illius causa proprie ritus hie institu- 
 
 prie institutum esse ad nostram ali- tus est.' Schlicting. contr. Meisner. 
 
 quam singularem utilitatem in ne- p. 791 ; cp. 795. 
 gotio salutis. Proprie inquam, nam ' Libenter admittimus ritus istiua 
 
 alioquin libenter concedimus, hujus observationera inter bona opera num- 
 
 ritus observationem non minus ad erandam, et cum illis conjung- 
 
 salutem conferre quam reliquorum endam esse.' Schlicting. ibid. p. 
 
 praeceptorum executionein : verum 798. 
 haec utilitas et generalis est, et non
 
 viii. Explained and Vindicated. 191 
 
 of spiritual benefit?. This is a distinction which ought carefully 
 to be heeded, for the right understanding of the difference 
 between sacraments and duties J. 
 
 Preaching of the word is most like to sacraments in the 
 instrumental capacity ; for by the word also God conveys his 
 graces. But still inviting, exhorting, or calling men to be recon- 
 ciled to God, comes not up to signing and sealing the reconcilia- 
 tion : neither is preparing men for the covenant the same thing 
 with covenanting. The Eucharist, as hath been noted, is an 
 actual communion, wherein God gives and man receives at that 
 instant, or in the very act. Such being the nature and use of 
 this eucharistical service, in Divine construction, and by Divine 
 appointment, it is manifest from thence, that it carries in it the 
 force of a promise, or contract 2 , on God's part, that, fit qualifica- 
 tions supposed on our part, this service shall never fail of its 
 effect, but shall be to every worthy receiver like a deed of con- 
 veyance, instrumentally investing him with the benefits of Christ's 
 death, for the time being ; and to the end also, if he perseveres 
 to the end. ' It is no good argument to say, the graces of God 
 are given to believers out of the Sacrament, ergo, not by or in 
 the Sacrament: but rather thus; if God's grace overflows some- 
 times, and goes without his own instruments, much more shall 
 he give it in the use of them. If God gives pardon without the 
 Sacrament, then rather also with the Sacrament. For supposing 
 the Sacraments, in their design and institution, to be nothing 
 but signs and ceremonies, yet they cannot hinder the work of 
 God : and therefore holiness in the reception of them will do 
 more than holiness alone ; for God does nothing in vain. The 
 
 i See above, p. ii, &c. debite administrantur, quique ilia 
 
 1 ' Verbum Dei quidem comitatur suscipiunt cum ea quam Deus in iis 
 
 etiam aliqua Spiritus Dei efficacia... praerequirit dispositione...Ex nullo 
 
 Verum efficacia ista a Deo prorsus pacto tenetur Deus verbum virtute 
 
 libere dispensatur, et absque ullo sui Spiritus comitari : sacramentis 
 
 pacto et promissione Dei, qua Deus autem ex certa Dei pactione, adest 
 
 ad hos et illos, potius quam alios, virtus divina, per quam gratiam 
 
 ejusmodi gratia donandos, sese ob- quandam salutarem communicant 
 
 strinxerit. Cum Sacramentis autem, omnibus illis qui secundum ordinem 
 
 ex Dei pacto, conjuncta est vis quae- a Deo positum ilia participant.' Le 
 
 dam ilivini Spiritus, per quam agunt Blanc, Thes. p. 676. 
 infallibiliter in omnibus iis quibus
 
 192 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 Sacraments do something in the hand of God : at least, they are 
 God's proper and accustomed time of grace : they are his seasons 
 and our opportunity 8 .' 
 
 And now if any one should ask for a catalogue of those 
 spiritual privileges, which St. Paul in this place has omitted, our 
 Lord himself may supply that omission by what he has said in 
 John vi. For, since we have proved, that there is a spiritual 
 manducation in the Eucharist, with all worthy receivers, it now 
 follows, of course, that what our Lord says in John vi. of spiri- 
 tual manducation in the general, is all strictly applicable to this 
 particular manner of spiritual feeding ; and is the best explica- 
 tion we can any where have of what it includes or contains. It 
 contains, I. A title to a happy resurrection : for such as spi- 
 ritually feed on Christ, Christ will 'raise up at the last dayV 
 
 2. A title to eternal life : for our Lord expressly says, 'Whoso 
 eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life c .' 
 
 3. A mystical union with Christ in his whole Person ; or, more 
 particularly, a presential union with him in his Divine nature : 
 ' He that eateth my flesh, &c. dwelleth in me, and I in him d .' 
 
 4. Iii these are implied (though not directly expressed by our 
 Lord in that discourse) remission of sins, and sanctification of 
 the Holy Spirit ; of which I may say more in a proper place. 
 
 To return to St. Paul's text, I shall here sum up the true and 
 the full sense of it, mostly in Mr. Locke's words 6 , with some few 
 and slight alterations. ' They who drink of the cup of blessing, 
 which we bless in the Lord's Supper, do they not thereby par- 
 take of the benefits purchased by Christ's blood shed for them 
 upon the cross, which they here symbolically drink ] and they 
 who eat of the bread broken there, do they not partake in the 
 sacrifice of the body of Christ, and strengthen their union with 
 him, as members of him their head ? For by eating of that 
 bread, we, though many in number, are all united, and make 
 but one body under Christ our head, as many grains of corn 
 
 Bishop Taylor's Worthy Com- d John vi. 56, 57. 
 municant, p. 38. e Locke's Commentary on the 
 
 b John vi. 51. Text, p. 181. 
 
 John vi. 51, 54, 58.
 
 viii. Explained and Vindicated. 193 
 
 are united into one loaf. See how it is among the Jews, who 
 are outwardly, according to the flesh, by circumcision the people 
 of God. Among them, they who eat of the sacrifice are par- 
 takers of God's table, the altar, have fellowship with him, and 
 share in the benefit of the sacrifice, as if it were offered for 
 them f . Do not mistake me, as if I hereby said, that the idols 
 of the Gentiles are gods in reality, or that the things offered 
 to them change their nature, and are anything really different 
 from what they were before, so as to affect us in our use of 
 them ; no, but this I say, that the things which the Gentiles 
 sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God, and I would 
 not that you should have fellowship with, and be under the 
 influence of devils, as they who, by eating of things offered to 
 them, enter into covenant, alliance, and commerce with them. 
 You cannot eat and drink with God, as friends at his table in the 
 Eucharist, and entertain familiarity and friendship with devils, 
 by eating with them, and partaking of the sacrifices offered to 
 them.' Such appears to be the force of the whole argument. 
 But as there is nothing so plain, but that it may be obscured by 
 misconception, and darkened by artificial colourings, so we need 
 not wonder if difficulties have been raised against the construc- 
 tion here given. And because it may sometimes happen, that 
 very slight pretences on one side, if not particularly answered, 
 may weigh more with some persons, than the strongest reasons 
 on the other, I shall here be at the pains to bring together such 
 objections as I have anywhere met with, and to consider them 
 one by one. 
 
 f Dr. Felling, in his Discourse of hand, in order to the ends for which 
 the Sacrament, (pp. 116, 117, 118,) the sacrifice was designed: they 
 well illustrates the case of the Jews, served to make an atonement, they 
 as partaking of the altar. I shall cite were effectual to their purposes, they 
 a small part : ' There is an expres- were good to all intents, they were 
 sion which will make this matter available to the offerers, (as the He- 
 clear, in Levit. vii. 18, 'neither shall brew Doctors expound the phrase), 
 it be imputed,' &c. "When those sa- This is the true meaning of being 
 crificial feasts were regularly cele- partakers of the altar," &c. p. 117. 
 brated, they were imputed to the In the next page the learned author 
 guests for their good, they were applies the whole very aptly to the 
 reckoned advantageous to them, they Eucharist, 
 were favourably accepted at God's
 
 194 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 Objections answered. 
 
 I. Dr. Whitby, whose comments upon this text, I am sorry to 
 say, appear to be little else than laboured confusion, is pleased 
 to object as here follows : ' Neither can the sense of the words 
 be to this effect ; The cup and bread communicate to us the 
 spiritual effects of Christ's broken body, or his blood shed for us, 
 though this be in itself a certain truth ; for these spiritual effects 
 cannot be shared among believers, so that every one shall have a 
 part of them only, but the same benefits are wholly communi- 
 cated to every due receiver. See note on ver. 1 6 s.' The learned 
 author did well to call our doctrine a certain truth : but he had 
 done better, if he had taken due care to preserve to this text that 
 true sense, upon which chiefly that certain truth is founded. 
 His objection against the spiritual effect being shared, appears to 
 be of no weight : for how do we say they are shared 1 We do 
 not say that Christ's death is divided into parcels, or is more 
 than one death, or that his sacrifice is more than one sacrifice, or 
 that it is shared like a loaf broken into parts, as the objection 
 supposes : but the many sharers all partake of, and communi- 
 cate in one undivided thing, the same death, the same sacrifice, 
 the same atonement, the same Saviour, the same God and Lord : 
 and here is no dividing or sharing anything, but as the same 
 common blessing diffuses itself among many divided persons. 
 And what is there amiss or improper in this notion ? The learned 
 author himself is forced to allow h , that Kow&via TOV viov avrov, 
 communion of his Son', and KOIVWVIU rS>v iraBrniaroav, communion of 
 his sufferings J, and Koivmvia pfra TOV narpbs Kal pera TOV viov UVTOV, 
 
 communion with the Father and the Son k , are all so many pro- 
 per phrases, to express the communion of many in one and the 
 same thing, where the effects are common to those many. And 
 he might have added Koivcovla TOV ayiov irvevpaTos, communion of 
 the Holy Ghost 1 , and Koiva>via TOV ^vo-T^piov, communion of the 
 mystery m , as two other parallel instances, wherein the same 
 
 e Whitby on verse 20, p. 175. k I John i. 3. 
 
 h Whitby, p. 173. 1 i Corinthians xiii. 14. Phil. ii. I. 
 
 ' I Cor. i. 9. i Phil. iii. 10. m Eph. iii. 9.
 
 mi. Explained and Vindicated. 195 
 
 undivided blessings are supposed to be communicated to many, 
 in such a sense as we suppose the undivided blessing, privilege, 
 atonement of Christ's death to be vouchsafed to worthy commu- 
 nicants. And therefore there is no occasion for the low thought, 
 that Koivavia here, with respect to the Eucharist, must signify no 
 more than the sharing out the consecrated bread and wine among 
 the communicants : which is resolving all into sign, and dropping 
 the thing signified ; and is sinking the Apostle's admirable sense 
 into jejune, insipid tautology ; as I have before observed. The 
 Socinians themselves deal more justly and ingenuously with 
 St. Paul's text in this place ; as may sufficiently appear by what 
 I have qxioted from them in this chapter. 
 
 II. The same learned man makes a further attempt to defeat 
 the true sense of this passage, first, by interpreting the partaking 
 of the altar, to mean only having communion with God, or own- 
 ing him as that God from whom they had received mercies ; and 
 next, by interpreting the partaking of devils so as to exclude 
 any spiritual influence from devils n . To all which I shall make 
 answer in the excellent words of Bishop Burnet : 'If the 
 meaning of their being partakers with devils [he should have 
 said of devils] imports only their joining themselves in acts of 
 fellowship with idolaters, then the sin of this would have easily 
 appeared, without such a reinforcing of the matter. ... St. Paul 
 seems to carry the argument further :... since those idols were 
 the instruments, by which the devil kept the world in subjection 
 to him, all such as did partake in their sacrifices might come 
 under the effects of that magic, that might be exerted about their 
 temples or sacrifices ; ...and might justly fear being brought into 
 a partnership of those magical possessions or temptations that 
 might be suffered to fall upon such Christians as should associate 
 themselves in so detestable a service?. In the same sense it was 
 
 n See Whitby on the place, pp. illustrated by the following lines of 
 
 I 74> I 7S- Tertullian : 'Nemo in castra hos- 
 
 Burnet on the 28th Article, p. tium transit, nisi projectis armis 
 
 428. suis, nisi destitutis signis et sacra- 
 
 P The true meaning of partaking mentis principis sui, nisi pactus 
 
 of devils, or of coming under the simul perire...Quale est enim de 
 
 influence of devils, is very aptly Ecclesia Dei, in diaboli ecclesiam 
 
 O 2
 
 196 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 also said, that the Israelites were partakers of the altar. That is, 
 that all of them who joined in the acts of that religion, such as 
 the offering their peace-offerings, (for of those of that kind they 
 might only eat,) all these were partakers of the altar : that is, of 
 all the blessings of their religion, of all the expiations, the burnt- 
 offerings and sin-offerings, that were offered on the altar, for the 
 sins of the whole congregation.... Thus it appears, that such as 
 joined in the acts of idolatry became partakers of all that in- 
 fluence that devils might have over those sacrifices ; and all that 
 continued in the observances of the Mosaical law, had thereby a 
 partnership in the expiations of the altar : so likewise all Chris- 
 tians who receive this Sacrament worthily, have by their so 
 doing a share in that which is represented by it, the death of 
 Christ, and the expiation and other benefits that follow it.' 
 
 I cannot too often repeat, that St. Paul is not here speaking 
 of external profession, or of outwardly owning the true God, 
 (which any hypocrite might do,) but of being real and living 
 members, and of receiving vital spiritual influences from Christ ; 
 and his argument rests upon itl. The thing may perhaps be 
 yet further illustrated from a similar argument, made use of by 
 the Apostle in a resembling case. ' Know ye not that your bodies 
 are the members of Christ ? shall I then take the members of 
 Christ, and make them the members of an harlot ? God forbid. 
 What 1 know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one 
 body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined 
 unto the Lord is one spirit r .' 
 
 tendere? de caelo, quod aiunt, in illo et inter nos sumus, ...reprobi et 
 
 coenum ? ... Cur ergo non hujus- infideles, omnesque ejusmodi, Spiri- 
 
 modi etiam daemoniis penetrabiles tus Christi destituti, quamvis sumant 
 
 fiant? nam et exemplum accidit, et participant pan em quern frangimus, 
 
 Domino teste, ejus inulieris quae et benedictionis calicem, ...non fiunt 
 
 theatrum adiit, et inde cum daemonic unum corpus cum Christo et fidelibus, 
 
 rediit. Itaque in exorcismo cum one- sicut ipse Apostolus docet, inquiens : 
 
 rareturirnrnuudusspiritus.quodausus Qui Spiritum Christi non habet, hie 
 
 esset fidelem adgredi ; constanter, non est ejus. Rom. viii. 9. 2 Cor. vi.' 
 
 Justissime quidem, inquit, feci, in Albertin. p. 225. 
 meo enim inveni.' Tertullian. de r i Cor. vi. 15, 16, 17. Compare 
 
 Spectac. cap. xxv. xxvi. p. 83. 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15, 16. N. B. The 
 
 i ' Loquitur Apostolus de ejusmodi Apostle is plainly speaking, in all 
 
 communione corporis et sanguinis the three places, of Christians, con- 
 
 Domini, per quam unum corpus cum sidered as true and living members
 
 vin. Explained and Vindicated. 197 
 
 Here we may observe, that the argument, in both cases, pro- 
 ceeds upon the supposition that the Christians whom the Apostle 
 speaks to are true and living members of Christ 8 , and of conse- 
 quence actual partakers of all the spiritual benefits of such union : 
 which union would be entirely broken, and all its privileges for- 
 feited, by commencing a contrary union, either with devils in 
 one case, or with harlots in the other. The Apostle is not 
 speaking of Christians as barely contradicting their outward pro- 
 fessions, or committing a logical absurdity, but of their acting 
 inconsistently with their internal blessings or privileges. There 
 was no natural impossibility of appearing as guests both at God's 
 table and the table of devils ; it was as easy to be done, as it 
 was easy for men to be deceitful, false, and wicked : but the 
 Apostle speaks of a real inconsistency in things ; namely, such as 
 lies in the being in league with God and the devil at the same 
 time, and retaining the friendship and participation of both *. All 
 which shews, that the communicants whom the Apostle speaks 
 of, were supposed to be true members of Christ, and of the invi- 
 sible Church, in that very action, and so of consequence, thereby 
 receiving all such spiritual benefits as that membership implies. 
 
 III. It has been thought some objection to this notion of 
 benefits, that men could not be supposed to receive benefits from 
 devils ; and therefore the analogy or parallel will not hold, if 
 St. Paul be interpreted as admitting or asserting benefits in the 
 Eucharist. In reply to which I observe, i. That St. Paul does 
 not particularly mention benefits, (though he supposes them all 
 the time,) but draws both parts of his parallel in general terms, 
 and terms corresponding : communion of Christ's body and blood 
 
 of the internal invisible Church, and * Ou yap dt\ia v/j.a$ KOIVUVOVS 801- 
 
 not merely of the external and visible. poviuv yiveaBat, 6 a.w6ffro\os \eytr 
 
 'Nee ergo dicendi sunt manducare fad 3t'x adi&ufvcav KO! <f>9ifj,vwv 
 
 corpus Christi, quoniam nee in mem- rpo<f>al . . . OVK fij\oyov rpavffrjs 801- 
 
 bris computandi sunt ; quia non pos- povitav fj.tr a\a./j.(3d.i>fii>, rovs Betas fj.tr- 
 
 sunt esse membra Christi, et membra t\ fiv K0 ^ "fvf vfi.cn iitris Karr)iia/j.t>'ovs 
 
 meretricis. ' Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. rpo^s. Clem. Alex. Paed. lib. ii. 
 
 xxi. cap. 25. cap. I. pp. 168, 169. 
 
 1 'Corpus nostrum, (id est, caro 'Nonpotestis et Dei et daemonum 
 
 quae cum sanetimonia perseverat, et esse participes.' Pseudo-Hieronym. 
 
 munditia,) membra di.xit esse Christi.' in loc. 
 Irenaeus, lib. v. cap. 6. p. 300.
 
 198 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 on one side, communion of devils on the other. There the parallel 
 rests, and there it answers to the greatest exactness : for as on 
 one hand there are supposed influences, influxes, impressions, 
 communications from Christ, so on the other hand, there are 
 likewise supposed influences, influxes, impressions, communica- 
 tions from devils. The parallel here drawn out by the Apostle 
 goes no further, and therefore it is strictly just, regular, and 
 elegant : but the nature of the thing speaks the rest, that the 
 influxes must be of as contrary a kind, as Christ is opposite 
 to Belial. 2. St. Paul certainly supposed benefits, and great 
 ones, belonging to the Lord's table : otherwise his dissuasive 
 against the table of devils had been very lame and insufficient. 
 For undoubtedly there were benefits to be expected (temporal 
 benefits) on the other side, or else there had been no temptation 
 that way, nor any occasion for such earnestness as the Apostle 
 uses in the case to dissuade them from it : and if the Apostle 
 had not supposed some benefits, of the spiritual kind, to be an- 
 nexed to the Eucharist, much superior to all temporal emolu- 
 ments, there would have been but very little force in his whole 
 dissuasive. To be short; the more beneficial we conceive the 
 Sacrament to be, so much the stronger is the Apostle's argument 
 for preferring the Lord's table before any other that was incom- 
 patible with it : and therefore the supposition of benefits in the 
 Eucharist was by no means foreign to the point in view, or wide 
 of his purpose, but quite the contrary. For what could be 
 more pertinent to his design of warning Christians to have no- 
 thing to do with the table of devils, than the intimating to them 
 that they would thereby forfeit all the benefits and privileges 
 they expected from the table of the Lord ? Upon this foot, 
 and this only, there is force and poignancy in what he says ; 
 ' Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of 
 devils V 
 
 IV. It may perhaps be objected further, that the Pagan 
 
 u i Cor. x. 21. I Cor. xi. 27, 29. there be to receive at all? Who 
 
 If there were not great benefits on would run the dreadful risk of being 
 
 one hand, as there is great clanger on guilty of the body and blood of the 
 
 the other, what encouragement could Lord ?
 
 vin. Explained and Vindicated. 199 
 
 notion of their sacrificial feasts was no more than this, that their 
 gods or demons might sometimes condescend to come and feast 
 with them, and so those feasts imported some kind of society or 
 alliance with demons, but nothing of influxes, communications, 
 impressions, &c. To which I answer, that we are not here in- 
 quiring what the Pagans supposed, but how the Apostle inter- 
 preted their feastings of that kind. The Pagans believed in 
 gods, (as they thought,) or good demons ; but the Apostle inter- 
 prets all of bad angels or devils. And it is further observable, 
 that he speaks not of partaking with devils of such banquets, but 
 of partaking, with idolaters, of devils. All the expressions made 
 use of by the Apostle declare for this meaning. Kou/oWa roO 
 o-cb^aroy, is partaking of body, not with body. Koivcovia TOV 
 is partaking of blood, not with blood. Koivavla TOV 
 , is partaking of the altar, not with the altar. In 
 like manner, Koivwia T>V batfuoviuv must mean partaking of de-. 
 vils, not with devils v . For, in truth, the communicants in the 
 idol-sacrifices were joint partakers, with idolaters, of devils, as 
 Christian communicants are joint partakers, with Christians, of 
 Christ. Thus the analogy is duly preserved, and the comparison 
 answers to the greatest exactness. 
 
 I may here briefly take notice, in passing, that what concerns 
 the communion or participation of devils, has been very minutely 
 examined among some learned Divines abroad, within these 
 thirty years last past. Gottofr. Olearius, a learned Lutheran of 
 Leipsic, opened the subject in a Dissertation on i Cor. x. 21, 
 printed A. D. 1709; reprinted in 1712. The design was to 
 explain the Pagan notion of the communion of their demons, 
 and from thence to illustrate the communion of Christ's body 
 and blood in the Eucharist, as taught by the Apostle. Some 
 years after, another learned Lutheran, in a treatise written in 
 
 v An ancient writer, of the third est, non est jam Dei, sed idoli : quae- 
 
 century, well expresses this matter : dum in cibum sumitur, sumentem 
 
 'Quantum enim ad creaturam per- daemonic nutrit, non Deo, convi- 
 
 tineat, omnis munda est : sed cum vam ilium simulacro reddendo, non 
 
 daemoniis immolata fuerit, inquinata Christo.' Novatian. de Cib. Judaic, 
 
 est tarn diu quam diu simulacris cap. 7. 
 offeratur. Quod mox atque factum
 
 2OO I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 the German language, pursued the same hypothesis, and met 
 with good acceptance among many. But in the year 1*728, 
 Mr. Eisner of Utrecht took occasion to animadvert upon it w , 
 blaming Olearius for pushing the point too far, in favour of the 
 Lutheran doctrine concerning the Eucharist, and for maintaining 
 too gross a notion of sacramental manducation. Others have 
 endeavoured to defend or palliate Olearius's doctrine, and re- 
 flect upon Eisner, as too severe or disrespectful in his censure, 
 and as straining things to the worst sense x . All I shall observe 
 upon the dispute is, that both sides appear to agree in three 
 particulars : i. That the idolaters held communion with each 
 other, by eating of the same sacrifices ; to which answers, in the 
 analogy, the communion of Christians with each other, by and 
 in the Eucharist. 2. That the idolaters held communion with 
 devils by feasting at the table of devils : to which answers o\ir 
 holding communion with Christ in the Eucharist. 3. That the 
 devils with whom they so held communion, had thereby some 
 power or influence over them : to which answer the Divine influ- 
 ences upon true and worthy communicants in the Eucharist. 
 
 V. There is yet another objection worth the considering, be- 
 cause it seems to strike at the main grounds upon which we have 
 proceeded in explaining the Apostle's doctrine in this chapter. 
 It is suggested, that 8mp6viov in that place does not signify 
 devil y, but either a good demon, or something imaginary, a mere 
 nonentity : and this is grounded partly upon the consideration 
 that the Pagans could never intend to sacrifice to devils, and 
 partly upon St. Paul's allowing an idol to be nothing. The 
 reader may find this suggestion abundantly confuted, in Whitby 
 and Wolfius upon this chapter ; and therefore I shall here con- 
 tent myself with briefly hinting as follows : i. That the word 
 v, commonly 2 in the New Testament, does signify some 
 
 w Eisner. Observat. Sacr. torn. ii. z A late learned writer very acute- 
 
 p. 108. ly as well as justly observes, that the 
 
 * Wolfius, Curae Cr!t. in I Cor. x. sacred penmen, when speaking their 
 
 21. p. 461. Mosheim. in Praefat. ad own sense, and not reporting the 
 
 Cudworth de Coena. words of others, do always use the 
 
 y See Le Clerc in loc. in his Sup- word Sainiviov in the bad sense. Dr. 
 
 plement to Hammond, p. 338. Engl. Warren, part i. p. 75. part ii. p. 7, 
 
 edit. See.
 
 vin. Explained and Vindicated. 201 
 
 evil spirit, as in the many cases of demoniacs therein mentioned, 
 besides other instances. 2. That in this place of St. Paul, the 
 word ought to be so interpreted, in conformity to Deuteronomy 
 xxxii. 17, which St. Paul appears to have had in his eye, 'They 
 sacrificed unto devils, not to God ;' which Le Clerc himself 
 (who raises the objection which I am now answering) interprets 
 of evil spirits a . 3. That St. Paul speaks not of what the 
 heathens intended, or had in view, but of the real nature, ten- 
 dency, or consequence of their idolatry. 4. That though St. Paul 
 knew that idols, whether understood of statues and images, or 
 of the deities supposed to reside in them, were really nothing, 
 (as having either no being b, as many had not, or no divinity c , 
 and were not capable of making any physical change in the 
 meats, which were the good creatures of God; yet he knew 
 withal, that evil spirits suggested to men those idolatrous prac- 
 tices, and resided in those images, and assisted in those services, 
 personating those fictitious deities, and drawing all those adora- 
 tions, in the last result, to themselves d : therefore St. Paul cautions 
 the Corinthians against putting themselves into the power and 
 possession of those evil spirits, which they were not before aware 
 of e . 5. There can be no sense or no force in St. Paul's argu- 
 ment, if we interpret his words either of good demons or of mere 
 nothings : for it would sound very odd to say, I would not have 
 you partakers of good angels ; or of nothings, that is, no partakers ; 
 and again, Ye cannot partake of the Lord's table, and the table 
 of good angels or table of nonentities. Besides that the Apostle 
 
 a "EBvffav Soi/xovt'ofs /ecu ov > scilicet, daemones.' Tertull. de Spec- 
 
 Deut. xxxii. 17. Vid. Cleric, in loc. tac. cap. x. p. 77. 
 
 item in Levit. xvii. 7. Cacodaemoni- 'Non quod idolum sit aliquid, 
 
 bus. See also Baruch iv. 7. (ut Apostolus ait,) sed quod quae 
 
 b Such as personalized qualities, faciunt, daemoniis faciunt, consisten- 
 
 mere abstract ideas ; as mercy, jus- tibus scilicet in consecrationibus idol- 
 
 tice, faith, truth, concord, health, orum, sive mortuorum, sive (ut pu- 
 
 fortune, &c, tant) deorum. Propterea igitur, quo- 
 
 c As sun, moon, stars, &c. niam utraque species idolorum con- 
 
 d 'Scimus nihil esse nomina mor- ditionis unius est, dum mortui et dii 
 
 tuorum, sicut et ipsa simulacra unum sunt, utraque idololatria ab- 
 
 eorum ; sed non ignoramus qui sub stinemus.-.quia non possumus coe- 
 
 istis nominibus, institutis simulacris nam Dei edere, et coenam daemoni- 
 
 operentur et gaudeant, et divinita- orum.' Tertull. ibid. cap. xiii. p. 
 
 tern uientiantur, nequam spiritus 79.
 
 2O3 1 Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 was obviating or refuting that very objection about an idol's being 
 nothing ; allowing it in a physical sense, but not in a moral one ; 
 allowing it of the klol considered in itself, but not of what it led 
 to, and terminated in. Whatever men might think of bare idols, 
 yet evil spirits, which promoted and accepted that idolatrous 
 worship, were real beings, and very pernicious, many ways f , to 
 the worshippers, and to as many as were partners with them, 
 either formally or in just construction. In this light, the Apostle's 
 argument is clear and solid, and his sense strong and nervous ; 
 countenanced also by other Scriptures and the whole stream of 
 antiquity. 
 
 VI. There are yet other objections, of a slighter kind, which 
 I may here throw together, and briefly answer, that no further 
 scruple may remain. A learned man very lately ?, in his Latin 
 Notes upon Cudworth's treatise on the Sacrament, and in his 
 Preface to the same, has taken a great deal of pains to explain, 
 (should I say T) or rather to perplex and obscure the Apostle's 
 argument in this chapter, and to turn it off to a different 
 meaning from what I have been pleading for. His reason, or 
 motive, for doing it, appears to be, to make it square the better 
 with the Lutheran notion of the corporal presence in the Eucha- 
 rist. He takes it for granted that both good and bad do equally 
 receive the Lord's body and blood, (which is indeed the natural 
 and necessary consequence of their other principles,) and there- 
 fore he cannot admit that the communion here spoken of should 
 be understood of benefits, lest those benefits also should be 
 supposed common to both, which is palpably absurd. He frankly 
 enough discovers where his main scruple lies h ; and then pro- 
 
 t Wolfius well distinguishes, in his est, distinguit a Saiuon'oiy. tanquam 
 
 Comments on this text, pp. 459, 460. quae vere existant, et ex cultu prae- 
 
 ' Non tarn hie quaeritur, quid genti- stito fructum percipiant, in perniciem 
 
 libus de deastris suis persuasum fue- sacrificantium redundaiitem ; quem- 
 
 rit, quam quod illis persuasum esse admodum et ol Qvovrts sacra sua 
 
 debuerit, quidve ex rei veritate de faciant ea intentione, ut cum deastris 
 
 illis sit judicandum : posterius hoc conjungantur.' 
 
 innuit Apostolus, et testatum adeo 8 Joannes Laurentius Moshemius, 
 
 facit, cultum ilium superstitiosum et Jenae, 1733. 
 
 a mails daemonibus profectum esse, h 'Quidsentiamdeinterpretatione 
 
 et in illorum societatem pertrahere hac verborum S. Pauli, itemque de 
 
 . . . Apostolus rb fTSw\oi> quod nihil argumento quod ex illis elicit vir doc-
 
 viii. Explained and Vindicated. 203 
 
 ceeds to invent reasons, or colours, to support it. He pleads 
 that St. Paul, in this place, mentions no distinction between 
 worthy receivers and unworthy, but seems rather to make what 
 he speaks of common to both ; for he inserts no exception, or 
 salvo, as he ought to have done, had his words been intended 
 of receiving benefits i, &c. To which I answer : i . That there 
 was no occasion for making any express distinction : it was 
 sufficient to leave it to every one's good sense tacitly to supply. 
 The Apostle speaks of it according to what it was in the general, 
 and in God's design, and in its primary intention, and what it 
 always would be in the event, if not rendered fruitless through 
 some default of the communicants k : but as the real sacrifice of 
 Christ's death, with the benefits thereof, was to extend no further 
 than to persons qualified for it, and not to the impenitent; so 
 every man's own reason would readily suggest to him, without 
 a monitor, that the application of that sacrifice could not be of 
 wider extent than the sacrifice itself. 2. Add to this, that 
 nothing is more usual in Scripture than to omit such exceptions 
 as common sense might readily supply ; partly for the sake of 
 brevity or elegancy, and partly for the avoiding impei-tinence or 
 offence. How often are the benefits of Baptism spoken of in 
 general and absolute terms, without any excepting clause with 
 respect to unworthy partakers. It was needless to insert any ; 
 for Christians understood the terms of their Baptismal covenant, 
 
 tissimus (Cudworthus) ad opinionem Reformatos recepta est, excepisset 
 
 suam probandam, in praefatione ape- PaulushauddubiedegeneresCliristia- 
 
 riam. . . Hie monuisse satis erit, pre- nos ex illis qui Christi compotes fiunt 
 
 mi ab eo vestigia praecipuorum re- in S. Coena, dixissetque : Nostisne 
 
 formati coetus doctorum. &c. .. .velle eos homines, in quibus castus est 
 
 enim hos notum est, ideo S. Coenam animus et vera fides, corporis et san- 
 
 a Servatore nostro potissimum esse guinis Christi compotes fieri?' Mo- 
 
 institutam, ut sancti homines, qui ad shem. ibid. p. 31. Cp. Gerhard, et 
 
 earn accedunt, cum Christo Servatore Albertin. Respon. p. 225. 
 
 suoarctiusconjungantur, etbeneficio- k Chrysostom is very clear on thig 
 
 rum hominibus ab eo partorum red- head, in Matt. Horn. Ixxxiii. p. 788. 
 
 danturparticipes: nos verorepudiare, Bened. ed. And so indeed are all 
 
 qui omnes homines, sive probi sint, the ancients, when rightly under- 
 
 sive improbi, corporis et sanguinis stood. None of them ever imagined 
 
 Domini vere fieri compotes in S. that the 'res sacramenti,' the thing 
 
 Coena statuimus.' Moshem, in Notis signified, was received at all by 
 
 ad cap. iv. sect. a. p. 30. the unworthy, either spiritually or 
 
 ' ' Si vera esset sententia, quae inter orally.
 
 204 i Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 and did not want to be told perpetually, that Simon Magus and 
 other the like wretches, though baptized, had no part in them. 
 Many times does St. Paul remind Christians of their bodies being 
 the members of Christ, or temple of God, or temple of the Holy 
 Ghost \ making no exception at all for corrupt Christians : he 
 thought it best to omit invidious exceptions ; not doubting but 
 that such plain things would be tacitly understood by every one, 
 without his naming them. Once indeed, after he had told the 
 Corinthians of Christ being in them, he adds, ' except ye be 
 reprobates m .' But certainly it was neither necessary nor proper 
 to be perpetually inculcating an invidious and grating reflection. 
 The persons whom he wrote to, might not always be dull enough 
 to want it, or bad enough to deserve it ; a softer kind of address 
 might be both more acceptable to them, and more effectual to 
 incite them to all goodness. There is therefore no force at all 
 in the negative argument drawn from St. Paul's omitting to 
 make an express exception to the case of unworthy communi- 
 cants in i Cor. x. 16 ; or however, he abundantly supplied it in 
 the next chapter, and needed not to do it twice over in the same 
 Epistle, and within the compass of forty verses. 
 
 But the learned Mosheim presently after subjoins another 
 little plea n , to add weight to the former. He asks, why should 
 the Apostle so distinctly mention the communion both of the 
 body and of the blood, if he intended no more than the fruits of 
 Christ's death ? Might not the single mention of his death or of 
 its fruits have sufficed 1 To which we might justly answer, by 
 asking the same question : What occasion could there be, upon 
 his own principles, for distinctly mentioning both body and blood] 
 Might not body alone have sufficed, especially considering how 
 
 I i Cor. iii. 16, 17; vi. 15-20. docere voluisset, mortis Christi fruc- 
 2 Cor. vi. 1 6. turn ad eos pervenire qui S. Coena 
 
 m 2 Cor. xiii. 5. fruerentur ? Suffecisset ad bane rem 
 
 II ' Deinde vir divines distincte cor- exprimendam, si generatim dixisset : 
 poris et sanguinis Christi participes minime vos praeterit, in Christi et 
 fieri dicit eos, qui poculum benedic- mortis ejus couimunionem pervenire, 
 turn, et panem qui frangitur, accipe- quibus poculum consecratum etpanis 
 rent in S. Coena. Quid distincta hac fractus in S. Coena exhibetur. Mo- 
 mentione tarn corporis quam sangui- shein. ibid. p. 31. Cp. Gerhard, et 
 nis Christi opus fuisset, si hoc tantum Albertin. Respon. p. 225.
 
 viii. Explained and Vindicated. 205 
 
 doubtful a point it has been thought, whether a glorified body 
 has properly any blood in it or no ? The learned author 
 might better have waved an objection which recoils so strongly 
 upon his own hypothesis. To answer more directly, we say, 
 upon our principles, that the distinct mentioning both of the 
 body and the blood was exceeding proper, and very significant ; 
 because it shews that our Lord is considered in the Eucharist 
 according to the state he was in at his crucifixion : for then only 
 it was, that his body and blood were separate ; one hanging on 
 the cross, the other spilled upon the ground. That body and that 
 blood are commemorated in the Eucharist, the body broken, and 
 the blood shed : therefore St. Paul so distinctly mentioned both, 
 lest Christians should think (as indeed, in late and dark ages, 
 Christians have thought) that the words of the institution, 
 though express for broken body, and blood shed upon earth, 
 should be interpreted to mean his glorified body in heaven. 
 St. Paul very justly followed the style of the institution, our 
 Lord's own style : and by that he shewed, that he was speaking 
 of the separation of the body and blood, which in reality was the 
 death of our Lord, or seen only in his death, and consequently 
 such manner of speaking directly pointed to the death of our 
 Lord, and to the fruits or benefits arising from it. Mr. Mosheim 
 goes on to make some slight objections to Dr. Cudworth's just 
 notion of the pai*takers of the altar, as sharing the benefits or 
 expiations thereof. It would be tedious to make a particular 
 reply to every little objection which a pregnant wit can raise, 
 and therefore I shall only say this : either he must understand 
 it of a real communion of and with that God, whose altar it 
 was, and then it implies benefits of course ; or he must under- 
 stand it only of external declarations or professions, such as 
 hypoci-ites might make, and then it will be hard to shew how that 
 agrees Avith the symbol of eating, which means receiving some- 
 thing, (not giving out declarations,) and is plainly so understood, 
 not only in John vi., but also in Heb. xiii. 10, where eating of 
 an altar is spoken of. 
 
 Vid.Allix.Dissei-tat.de Sanguine Hist, of the Eucharist, part ii. cap. 6. 
 D. N. Jesu Christi. Cp. 1'Arroque, p. 268.
 
 2o6 1 Corinthians x. 16, &e. CHAP. 
 
 Mr. Mosheim says no more in his Notes : but in his Preface, 
 written afterwards, he pursues the same argument ; and there he 
 endeavours to invalidate the other parallel drawn from partaking 
 of devils. He will not be persuaded? that the idolaters did really 
 sacrifice to evil spirits : but it is certain they did ; though they 
 intended quite otherwise. And he will not allow that they were 
 partakers of devils, because an idol is nothing : which has been 
 abundantly answered before. I shall only add, that this learned 
 writer was not perhaps aware, that he has been enforcing the 
 objection of the idolaters, and labouring to elude St. Paul's answer 
 to it, in contradiction to the Apostle's clear and express words. 
 St. Paul granted that an idol physically was nothing, but that 
 morally and circumstantially it stood in quite another view : for, 
 though an idol was nothing; yet a devil, under the name or 
 cover of an idol, was a real thing, and of very dangerous conse- 
 quence, to make alliance with. But I proceed. 
 
 When this learned gentleman comes to propose his own inter- 
 pretation of the whole passage, he does it in such an intricate 
 and confused manner, as discovers it at once to be unnatural and 
 forced. He first breaks the coherence of it, in a very particular 
 way, and owns that he does so<l. Then he proceeds to speak of 
 St. Paul's abrupt and rapid manner of writing, and of his omit- 
 ting many things for an interpreter to supply, (though before he 
 would not allow him to omit a needless exception, which nobody 
 almost could miss of,) and of his jumping to a conclusion, before 
 he had sufficiently opened his premises 1 ". Could one desire a 
 
 P ' Nunquam inihi persuaserim, cumque res ipsa testetur, nullam esse 
 
 sanctum hominem id sibi velle, pro- cognationem et affinitatem cummati 
 
 fan us vere mails geniis, aut deastris 16 et 17 cum consequente comma te 
 
 immolare, quae iminolarent : etenim 18, reliquum est, ut constituamus, 
 
 haec sententia pugnaret cum eo quod divellendum esse hoc posterius com- 
 
 paulo ante largitus erat Corinthiis, ma a prioribus binis, novamque ab 
 
 deastrum nihil, aut commentitium eo partem orationis sancti bominis 
 
 esse aliquid : si nihil est deaster, inchoandam esse,' &c. Moshem. in 
 
 quomodo vere sacrificari potest illi Praefat. 
 
 afiquid V Moshem. in Praefat. T 'Praecisam et concitatam esse 
 
 i ' Exerceant, quibus placet, inge- inultis in locis S. Pauli disputati-: 
 
 mum, experianturque, num demon- onem, et multa interdum ab eo omitti 
 
 strare queant haec apta esse inter se, quae interpretis meditatione ac in- 
 
 ac cohaerentia ? Quae cum ita sint, genio suppler! debent, quo perfectam
 
 viii. Explained and Vindicated. 207 
 
 more sensible or more affecting token of the irresistible strength 
 of the ancient and prevailing construction than this, that the 
 acutest wit, joined with uncommon learning, can make no other 
 sense of the place, but by taking such liberties with sacred Writ, 
 as are by no means allowable upon any known rules of just and 
 sober hermeneutics 1 I shall dwell no longer on this learned 
 gentleman's speculations ; which, I am willing to hope, are not 
 the sentiments of all the Lutherans. They are confronted, in 
 part, by the very learned Wolfius, as I observed above : and I 
 am now going to take notice of the moderate sentiments of 
 Baron Puffendorff (who was an able divine, as well as a consum- 
 mate statesman) in his latest treatise, left behind him ready 
 for the press, written in Latin, and printed in 16958. He 
 first candidly represents the principles of the Reformed, and 
 next passes a gentle censure. 
 
 ' Some say [meaning some of the Reformed] that... we must 
 not believe the bread and wine to be a naked symbol, but a 
 communication, or mean by which we come into participation of 
 the body and blood of Christ, as St. Paul speaks, I Cor. x. 16. 
 But of what sort that communion or communication is, whether 
 physical or moral, may be very well gathered from that very 
 place of St. Paul. By a physical communion, or participation, 
 must be understood the conjunction of two bodies, as of water 
 and wine, of meal and sugar : but by a moral one is meant, 
 such as when anything partakes of the virtue and efficacy of 
 another, and in that respect is accounted the same with the 
 other, or is connected with it. As among the Jews, they who 
 
 demonstratio formam adipiscatur, ne- exhibere volunt, addere passim quae- 
 
 minem in scriptis istis versatum prae- dam debent et interjicere, ad ea plane 
 
 terit. Id hoc etiam in loco memi- tollenda quae intelligentiam morari 
 
 nisse decet, quo divinus vir, sacro possunt.' Moshem. ibid. 
 
 elatus fervore, et incredibili Corin- ' Jus feciale divinum : sive de 
 
 thios emendandi studio accensus, ad Consensu et Dissensu Protestantium, 
 
 demonstrationis conclusionem pro- exercitatio posthuma. ' Lubecae, 
 
 perat potius quam pergit, nee plura 1695. 
 
 exprimit verbis quam summa postulat The Divine feudal Law : or Means 
 
 necessitas ad vim ejus capiendam. for the uniting of Protestants. Trana- 
 
 Quare qui rudiorum captui consulere, lated from the original by Theophilua 
 
 et universam argumentationem ejus Dorrington, 1703. 
 nervis et partibus suis cohaerentem
 
 2o8 I Corinthians x. 16, &c. CHAP. 
 
 did eat of the flesh of the victim were made partakers of the 
 altar ; that is, of the Jewish worship, and of all the benefits 
 which did accompany that worship. So also, they who did eat 
 of things sacrificed to idols were partakers of devils ; not for that 
 they did eat the substance of the devils, but because they 
 did derive upon themselves the guilt of idolatry. From all 
 which things we may learn to understand the words of the in- 
 stitution in this sense This bread eaten by the faithful, in the 
 ceremony of this Supper, this wine also therein drank by such, 
 shall have the same virtue and efficacy, as if you should eat the 
 substance itself of my body, and drink the very substance of my 
 blood. Or, this bread is put in the stead of the sacrificed flesh, 
 this wine is in the stead of the sacrificed blood ; whereby the 
 covenant between God and men, having me for the mediator of 
 it, is established. Nor indeed are such sort of expressions (im- 
 porting an equivalence or substitution) uncommon, whether in 
 holy Scripture or in profane writers. For example : " I have 
 made God my hope *." Elijah was the " chariots of Israel, and the 
 horsemen thereof"." "Woman, behold thy son ; son, behold thy 
 mother x ." " He that doth the will of my Father, the same is my 
 brother, and sister, and mother y." It is said of the enemies of 
 the cross of Christ, " that their belly is their god z ." So in Virgil 
 we have the like phraseology, " Thou shalt be to me the great 
 Apollo." 
 
 ' But in articles of faith, it is safer to follow a naked simplicity, 
 than to indulge the fancy in pursuit of subtilties. And it has 
 been observed, that while the reins have been left too loose to 
 human reason, in this article of the Lord's Supper, the other 
 mysteries also of the Christian religion have be tampered with, 
 so that by degrees Socinianism is at length sprung up. But if 
 both sides would but sincerely profess, that in the Lord's Supper 
 Christ's body and blood are verily and properly eaten and 
 drank a , and that there is a participation of the benefits by 
 him purchased, all the controversy remaining is only about the 
 
 * Job xxxi. 24. u 2 Kings ii. 12. * John xix. 26, 27. 
 
 i Matt. sii. 50. * Phil. iii. 19. 
 
 We say, ' Verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful.'
 
 YIII, Explained and Vindicated. 209 
 
 manner of eating and drinking, and of the presence" of Christ's 
 body and blood, which both sides confess to be above the reach 
 of human capacity : and so they make use of reasonings, where 
 is no room for reason V So far this very judicious writer, a 
 moderate Lutheran, and a person of admirable sagacity. I shall 
 hereupon take the liberty to observe, that if the supposed cor- 
 poral presence were but softened into corporal union, and that 
 union understood to be of the mystical or moral kind, (like to 
 that of man and wife making one flesh, or all true Christians, at 
 any distance, making one body,) and if this union were reckoned 
 among the fruits of Christ's death, received by the faithful in the 
 Eucharist, then would everything of moment be secured on all 
 sides : and the doctrine of the Eucharist, so stated, would be 
 found to be altogether intelligible, rational, and scriptural, and 
 confirmed by the united verdict of all antiquity. 
 
 As to Lutherans and Calvinists, however widely they may 
 appear to differ in words and in names, yet their ideas seem all 
 to concentre (as often as they come to explain) in what I have 
 mentioned. The Calvinists, for example, sometimes speak of 
 eating Christ's body and blood by faith, or by the mind ; and yet 
 they seem to understand nothing more than a kind of moral, 
 virtual, spiritual, or mystical union , (such as bodies at a dis- 
 tance may have,) though perhaps they do not always explain it 
 so happily as might be wished. On the other hand, the Lu- 
 therans when pressed to speak plainly, deny every article almost 
 which they are commonly charged with by their adversaries. 
 They disown assumption of the elements into the humanity of 
 Christ d , as likewise augmentation 6 , and impanation f ; yea, and 
 consubstantiation -, and concomitancy h : and, if it be asked, at 
 
 b Puffendorf. Eng. edit. sect. Ixiii. e Pfaffius, p. 451, &c. Buddaeus, 
 
 pp. 211, 712, 213. Lat. edit. sect. Miscellan. Sacr. torn. ii. pp. 81, 
 
 Ixiii. pp. 227, 228, 229. 82. 
 
 c Vid. Albertin. pp. 230, 231. f Pfaffius, p. 453. Buddaeus, ibid. 
 
 Pet. Martyr, in i Cor. xii. 12, 13. p. 83. Deylingius, Observ. Miscell. 
 
 p. 178. p. 249. 
 
 d Vid. Pfaffius, Dissertat. de Con- s Pfaffius, p. 453, &c. Buddaeus, 
 
 secrat. Eucharist, p. 449, &c. Bud- idid. p. 84. Deylingius, ibid, 
 
 daeus, Miscellan. Sacr. torn. ii. pp. h Pfaffius, ibid. p. 459. Buddaeus, 
 
 80, 8 1. ibid. pp. 85, 86. 
 
 P
 
 Remission of Shis CHAP. 
 
 length, what they admit and abide by, it is a sacramental union > ; 
 not a corporal presence, but as a body may be present spiritually i. 
 And now, what is a sacramental union, with a body spiritually 
 present, .while corporally absent ? Or what ideas can any one 
 really have under these terms, more than that of a mystical or 
 moral union, (such as Baron Puffendorf speaks of,) an union as 
 to virtue and efficacy, and to all saving intents and purposes ? 
 So far both parties are agreed, and the remaining difference may 
 seem to lie chiefly in words and names, rather than in ideas, 
 or real things k . But great allowances should be made for the 
 prevailing prejudices of education, and for a customary way of 
 speaking or thinking on any subject. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Of Remission of Sins conferred in tJte EUCHARIST. 
 
 THIS is an article which has been hitherto touched upon only 
 as it fell in my way, but will now require a particular discussion : 
 and that it may be done the more distinctly and clearly, it will 
 be proper to take in two or three previous propositions, which 
 may be of use to prevent misconceptions of what we mean, and 
 
 1 Pfaffius, p. 461, &c. Buddaeus, sanguis Christi (modo quern ratio 
 
 ibid. p. S'i, &c. comprehendere nequit) uniatur : ut 
 
 J 'Quinimoet corporalis praesentia cum illo pane corpus Christi una 
 
 negatur, quae tamen ea ratione ad- manducatione sacramentali, et cum 
 
 struitur, ut corpus Christi vere, licet illo vino sanguinem Christi una 
 
 spiritualiter praesens esse credatur. bibitione sacramentali, in sublimi 
 
 Caeterum cum corpus Christi ubique mysterio sumamus, manducemus, et 
 
 junctam divinitatem habeat, ea et in bibamus.' Buddaeus, ibid. pp. 86, 
 
 sacra coena praesens est ; singulari 87. 
 
 tamen et incomprehensibili ratione, k ' Testatur Zanchius, se audivisse 
 
 quae omnes imperfectionesexcludit.' quendam non vulgarem Lutheranum 
 
 Pfaffius, p. 462. 'Praesentiam realem dicentem, se et alios suos non ita di- 
 
 profitemur, carnalem negamus.' Puf- cere corpus Christi a nobis corpo- 
 
 fend. sect. 92. raliter manducari, quasi illud Christi 
 
 'Unicus itaqtie saltern isque verus corpus os et corpus nostrum attingat 
 
 et genuinus praesentiae realis super- (hoc enim falsum esse) sed tantum 
 
 est modus, unio sacramentalis ; quae propter sacramentalem unionem, qua 
 
 ita comparata est, ut, juxta ipsius id quod proprie conipetit pani, attri- 
 
 Servatoris nostri institutionem, pani buitur etiatn quodammodo ipsi cor- 
 
 benedicto tanquam medio divinitus pori Christi. In hisce ergo conveni- 
 
 ordinato corpus, et vino benedicto mus.' Sam. Ward. Theolog. Deter- 
 
 tanquam medio divinitus ordinato minat. p. 113.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 2H 
 
 to open the way to what we intend to prove. The previous pro- 
 positions are : i. That it is God alone who properly confers re- 
 mission. 2. That he often does it in this life present, as seems good 
 unto him, on certain occasions, and in sundry degrees. 3. That he 
 does it particularly in Baptism, in a very eminent degree. These 
 several points being premised and proved, it will be the easier after- 
 wards to shew that he does it also in the Eucharist, as likewise to 
 explain the nature and extent of the remission there conferred. 
 
 i. I begin with premising, that God alone properly confers 
 remission of sins : whatever secondary means or instruments may 
 be made use of in it, yet it is God that does it. ' "Who can for- 
 give sins but God only 1 ?' We read, that 'it is God that justi- 
 fieth m .' Justification of sinners comes to the same with remis- 
 sion : it is receiving them as just ; which amounts to acquitting, 
 or absolving them, in the court of heaven. For proof of this, I 
 refer the reader to Bishop Bull's Harmonia Apostolica n , that I 
 may not be tedious In a very plain case. The use I intend 
 of the observation, with respect to our present subject, is, 
 that if we are said to eat or drink, in the Eucharist, the benefits 
 of Christ's passion, (among which remission of sins is one,) or if 
 we are said to apply those benefits, and of consequence that remis- 
 sion, to ourselves, by faith, &c., all this is to be understood only 
 of our receiving such remission, and partaking of those benefits, 
 while it is God that grants and confers, and who also, properly 
 speaking, applies every benefit of that kind to the faithful com- 
 municant. And whether he does it by his word or by his ordi- 
 nances, and by the hands of his ministers, he does it however : 
 and when such absolution, or remission, is real and true, it is 
 not an human absolution, but a divine grant, transmitted to us 
 by the hands of men administering the ordinances of God. God 
 has sometimes sent his extraordinary grants of that kind by 
 prophets and other officers extraordinary : and he may do the 
 like in a fixed and standing method, by his ordinary officers or 
 ministers duly commissioned thereunto P. But whoever he be that 
 
 1 Mark ii. 7. Rom. viii. 33. n Bull, Harmon. Apostol. 
 
 Dissert, i. cap i. 2 Sam. xii 13. Compare Eccl us. xlvii. u. 
 
 P Matt. xvi. 19 ; xviii. 16, 17, 18. John xx. 22, 23. Acts xxii. 16. 
 
 P 2
 
 212 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 brings the pardon, or who pursuant to commission notifies it to 
 the party in solemn form, yet the pardon, if true, is the gift of 
 God, and it is God alone, or the Spirit of God, that applies it to 
 the soul, and converts it to spiritual nutriment and increase. 
 This, I presume, may be looked upon as a ruled point, and needs 
 not more words to prove it. 
 
 2. The next thing I have to premise is, that God often confers 
 remission, or justification, for the time being, in this life present, 
 with certain and immediate effect, according to the degree or 
 extent of it. All remission is not final, nor suspended upon what 
 may come after : but there is such a thing as present remission, 
 distinct from the final one, and which may or may not continue 
 to the end, but is valid for the time being, and is in its own 
 nature (no cross circumstances intervening) irrevocable. Let us 
 come to particulars, in proof of the position. Jesus said unto 
 the sick of the palsy, ' Son, thy sins are forgiven thee 1.' There 
 was present remission of some kind or other, to some certain 
 degree, antecedent to the day of judgment, and of force for the 
 time being. So again, our Lord's words, 'Whose soever sins 
 ye remit, they are remitted r ,' &c. ; do plainly suppose and imply 
 a present remission to some degree or other, antecedently to the 
 great day, and during this present life. ' All that believe,' (viz. 
 with a faith working by love,) ' are justified 8 ,' &c. The text 
 speaks plainly of a present justification, or remission : for both 
 amount to the same, as I have hinted before. St. Paul speaks 
 of sincere converts, as ' being justified freely by God's grace, 
 through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ * ; ' and soon 
 after mentions ' remission of sins past V meaning remission then 
 present ; as indeed he could not mean anything else. In another 
 place, he speaks of justification as then actually received, or 
 obtained : ' Being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ ... by whom we have now 
 received the atonement \' Elsewhere he says, ' Ye are washed, 
 ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 and by the Spirit of our God w .' Again : ' You being dead in 
 
 i Mark ii. 5, 9. Luke v. 20. r John xx. 23. Acta xiii. 39. 
 
 Bom. iii. 24. u Horn. iii. 25. v Rom. v. I, 11. w I Cor. vi. n.
 
 ix. conferred in the EucJiarist. 213 
 
 your sins . . . hath he quickened, . . . having forgiven you all tres- 
 passes x .' I shall take notice but of one text more: 'I write 
 unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you y.' 
 So then, present remission, in some cases or circumstances, may 
 be justly looked upon as a clear point. Nevertheless, we are to 
 understand it in a sense consistent with what St. Paul teaches 
 elsewhere : ' We are made partakers of Christ, (finally,) if we 
 hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end 2 .' 
 There is a distinction to be made between present and final justi- 
 fication : not that one is conditional and the other absolute, (for 
 both are absolute in their kind, being founded in absolute grants,) 
 but in one case, the party may live long enough to need a new 
 grant ; in the other, he is set beyond all danger or doubtfulness. 
 Present justification amounts to a present right or claim to 
 heaven upon Gospel terms, and presupposes the performance of 
 everything stipulated so far, and is therefore absolute for the 
 time being a . As to future perseverance, because it is future, it 
 comes not into present account, and so is out of the question, as 
 to present justification b , or present stipulation. Perseverance is 
 conditionally stipulated, that is to say, upon the supposition or 
 condition that we live longer : but the question concerning our 
 present claim to heaven upon the Gospel terms, turns only upon 
 what is present, and what serves for the time being. A present 
 right is not therefore no right, or not certain for the present, 
 because of its being liable to forfeiture, on such and such suppo- 
 sitions, afterwards. This I observe here, to remove the prejudices 
 which some may possibly conceive against the very notion of 
 present remission, (either in the Sacraments or out of them,) 
 only because it is not absolute in every view, and upon every 
 
 * Coloss. ii. 13. in quo est, ab ipso requiritur, etiamsi 
 
 y i John ii. 12. jugis et pia operatic adhuc desit : 
 
 1 Heb. iii. 14. proinde ex foedere illo justificatur, 
 
 a 'Hie dico, quod notandum est, atque ad omnia foederis ejusdem 
 
 quemvis justificatum praestitisse in- beneficia jus habet.' Bull. Resp. ad 
 
 tegram foederis Evangelic! conditi- Animad. iii. sect. vi. p. 539. 
 
 onem, pro statu in quo est. Quis- b 'Haec conditio jugis operation's 
 
 quis fide in Christum Si' a.yain)s in evangelico foedere non absolute 
 
 tvfpyovpii>ri praeditus est, is eo mo- requiritur, sed ex hypothesi ; nempe 
 
 mento praestitit integram foederis si Deus vitain largitus fuerit.' Bull. 
 
 Evangelici conditionem quae, in statu ibid.
 
 214 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 supposition, but upon the present view only, or in the circumstances 
 now present. Indeed, remission of sins is a kind of continued act 
 of God towards good men, often repeated in this life, and more 
 and more confirmed the more they improve ; ascertained to them, 
 against all future chances, at their departure hence, but not finally, 
 or in the most solemn form conferred, before the day of judgment. 
 3. I proceed to observe, that such present remission, as I have 
 hitherto been speaking of, is ordinarily conferred in the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, where there is no obstacle on the part of the 
 recipient. Even the Baptism of John, upon repentance, instru- 
 mentally conveyed remission of sins c : much more does the 
 Baptism of Christ. ' Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God <V This implies 
 that Water-baptism, ordinarily, is requisite to remission, and 
 consequently is an ordinary means of conveying it. But there 
 are other texts more express : ' Repent, and be baptized every 
 one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sius 
 ...the promise is . . . to all that are afar off 6 ,' &c. Ananias's 
 words to Saul are very remarkable; 'Arise, and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sins f : ' words too clear and express to be eluded 
 by any Socinian evasions. And so are those, other words ; 
 ' Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it ; that he 
 might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
 word ?.' The same doctrine is again taught by St. Paul, where 
 he speaks of the ' putting off the body of sins, by the circum- 
 cision of Christ h ;' by Christian circumcision, that is, by Baptism. 
 The same thing is implied in our being 'saved by the laver 
 of regeneration',' and 'saved by Baptism V and having 'hearts 
 sprinkled from an evil conscience k .' It is in vain to plead against 
 remission of sins in either of the Sacraments, on account of their 
 being considered in the recipient as single acts : for since it is 
 certain fact, that such remission is conferred in and by Baptism, 
 there must be some fallacy in that kind of reasoning, whether 
 
 c Mark i. 4. d John iii. 5. h Coloss. ii. 12, 13. See Dr. Wall, 
 
 e Acts ii. 38, 39. Hist, of Inf. Bapt. part i. c. 2. De- 
 
 f Acts xxii. 16. fence, p. 269, &c. 
 * Ephes. v. 25, 26. Compare Pear- * Tit. iii. 5. i i Peter iii. 21. 
 son on the Creed, Article x. p. 556. k Heb. x. 22.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 215 
 
 Ave can espy it or not, and it can be of no weight against plain 
 and certain fact. But I have hinted in my introduction, and 
 elsewhere \ where the error and misconception of such reasoning 
 lies : and I shall only add here, that if a king were to send out 
 his general letters of pardon for all submissive offenders, who, 
 after renewing their bonds of allegiance, would come and take 
 out their pardon in certain form, it would be no objection to the 
 validity of their pardon, as conveyed by such form, that the 
 submitting to it was but part of the condition, and not the whole, 
 so long as it presupposes everything besides. I may note also, by 
 the way, that no just objection can be made against the general 
 notion of God's conferring pardon by the ministry of men, since it 
 is certain that he does it in the Sacrament of Baptism, which is 
 administered by the hands of men commissioned thereunto. 
 
 Having thus despatched the three previous propositions, pre- 
 paratory to what I intend, I now proceed directly to the subject 
 of the present chapter, which is to shew, that God confers remis- 
 sion of sins in or by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as 
 well as by the Sacrament of Baptism. The analogy which 
 there is between the two Sacraments, considered as Sacraments, 
 is itself a strong presumption of it ; unless there were some 
 very good reason to be given why remission should be granted 
 there, and not here. The once granting of remission is no 
 argument against repeating and renewing it, time after time, 
 if there may be any new occasion for it, or if frequent renewals 
 may add more abundant strength and firmness to what was 
 before done, either for greater security or greater consolation. 
 
 It may be said, perhaps, that Baptism was necessary to give 
 any person a covenant-right to pardon upon repentance, but that 
 when a man is once entered into covenant, then repentance alone 
 suffices, and there is no longer need of submitting to any other 
 public, solemn form of remission, as an instrument of pardon. I 
 allow, there is not precisely the same need ; and yet I will not 
 presume to maintain that there may not be great need, notwith- 
 standing. It is one thing to say, that remission is given in the 
 Eucharist, as well as in Baptism ; and another to say, that the 
 
 1 See above, ch. viii. pp. i87, 188.
 
 2 1 6 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 Eucharist is as necessary to remission, as Baptism. Baptism 
 may be the first and grand absolution ; and the Eucharist may 
 be only second to it : the Eucharist may be an instrument of re- 
 mission, but not the prime or chief instrument. I am aware 
 that it was St. Austin's doctrine, (and, I think, of the Schools 
 after him,) that baptismal remission looks not only backwards to 
 sins past, but forwards also to future transgressions, and has its 
 federal effect for remission of sins repented of, all our lives long. 
 But yet that consideration never hindered him, nor others of the 
 same sentiments with him, from believing, that remission of sins 
 is granted in and by the Eucharist , as well as by the other 
 Sacrament. Only, they might think, that Baptism is eminently 
 and emphatically the Sacrament of remission, and the other, of 
 spiritual growth ; one is more peculiarly the instrument of justi- 
 fication, while sanctification is the eminent privilege of the other. 
 Nevertheless, justification and sanctification, though distinct in 
 notion, are yet so closely connected in the spiritual life, that they 
 commonly go together, and so whatever tends to increase either, 
 increases both. And though it is certainly true, that the Gospel 
 covenant promises remission upon repentance, yet receiving the 
 Communion, as it is an article of Christian obedience, is in- 
 cluded in the notion of repentance, making a part of it, as often 
 as we may and ought to receive. But besides that, as repentance 
 alone, without a continual application of the great atonement, is 
 of no avail upon the foot of the Christian covenant, nor can be 
 accepted at the throne of grace ; the least that we can say of the 
 
 m ' Sic, inquam, hoc accipiendum tia, nisi Baptismus sequeretur, vel 
 
 est, ut eodem lavacro regenerationis postea, nisi praecesserit ? ' Augustin. 
 
 et verbo sanctificationis, omnia pror- de Nupt. et Concupisc. lib. i. p. 298. 
 
 sus mala hominum regeneratorum torn. x. edit. Bened. Conf. Sam. 
 
 mundeutur, atque sanentur: non so- Ward. Determ. Theolog. p. 57. Vos- 
 
 lum peccata quae omnia nunc remit- sius de Baptism. Disp. vi. p. 277. 
 
 tuntur in Baptismo, sed etiam quae Turretin. Institut. Theolog. torn. iii. 
 
 posterius humana ignorantia vel in- p. 460, &c. Hes3'chius, of the fifth 
 
 firmitate contrahuntur. Non ut Bap- century, expressed it thus : ' Virtus 
 
 tisma quotiens peccatur totiens repe- praecedentis baptisuiatw operatur 
 
 tatur; sed quiaipso quod semeldatur, et in ea, quae postea acta fuerit, 
 
 fit, ut non solum antea, verum etiam poenitentia.' In Levit. lib. ii. p. 
 
 postea quoruinlibet peccatorum venia 1 18. 
 
 tidelibus impetretur. Quid enim pro- n Vid. Augustin. de Peccat. Mer. 
 
 desset vel ante Baptisinum posniten- et Rem. lib. i. cap. 24.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 17 
 
 expediency of the Eucharist, in that respect, is, that it amounts 
 to a public, solemn, certain application of Christ's merits, for the 
 rendering our repentance acceptable, (which no other service 
 except Baptism does,) and therefore it is a service carrying in it 
 the liveliest assurance, and the strongest consolation, with re- 
 spect to that very remission promised upon our serious repentance. 
 Baptism once received may perhaps justly be supposed to carry 
 in it the force of such continued application all our lives after ; 
 but yet it was not for nothing, that God appointed another Sacra- 
 ment, supplemental to Baptism, for carrying on the same thing, 
 or for the more effectual securing the same end. It is further 
 to be considered, that if the Eucharist includes in it (as shall be 
 shewn in its place) a renewal of the baptismal covenant, it must 
 of course be conceived to carry in it a renewal of baptismal re- 
 mission also : and remission, on God's part, is a kind of con- 
 tinued act, always growing, always improving, during the several 
 stages and advances of the Christian life . Besides, if Divine 
 wisdom, among other reasons, has superadded the solemnity of 
 Baptism to repentance, in order to fix the repentance more 
 strongly, and to render it accepted, as also to make the par- 
 don therein granted the more affecting and memorable ; it is 
 obvious to perceive how the solemnity of the Eucharist is 
 fitted to serve the like purposes ; and is therefore the more 
 likely to have been intended for another public and sensible 
 application of the merits of Christ's death, and a channel of 
 remission P, succedaneous to Baptism, in some views, and so far 
 
 ' Justificatio et sanctificatio sunt P ' By the same reason that it came 
 
 actus quidem perpetuus, in quo et to be thought needful to make use 
 
 Deus semper donat, et homo semper of sensible means to convey or assure 
 
 recipit. Tota itaque vita homo fidelis to mankind God's pardon and grace 
 
 poscit remissionem peccatorum, etre- upon their first conversion to Chris- 
 
 novationem sui : tota item vita utrum- tianity, by the same, or a greater 
 
 que impetrat. Habet ante, sed con- reason, it must be judged to be so, 
 
 sequitur turn conservationem turn to make use of the like sensible 
 
 incrementum ejus quod habet. Omni- means to convey or assure the same 
 
 bus credentibus opus, ut tuna fides grace and pardon, after men have 
 
 turn gratia fide percepta foveatur, in any measure forfeited the interest 
 
 alatur, augeatur. Omnibus igitur they had in the other, 
 
 credentibus et verbi, et sacramento- 'By the same reason again, that 
 
 rum adminiculo opus est,' &c. Vos- it came to be thought needful to 
 
 sius de Sacr. Vi et Effic. p. 252. exact of us sensible declarations of
 
 2 1 8 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 serving instead of a repetition of it. But whether we are right 
 or wrong in these and the like plausible reasonings upon the 
 analogy of the two Sacraments, or upon their common, or dis- 
 tinct uses, yet if we can prove the fact, that the Eucharist really 
 is an instrument of remission, or a Gospel form of absolution, we 
 need not then concern ourselves much about the rationale of the 
 thing: our positive proofs will be sufficient without it. This 
 then is what I shall now proceed to, following the light of 
 Scripture and antiquity. 
 
 1. That remission of sins is ordinarily conferred in the Eucha- 
 rist, follows undeniably from the doctrine of i Cor. x. 16, as 
 explained in the preceding chapter of this work. For if we are 
 therein partakers of Christ's death, with the fruits thereof ; and 
 if the atonement be one of those fruits, and indeed the first and 
 principal ; and if remission follows the atonement, wherever it is 
 truly applied ; it is manifest from these considerations taken to- 
 gether, that remission is conferred, or (which comes to the same) 
 renewed and confirmed, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This 
 argument is built upon a very clear and allowed maxim, that the 
 effect must answer to the cause, and the fruits to the stock from 
 whence they grow 1. Besides, to deny that the Eucharist carries 
 remission with it seems to make it rather a memorial of the 
 reconcilement, than an actual participation of it : which is what 
 the Socinians do indeed teach, but have been confuted (if I may 
 take leave to say so) in the foregoing chapters. 
 
 2. I go on to our Lord's own words in the institution : ' Drink 
 ye all of this : for this is my blood, the blood of the new cove- 
 nant, shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.' Our 
 Lord here mentions the remission of sins as the effect or fruit of 
 
 our renouncing the errors of our rist, into the expediency of- sensible 
 unconverted state ... by the same, means to testify repentance on man's 
 or a greater reason, must it be part, for sins committed after Bap- 
 judged to be so, to exact of us the tism, and for the greater solemnity 
 like sensible declarations, after we of granting pardon, on God's part, 
 have, by our disobedience, departed Which appears to be a very just ac- 
 from, and prevaricated our former count of it, in part, or it is, at least, a 
 ones.' Towerson on the Sacrament, sufficient answer to objections drawn 
 p. 158. from the rationale of the thing. 
 
 The author here resolves the reason See Dr. Felling's Disc, on the 
 
 of granting remission by the Eucha- Sacrament, p. 138, &c.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 219 
 
 the blood shed : that very blood shed is what we symbolically 
 drink in the Eucharist, together with the fruits of it, as hath 
 been abundantly proved above : therefore we drink remission in 
 the Eucharist, which is one of those fruits. To enforce the argu- 
 ment, observe but with what emphasis our Lord says, ' Drink ye 
 all of this : for this is,' &c. Why such a stress laid upon drink- 
 ing this blood shed for remission, if they were not to drink 
 remission in the very act 1 Commemorating will not answer the 
 purpose : for drinking is the constant symbol of receiving some- 
 thing in, not of commemorating, which is paying out : and I 
 have often observed before, that receiving in this instance must, 
 in the very nature of the act, mean present receiving : therefore 
 again, the receiving symbolically in the Eucharist that justify- 
 ing blood of Christ, must of consequence amount to receiving 
 present remission of sins. Bishop Taylor works up the argument 
 a little differently, thus : ' The body receives the body of the 
 mystery, (we eat and drink the symbols with our mouths), but 
 faith feeds upon the mystery itself, it entertains the grace . . . 
 which the Spirit of God conveys under that signature. Now, 
 since the mystery is perfectly and openly expressed to be the 
 remission of sins, if the soul does the work of the soul, as the 
 body the work of the body, the soul receives remission of sins, as 
 the body does the symbols and the Sacrament r .' 
 
 The Socinians here object, that the text does not say that the 
 Eucharist is ordained for remission, but that the blood, the blood 
 spilled upon the cross, was shed for remission. But it is obvious 
 to reply, that that blood which was once literally given for 
 remission, upon the cross, is now every day symbolically and 
 mystically given in the Eucharist, and given with all its fruits : 
 therefore remission of sins is given. Such is the nature of sym- 
 bolical grants, as I have before explained at large : they exhibit 
 what they represent, convey what they signify, and are in divine 
 construction and acceptance, though not literally or substantially, 
 the very thing which they supply the place of. Which is so true 
 in this case, that the very attributes of the signs and things 
 
 r Taylor's Worthy Communicant, p. 51.
 
 22O Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 signified are reciprocally predicated of each other : the body is 
 represented as broken s , though that attribute properly belongs 
 to the bread ; and the cup, by a double figure, is said to be shed 
 for you *, when, in strictness of speech, that attribute belongs 
 only to the blood. This is further confirmed from the analogy 
 which there is between the representative blood in the Eucha- 
 rist, and the typical blood of the ancient Passover. For as the 
 blood there was a token of remission, and made instrumental to 
 remission, so is it also in the symbolical blood of the Eucharist j 
 and thus everything answers u . The blood likewise of the 
 ancient sacrifices, prefiguring the blood of Christ, was a token of 
 a covenant 7 , and conveyed remission, (legal directly, and evan- 
 gelical indirectly,) and therefore the symbolical blood of the 
 Eucharist figuring the same blood of Christ, cannot but be 
 understood to convey remission as effectually, yea and more 
 effectually than the other, which the very phrases here made 
 use of, parallel to the former, strongly argue. 
 
 I shall only add further, that since there certainly is spiritual 
 manducation in the Eucharist, as before shewn, and since remis- 
 sion of sins, by all accounts, and even by the Socinians, is 
 allowed to be included in spiritual manducation ; it will plainly 
 follow, that remission of sins is conveyed in and by the Eucha- 
 rist ; which was to be proved. 
 
 Having thus far argued the point from Scripture principles, 
 I may now proceed to inquire what additional light may be 
 borrowed from authorities, ancient or modern. I shall draw 
 together a summary account of what the primitive churches 
 taught in this article, and shall afterwards consider, very briefly, 
 the doctrine of our own Church on the same head. 
 
 The learned author of the Antiquities of the Christian Church, 
 having previously observed of Baptism, that it was esteemed the 
 grand absolution of all, proceeds soon after to take notice of 
 the absolution granted in the Eucharist, and gives this general 
 account of it : 
 
 I Cor. xi. 24. Exod. xxiv. 8. See Nature and 
 
 1 Luke xxii. 20. Obligation of the Christian Sacra- 
 
 u See above, ch. ii. p. 45. ments, vol. iv. p. 103.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 221 
 
 ' It had some relation to penitential discipline, but did not 
 solely belong to it. For it was given to all baptized persons 
 who never fell under penitential discipline, as well as to those 
 who lapsed and were restored to communion : and in both re- 
 spects, it was called TO T/Xeioi>, the perfection, or consummation, 
 of a Christian ; there being no higher mystery that an ordinary 
 Clmstian could partake of. To those who never fell into such 
 great sins as required a public penance, it was an absolution 
 from lesser sins, which were called venial, and sins of daily incur- 
 sion : and to penitents who had lapsed, it was an absolution from 
 those greater sins for which they were fallen under censure w .' 
 To this may be added, that the name of e'0d8toi>, ' viaticum,' which 
 means provision for one's journey into the other world, and 
 which was frequently given to the Eucharist, in the fourth cen- 
 tury x , and so on, is a general proof of the sense of the Church 
 in those times with respect to remission in the holy Communion : 
 for as that name imports more, so it certainly implies remission 
 of sins, as part of the idea belonging to it. 
 
 After this brief general account, let us come to particulars. 
 The elder Fathers, of the two first centuries, (so far as I have 
 observed,) make not express mention of remission of sins in the 
 Eucharist, though they are explicit enough with respect to Bap- 
 tism. Their common way, with regard to the Eucharist, was to 
 pass over remission, and to go higher up to sanctification of the 
 Spirit, and spiritual or mystical union with Christ, and the con- 
 sequent right to glory and immortality and eternal life. Perhaps 
 they might conceive it low and diminutive, in that case, to speak 
 at all of remission, which was but the initiatory part, and 
 belonged more peculiarly to the initiatory Sacrament, which in 
 those times, and in the case of adults, immediately preceded the 
 other. However that were, we find proofs sufficient from the 
 writers of the third century Y, that the Eucharist was thought to 
 be of a propitiatory nature, in virtue of the great sacrifice therein 
 
 w Bingham, book xix. c. i. Bingham, book xv. cap. 4. sect. 9. 
 
 T Testimonies are collected by Ca- book xviii. cap. 4. sect. 3. Mabillon 
 
 saubon, Exercit. N. Hi. p. 415. de Liturg. Gall. p. 85. 
 y Suicer, in 'E<p<58ioj' ) p. 1290.
 
 222 Remiss-Ion of Sins CHAP. 
 
 commemorated : and though the elder Fathers do not directly 
 say so, they tacitly supposed or insinuated the same thing, by 
 their standing discipline and by their so often calling the Eucha- 
 rist a sacrifice well-pleasing to God : besides that the sanctifica- 
 tion which they do speak of, as conferred in the Eucharist, 
 implied remission of sins, either as then granted, or at least then 
 confirmed and established. 
 
 Origen is one that speaks plainly of the propitiatory nature of 
 the Eucharist z ; understanding it in a qualified sense, as being 
 propitiatory only in virtue of the grand sacrifice, or as all accept- 
 able services are, in some sense, appeasing and pacificatory. 
 
 Cyprian, of the same time, takes notice of the sacramental cup 
 as relieving the sad and sorrowful heart, before oppressed with 
 the anguish of sins, and now overjoyed with a sense of the 
 Divine indulgence a . From which words it is manifest, that it 
 was God's pardon (not merely the Church's reconciliation) which 
 was supposed to be conveyed in and by the Eucharist ; which is 
 furthur evident from the noted story of Dionysius Bishop of 
 Alexandria his sending the Eucharist to Serapion at the point 
 of death, and the reflections which he made upon it, as being 
 instrumental towards the wiping out his sins before his depar- 
 ture b. Such was the prevailing notion of that time in relation 
 to remission of sins, as conferred in the Eucharist. ' Some 
 ancient writers ' (I use the words of Mr. Bingham) ' acknowledge 
 no other sorts of absolution but only two ; the baptismal absolu- 
 tion which is antecedent to all penitential discipline, and this of 
 reconciling public penitents to the communion of the altar : 
 because this latter comprehends all other ways of absolution, in 
 the several acts and ceremonies that were used in conferring it c .' 
 Another very learned writer has made the like observation, in 
 the words here following : ' They that have with the greatest 
 
 1 'Si respicias ad commemoratio- catisangentibuspremebatur, Divinae 
 
 nem de qua dicit Dominus, Hoc facite indulgentiae laetitia resolvatur : quod 
 
 iiimeamcomniemorationem,invenies, turn demum potest laetificare in Ec- 
 
 quodista est commemoratio sola quae clesia Domini bibentem' &c. Cypr. 
 
 propitium facit hominibus Deum.' Ep. Ixiii. p. 107, alias 153. 
 Origen. in Levit. Horn. xiii. p. 255. b Vid. Euseb. E. H. lib. vi. c. 44. 
 
 a 'Epotato sanguine Domini, moe- p. 318. 
 stum pectus ac triste, quod prius pec- c Bingham, book xix. cap. I. sect. 6.
 
 TX. conferred in the Eucfiarist. 223 
 
 diligence searched into antiquity, can discover no other rite or 
 solemnity used upon this occasion, but barely the admitting the 
 penitents to communion : by this they were entirely acquitted and 
 absolved from the censure under which their crimes had laid them : 
 by this their sins were remitted to them, and so they became once 
 more fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God d .' 
 
 For the fourth century, Eusebius may be an evidence to prove 
 the doctrine of remission in and by the Eucharist, where he 
 says ; ' We moreover offer the show-bread, while we revive the 
 salutary memorial and the blood of sprinkling of the Lamb of 
 God, that taketh away the sins of the world, the purgative of 
 our souls e .' He seems here to understand the blood of Christ 
 as making the purgation directly, and the salutary memorial as 
 doing it indirectly, and in virtue of the other. He speaks plainer 
 elsewhere, directly saying, that Christians receive remission of 
 sins in the daily memorial which they celebrate, viz. the memorial 
 of our Lord's body and blood f . 
 
 Cyril of the same century styles the Eucharist the sacrifice of 
 propitiation?, (in such a sense as I have before hinted with 
 relation to Origen,) and he supposes it to be offered in order to 
 render God propitious, which amounts to the same as if he 
 had said, for remission of sins h . 
 
 Ephraem Syrus, of the same age, supposes that the Eucharist 
 purifies the soul from its spots, that is, from its sins 5 . And 
 Ambrose J scruples not to ascribe to the bread consecrated 
 
 d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, Demonstr. Evang. lib. ii. c. 10. p. 37. 
 
 part ii. p. 210: compare p. 10?, and e Trjs Bvatas iiceivris TOV /Ao<r/uoO. 
 
 part i. p. 284, &c. Cp. Morin. de Cyrill. Mystag. v. sect. 8. p. 327. 
 
 Poenitent. lib. iv. c. 21, 22. Cp. Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. 
 
 e 'AXA.O Kal TOVS apTovs rfjy irpo- p. 155, &c. 
 
 Offfteas irpo<T(f>(po^ff t T)\V au>Tr\piov h Xpicrrbi' fffcpaytair^fvov irpofftpep- 
 
 ^.v-fi/j.tji' avafairvpovvTfS, r6 Tf TOV oxfv, virtp rcav rifUfTfpaiv ajuaprij/ua- 
 
 pa.VTHTij.ov alu.a. TOV a/iifou TOV &fov, Tiav Trpoaifrepo/j.tv, ti\ov/j.ft>oi virtp 
 
 TOV TrepifXovTos rfv au.apr(av TOV K<5- avTcav Tf Kal T)u.>v T'bv <pt\dv6p<i)vov 
 
 (TU.OV, KaQdprnov TWV rineTfpcav ^/vx^v. f6v. Cyrill. Mystag. v. sect. 10. 
 
 Euseb. in Psalm, xci. p. 608. p. 328. 
 
 f Aia TTJS tvOtov Kal jutxm/cTjs 8<5a- ' ' Animae accedentes per ilia tre- 
 
 <TKa\ias irdvTfs r;juf?s 01 ^| lOvw Trjr menda mysteria macularum purifica- 
 
 &q>riv TUIV irpoTfpwv kpafmtf&rtev tionem accipiunt.' Ephr. Syr. de Sa- 
 
 fvpdu.t6a . . . ei/cdroij T^V TOV fftafjuiTos cerdotio, p. 3. 
 
 avTov Kal TOV aiu-aTos TTJV tr4fuHfft& i 'Ego sum panis vitae ; etiamsi 
 
 6trrj/xe'pai iirntXovvTfs, K.T.\. Euseb. quis mortuus fuerit, tamen si panem
 
 224 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 remission of sins ; which is to be understood with some allow- 
 ance for a figurative way of speaking. He speaks indeed of 
 the living bread, that is, of Christ himself, but considered as 
 symbolically received in the Eucharist ; which is manifest from 
 his referring to i Cor. XL 28, 'Let a man examine himself.' 
 
 St. Austin appears to have been in the same sentiments 
 exactly : where speaking of the grand sacrifice, by which alone 
 true remission k comes, he immediately adds, that all Christians 
 are invited to drink the blood of it, meaning in the Eucharist. 
 
 All the ancient Liturgies are full of the same notion of remis- 
 sion of sins conferred in this Sacrament. And though they are 
 mostly spurious, or interpolated, and answer not strictly to the 
 names which they commonly bear, yet some of them have been 
 in. use for many centuries upwards in the Greek, Latin, and 
 Oriental churches, and are a good proof of the universality of a 
 doctrine for the time they obtained. The Clementine, though 
 it is not thought to have been ever in public use, is commonly 
 believed to be the oldest of any now extant : and though, as an 
 entire collection, it cannot perhaps be justly set higher than the 
 fifth century, yet it certainly contains many things derived from 
 earlier times, and among those, probably, the doctrine of eucha- 
 ristical remission. In that Liturgy prayer is made, that the 
 Holy Spirit may so bless the elements, that the communicants 
 may obtain remission of sins \ And in the post-communion, 
 prayer is again made that the receiving of the Eucharist may 
 turn to salvation, not condemnation, to the benefit both of 
 body and soul, to the preserving true piety, and to remission 
 of sins m . 
 
 meum acceperit, vivet in aetcrnum : torn. iii. pp. 516, 517. Cp. Damas- 
 
 ille enim accipit qui seipsum probat. cen. de Fid. lib. iv. c. 13. p. 
 
 Qui autem accipit, non moritur pec- 271. 
 
 catoris morte ; quia panis hie remissio 1 "iva. ol iJ.tTa.\a.&6vTfs avrov... 
 
 peccatorum est.' Ambros. de Bene- a<f>(ffas a/j.a.pTrtfj.dTtav rvxtaffi, K.T,\. 
 
 diet. Patriarch, c. ix. p. 525. Apostol. Const, lib. viii. c. 12. p. 
 
 k ' Illis sacrificiis hoc unum sacri- 407. 
 
 ficium significabatur, in quo vera fit m KoJ irapaKa\.fffcaft.fv n^] tls xpifui, 
 
 remissio peccatorum. A cujus ta- oA\* ds ffuTrjpiav iifj.lv yfvtffOcu, tis 
 
 men sacrificii sanguine non solum w<pe\(tav $VXT)S ical o-oS^oroy, tir <pv- 
 
 nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum AUKT^ tutrtfieias, tls &c(>f(ni' afiapnuv. 
 
 potius omnes exhortantur qui volunt K.T.\. Apost. Constit. lib. viii. c. 
 
 habere vitam.' Augustin. in Levit. 14. p. 410.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 225 
 
 Conformable to this pattern are the later Liturgies : parti- 
 cularly that which is called Basil's, according to the Alexandrian 
 use, in Renaudot's edition n . And another, entitled Gregory's 
 Liturgy . The same thing is observable in the Liturgies which 
 go under the names of apostles or evangelists, collected by 
 Fabricius : as St. James's P, St. Peter's <i, St. Matthew's r , St. 
 Mark's 8 , and St. John's *. The Liturgy under the name of 
 Chrysostom, published by Goar, has the like forms u . So also 
 have the Oriental Liturgies in Renaudotius's Collection, volume 
 the second, and the Latin ones published by Mabillon ; of which 
 it would be tedious here to speak more particularly ; as it is also 
 needless to trouble the reader with more references in a very 
 clear point. Upon the whole, there appears to have been a 
 general consent of the Christian churches all along as to the 
 point of eucharistical remission of sins : which is proved, not 
 only from the testimonies of single Fathers, but from the ancient 
 standing discipline of the Church, and from the concurring lan- 
 guage of all the ancient Liturgies now extant. 
 
 As to the judgment of the first Reformers abroad, it is well 
 known to fall in with the same : or if any doubt should be, let 
 Luther answer for the Lutherans v , and for the Calvinists 
 Calvin w . 
 
 The judgment of our own Church will easily be proved to 
 
 n Basil. Liturg. Alex. pp. 61, 69, peccatomm. Ergo, bibitio ex calice 
 
 71 ; apud Renaud. vol. i. Eueharistico applicat, obsignat, et 
 
 Gregorii Liturg. pp. 92, 95, 98, confirmat credentibus, promissionem 
 106. de remissione peccatorum.'. . .Sacra- 
 
 P Jacobi Liturg. pp. 38, 41, 68, mentuiii illud ipsum quod signal, 
 
 71, 72, 86, 101, in, 113, 120. etiam confert, et exhibet.' Gerhard. 
 
 1 Petri Liturg. pp. 175, 195. loc. Comm. de Sacr. Coena, c. xx. 
 1 Matth Liturg. pp. 216, 245, 248. p. 178. 
 
 " Marci Liturg. pp. 261, 299, 315, w ' Christi consilium fuit, corpus 
 
 316. suuni sub pane edeudum porrigere in 
 
 * Joannis Liturg. p. 203. remission em peccatorum.' Calvin.Ad- 
 
 u Goar. Euchol. pp. 77, 80, 82. inonit. ult. adWestphal. p. 950. Cp. 
 
 v 'Pertinet hue pulcherrima gra- Instit. lib. iv. c. 17. sect. 42. 
 
 datio Lutheri : ' Calix Eucharisticus Lambertus Danaeus cautiously 
 
 continetvinum: vinumexhibet Chris- words the doctrine thus : 'Coena Do- 
 
 ti sanguinem : sanguis Christi coin- mini . . . est applicatio semel a Christo 
 
 plectitur novuin testamentum, quia factae peccatorum nostrorum reniis- 
 
 est novi testamenti sanguis : riovum sionis.' Epist. ad Ecjles. Gallican. 
 
 testamentum continet remissionem 1498.
 
 226 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 concur in the same article, from the known language of our 
 Communion Office, and Homilies. In our public Service, we 
 pray, that 'our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, 
 and our souls washed through his most precious blood.' The 
 propositions couched under these words are several: i. That our 
 bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost 2. That sin defileth 
 them. 3. That the sacrifice of Christ, removing guilt, (other due 
 circumstances supposed,) makes them clean. 4. That there is an 
 application of that sacrifice made in the Eucharist. 5. That 
 therefore such application ought to be prayed for. So much for 
 the body. The like, with a little change, may be understood 
 also of the soul : and the conclusion from both parts is that 
 guilt is washed away in the Sacrament, duly administered, and 
 duly received, both from body and soul ; which in other words 
 amounteth to this, that remission of sins is conferred by the 
 Eucharist, to all worthy receivers. 
 
 In a thanksgiving prayer, of the same Service, we pray that 
 'we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of sins,' 
 beseeching the Divine Majesty, not to ' weigh our merits,' but 
 to 'pardon our offences,' &c. ; which words carry in them a 
 manifest allusion to that remission of sins which is conceived 
 ordinarily to pertain to this Sacrament, and is expected from it, 
 as one of the benefits of it. But considering that all depends 
 upon our being meet partakers, (whereof God only is the unerring 
 Judge,) and that it becomes every communicant to think humbly 
 of himself, leaning to the modest side ; it is very proper to refer 
 the whole to God's clemency, entreating him to accept of us as 
 meet partakers, and thereupon to grant us the remission we came 
 for. For though it is an undoubted truth, that the Eucharist 
 confers remission to the faithful communicant, yet it is right to 
 leave the determination of our faithfulness to God the searcher 
 of hearts, and in the meanwhile to beg forgiveness at his hands. 
 Add to this, that were we ever so certain that Ave are actually 
 pardoned upon receiving the Eucharist, yet as remission is a 
 continued act, and always progressive, (which I before noted,) it 
 can never be improper to go on with our petitions for it, any 
 more than to make use of the Lord's Prayer every hour of our
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 227 
 
 lives. It was so used anciently, just after plenary remission* : 
 and in like manner we now make use of it, immediately after 
 our having received the Communion ; without the least appre- 
 hension that such usage interferes at all with the principle 
 which I have been maintaining, as indeed it does not. No- 
 thing is more frequent in the ancient Liturgies, than to ask 
 forgiveness immediately after receiving, though the doctrine of 
 present remission is fully expressed and inculcated in the same 
 Liturgies Y. 
 
 Enough hath been said to shew, that our Communion Office 
 supposes remission of sins to be conferred in the Eucharist. 
 The same thing is directly and clearly asserted in our Homilies. 
 ' As to the number of Sacraments, if they should be considered 
 according to the exact signification of a Sacrament, namely, 
 for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, 
 whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of sins, 
 and of our holiness, and joining in Christ, there be but two, 
 namely, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord z .' Here it is not 
 only supposed that remission is conferred in the Sacrament of 
 the Eucharist, but that it could not ia strictness be reputed 
 a Sacrament, if it were not so : so great a stress is there laid on 
 this principle. Accordingly, afterwards in the same Homily, 
 absolution is rejected as no Sacrament, having no such pi'omise 
 of remission annexed and tied to the visible sign : and Orders 
 also is rejected, because it 'lacks the promise of remission of 
 
 * Jerome's remark upon this case, dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c. Non 
 
 when Baptism and the Eucharist went humilitatis mendacio, ut tu interpre- 
 
 together, and perfect remission was taris; sedpavorefragilitatishumanae, 
 
 supposed to have been just granted, suam conscientiam formidantis.' Hie- 
 
 is worth noting : ronym. Dialog, adv. Pelag. lib. iii. p. 
 
 'De Baptismatis fonte surgentes, 543. 
 
 et regenerati in Dominum Salvato- > See the Clementine Liturgy quot- 
 
 rem...statim in prinia communione ed above, and compare Fabricius's 
 
 corporis Christ! dicunt : et dimitte Collection, pp. 1 20, 333. Bemvudot's, 
 
 nobis debita nostra, quae illis fuerant vol. i. p. 51 ; vol. ii. pp. 42, 152, 174, 
 
 in Christi confessione dimissa. ... 212,233,253,269,447,634. Mabil- 
 
 Quamvis sit hominum perfecta con- Ion's in Mus. Ital. vol. i. p. 281. 
 
 versio, et post vitia atque peccata Missal. Gall. p. 331. Liturg. Gallic. 
 
 virtutum plena possessio ; numquid p. 300. 
 
 possunt sic esse sine vitio, quomodo l Homily ix. of Common Prayer 
 
 illi qui statim de Christi fonte pro- and Sacraments, p. 299. Compare 
 
 cedunt ? Et tamen jubentur dicere, Cranmer, p. 46. 
 
 Q 2
 
 228 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 sin.' In another Homily, where the Lord's Supper is particu- 
 larly treated of, it is observed that therein ' the favourable 
 mercies of God are sealed, the satisfaction by Christ towards 
 us confirmed, and the remission of sins established*.' 
 
 After these public authentic evidences of the doctrine of our 
 Church in this particular, it will be needless to add the con- 
 curring sentiments of our eminent Divines, all along from that 
 time. But because the point has been sometimes contested, 
 both abroad and at home, and difficulties have been raised, it 
 will be but fair and just to the reader, to set before him the 
 utmost that has been pleaded on the contrary side, and to 
 suggest, as briefly as may be, the proper solutions of the ap- 
 pearing difficulties. 
 
 Objections removed. 
 
 i. It has been objected, that 'the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper is not itself like Baptism, a rite appointed for the 
 remission of sins ; but it is a commemoration only of the all- 
 sufficient sacrifice, which was once offered for an eternal ex- 
 piation 11 .' To which I answer, i. That supposing this Sacrament 
 were not appointed at all for remission, it does not follow 
 that it must be appointed only for commemoration ; because it 
 might be (as it certainly is) appointed in part for sanctification 
 also. 2. Supposing further, that it is not completely equal to 
 Baptism in point of remission, yet it does not follow that it may 
 not confer remission in some measure, or to an inferior degree. 
 3. It is untruly suggested, that the Eucharist is only a comme- 
 moration of the all-sufficient sacrifice, since it most certainly is, 
 as hath been proved, an application of that sacrifice to every 
 worthy receiver : and since remission of sins is one of the fruits 
 
 a Homily on the worthy receiving, niunt, quod fide comprehendunt et 
 
 &c. part i. p. 378. The Reformatio percipiunt Christi sacrosanctum cor- 
 
 Legum, of the same time, says thus: pus, respectu nostrae salutis ad 
 
 ' Eucharistia Sacramentum est, in quo crueem fixum, et cruorem pro tol- 
 
 cibum ex pane sumunt, et potum ex lendis fusum nostris peccatis, ut 
 
 vino, qui convivae sedent in sacra Dei promissa palam ipsa loquun- 
 
 Domini mensa : cujus panis inter tur.' De Sacrament, tit. v. c. 4. 
 
 illos et vini communicatione, obsig- p. 29. 
 
 natur gratia Spiritus Sancti, veniaque b Dr. Clarke's Posth. Sermons,, 
 
 peccatorum, ad quam ex eo perve- vol. iv. serra. vi. p. 133.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 229 
 
 of that sacrifice, it must, it cannot but be allowed, that the 
 Eucharist carries remission in it, more or less, and to some 
 degree or other. 
 
 2. A second objection runs thus : ' To imagine that the Lord's 
 Supper, which is to be repeated perpetually, has such a promise 
 annexed to it of taking away all past sins, as Baptism had, 
 which was to be administered but once, is a dangerous and fatal 
 error, because such an opinion would be plainly an encourage- 
 ment for men to continue in sin, that the grace of forgiveness 
 might be perpetually repeated and abound .' In answer hereto, 
 let but the reader put repentance instead of Lord's Supper, 
 and then traverse the objection over again in his mind, if it 
 be only to see whether the very same objection does not plead 
 as strongly against repeated forgiveness upon repeated repent- 
 ance, as against the same forgiveness upon repeated communion : 
 for we never suppose any new forgiveness granted in the com- 
 munion, but upon new repentance. What then have we to 
 trust to, if the plain and comfortable Gospel doctrine of forgive- 
 ness (toties quoties) upon true repentance, shall be represented 
 as a dangerous and fatal error, and an encouragement to continue 
 in sins, that grace may abound ] It may be true, that such 
 merciful doctrine of forgiveness may cany some appearance of 
 encouragement to sin : so do some other Gospel doctrines ; or 
 else St. Paul would have had no need to caution us against 
 ' continuing in sin, that grace may abound* 3 :' but nevertheless, 
 it would not only be great presumption, but a fatal error, to 
 draw any such inference from the doctrine of repeated forgive- 
 ness upon repeated repentance. For what would have been the 
 consequence, supposing that the rule had run, that if a man sins 
 once, or twice, or a hundred, or a thousand times, and repent as 
 often, he shall be forgiven 1 ? Would not many have been tempted 
 to sin on, till they come very near to the utmost verge of for- 
 giveness, before they would think of repenting to purpose ? And 
 what scruples might they not raise about the number of sins, or 
 of repentance 1 And if any man should once go beyond the limits 
 now supposed to be assigned, what would then remain but black 
 c Dr. Clarke, ibid. p. 134. d Bom. vi. I, 2.
 
 230 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 despair, and a hardened resolution to continue in sin ? Therefore 
 Divine wisdom has mercifully fixed this matter upon a much 
 better foot, namely, upon one plain rule, that as often as men 
 sin, and truly repent, (without limitation, or number,) so often 
 they shall be forgiven. When evil habits have much and long 
 prevailed, repentance, however sincere, will hardly be completed 
 at once : but the ordinary method is, to repent again and 
 again, after every relapse, till by degrees a man gains the entire 
 mastery over his appetites and passions. In this way, his 
 relapses will grow less frequent, and evil habits less prevalent, 
 and every new repentance will be stronger and stronger, till 
 at length by God's grace, and his own hearty endeavours, 
 he gets the victory, and becomes confirmed in all virtue and 
 godliness. By this we may perceive the use and benefit of 
 frequent forgiveness upon frequent repentances, in a degree 
 suitable and proportionate ; that sinners may never want en- 
 couragement to go on repenting more and more, after their 
 relapses, and as often sealing their sincere repentances in the 
 blessed Sacrament, to make them the more solemn and the more 
 enduring. But, in the meanwhile, let sinners beware how they 
 tempt the Divine goodness too far, by relapsing : for even 
 repentance, as depending on Divine grace, is so far in God's 
 hands, as well as pardon : and they who presume to sin often, 
 because they may be often forgiven, are in a likely way to come 
 to an end of forgiveness, before they make an end of sinning, 
 and to be taken, at length, in their own snare e . 
 
 Notwithstanding what I have here said, with respect to eucha- 
 ristical absolution, I would not be construed to mean, that there 
 is no difference at all, in point of remission, between Baptism 
 and the Eucharist : for I am aware that there is some differ- 
 ence, and perhaps considerable. I shall here draw from the 
 ancients, and shall endeavour to point out the difference as 
 
 e ' Absit ut aliquis ita interpre- idcirco deterior sit quia Deus me- 
 
 tetur, quasi eo sibi etiam mine lior est, totiens delinquendo quo- 
 
 pateat ad. delinquendum, quia patet tiens ignoscitur. Caeterum, finem 
 
 ad poeniteiulum ; et redundantia evadendi habebit, cum offendendi 
 
 clementiae caelestis libidinem fa- non habebit.' Tertullian. de Poenit. 
 
 ciat humanae temeritatis : nemo c. vii. p. 1 26,
 
 ix. conferred in the E^lchar^st. 231 
 
 clearly and exactly as I can. It was understood to lie in three 
 things chiefly ; the extent of the remission, and the certainty, 
 and the perfection of it. 
 
 Baptism was conceived to amount to a plenary and certain 
 indulgence for all kinds of sins, were they ever so great ; (as for 
 instance, the crucifying of our Lord f ;) and of any numher, were 
 they ever so many, or ever so often repeated, provided only they 
 were sincerely repented of, and forsaken at the font : they were 
 from that instant remembered no more 2 , either in God's account 
 or the Church's. But as to sins committed after Baptism, if of 
 a grievous kind, (as idolatry, murder, adultery,) or less grievous, 
 but often repeated, or much aggravated by the circumstances, 
 they were judged too heinous to be pardoned in the Eucharist, 
 and the men too vile to be admitted to communion ever after h . 
 Not that the church presumed to limit the mercies of God, who 
 searches the hearts, and who could judge of the sincerity of the 
 repentance of such persons : but Church governors of that time 
 would not take upon them to promise such persons peace, upon 
 any professions of repentance whatever, but left them to God 
 only. In short, though they would have given Baptism to any 
 the wickedest Pagans whatever, upon proper professions of re- 
 pentance, yet they would not give the Eucharist to such as had 
 sinned in like manner after Baptism : which shews that they 
 made some difference between baptismal remission and the eucha- 
 ristical one, in respect of certainty and extent. When the severity 
 of discipline afterwards relaxed a little, and communion was 
 allowed to all penitents at the hour of death, if not sooner, yet 
 they did not then pretend to be certain that God would absolve 
 the persons, like as they judged with respect to baptismal 
 absolution 5 . Nevertheless, if we distinguish justly upon the two 
 cases, it does not from hence follow, that they thought of any 
 proper disparity between the two absolutions in themselves con- 
 sidered ; but strictly speaking, the disparity was supposed to lie 
 
 f Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. iii. s. 15. h See Birigham, book xviii. cap. 4. 
 
 p. 47. Cp. Morinus de Poenitent. sect. 4. 
 lib. iii. c. 2, 3. l See Bingham, book xviii. cap. 4. 
 
 s Vid. Theodoret. in Jerem. xxxi. sect. 6. Compare Marshall, Penit. 
 
 34. p. 230. Discipl. p. in.
 
 333 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 in the different malignity of sins committed before Baptism and 
 after. The remedies might be conceived of equal force, other 
 circumstances being equal; but the malady was not the same 
 in both cases. 
 
 Another difference between baptismal and eucharistical remis- 
 sion was understood to lie here, that the one perfectly wiped out 
 all past sins ; the other, though it healed them, yet left some 
 kind of blots or scars behind it J : on account whereof, many who 
 were admitted to lay communion were yet considered as blemished 
 in some measure, and not fit to be admitted afterwards to the 
 sacred offices k . No crimes whatever committed before Baptism, 
 and left at the font, were thought any bar or blot for the time 
 to come ; Baptism washed all away : but the case was different 
 with respect to sins of a scandalous nature committed after 
 Baptism ; for neither repentance nor the Eucharist was conceived 
 to wash off all stain. Hence some made a distinction, upon 
 Psalm xxxii. i, between perfect remission of sin in Baptism, and 
 the covering it by penance and absolution * ; that is, by the 
 Eucharist. And others seem to have thought that sins com- 
 mitted before Baptism were perfectly blotted out, as it were, 
 from the book of God's remembrance, as if they had never been, 
 but that sins of any grievous kind committed afterwards, though 
 pardoned upon repentance, should yet be recited, or purged, at 
 the great day m : a conjectural presumption, which I will not be 
 bold to warrant. 
 
 However, in the whole, it may be admitted, upon the princi- 
 ples of reason, Scripture, and antiquity, that the remission in 
 the Eucharist is not in every respect equal, or similar to the 
 remission in Baptism, because of the different circumstances : 
 nevertheless it is certain, in the general, that there is ordinarily 
 remission in both, as there is ordinarily an application of the 
 merits of Christ's all-sufficient sacrifice in both. 
 
 j Vid. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. xviii. Eusebius in Psal. xxxi. p. 120; in 
 
 sect. 20. p. 295.6(1. Bened. Athanas. Psal. Ixxxiv. p. 525. 
 
 ad Serap. Ep. iv. n. 13. p. 705. Gre- m Vid. Clemens Alex. Strom, iv. 
 
 gor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 641. num. 24. pp. 633, 634; Strom, vi. p. 
 
 k Orig. contr. Gels. lib. iii. sect. 795. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xv. n. 
 
 51. p. 482. ed. Bened. 23. pp. 236, 237. 
 
 1 Orig. in Psalm, xxxi. p. 645.
 
 ix. conferred in the EucJiarist. 233 
 
 I must now further add, that the objection made against 
 repeated forgiveness, upon repeated repentance in the Eucharist, 
 would have been of much greater force than it really now is, 
 were it not that this holy Sacrament appears to have been 
 appointed as the strongest security against those very abuses 
 which men are prone to make of the Divine mercy. The tAVO 
 principal abuses are, first, the putting off repentance from day to 
 day, fixing no time for it, as it is thought to be left at large, and 
 to be acceptable at any time ; next, the resting content with a 
 lame, partial, or unsincere repentance : against both which the 
 appointment of this holy Sacrament is a kind of standing pro- 
 vision, the best, it may be, that the nature of the case would 
 admit of. To those who are apt to procrastinate, or loiter, it is 
 an awakening call, obliging them the more strongly to fix upon 
 some certain and determinate time for repentance : and to the 
 superficial penitents, it is a kind of solemn lecture of sincerity 
 and carefulness, under pain of being found guilty of trampling 
 under foot the body and blood of Christ. And while it promises 
 forgiveness to all that worthily receive, and to none else, it 
 becomes a strong incitement to break off sins without delay, and 
 to be particularly watchful and careful for the time to come. 
 So far is the doctrine of remission in the Eucharist (when justly 
 stated) from being any encouragement to sin, that it is quite 
 the reverse, being indeed one of the strongest encouragements to 
 a good life. But I proceed. 
 
 3. Socinus and his followers appear much offended at the 
 doctrine of remission in the Eucharist, (for fear, I presume, of 
 admitting any merits of Christ's death,) and they labour all 
 possible ways to run it down; sometimes misrepresenting it, 
 sometimes ridiculing it, and sometimes putting on an air of 
 grave reasoning. Socinus himself was content to throw a 
 blunt censure upon it, as bordering upon idolatry". An in- 
 jurious reflection, for which there was no colour; unless he first 
 
 " 'Pleriqueipsoruminhiscequidem tiunt, qui earn propterea in sacrifi- 
 
 regionibus credunt se, ilia digne ob- cium pro vivis et mortuis transfor- 
 
 eunda, suorum peccatorum veniara et inanint, et idolum quoddam ex ea 
 
 remissionem consequi : baud valde fecerunt.' Socin. Quod. Regn. Polon, 
 
 diversum ab eo quod Papistae sen- p. 701.
 
 234 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 wilfully perverted the meaning, and falsely charged the Pro- 
 testants with the opus operatum. 
 
 Smalcius plainly put that false construction upon it, and then 
 took the handle to ridicule it, as if any remission could be ex- 
 tracted from the use of such common things as the bare symbols 
 are . So ridiculous a mistake of the doctrine which he opposed, 
 either shewed no quickness of apprehension, or no sincerity. 
 Schlictingius followed the same blunder, and still with greater 
 levity P : a certain argument, that he had no solid reasons to 
 produce on that head. The Racovian Catechism of the first 
 Latin edition, (A.D. 1609,) pleaded, that a man ought to be 
 sure of his pardon <i in heaven, before he takes the Sacrament, 
 and therefore could have no more pardon to receive here : that 
 must be their meaning, if they intended it for an argument. 
 However, the argument at best is a very lame one. For what- 
 ever certainty of that nature any man may pretend to, it is 
 capable of being renewed and reinforced by repeated assurances : 
 and as we are taught continually to pray for forgiveness, so may 
 we receive it continually, both in the Word aud Sacraments ; but 
 more particularly in the Sacraments. In the next edition of that 
 Catechism, (A.D. 1659,) that trifling plea was struck out, and 
 another was substituted in its room ; which is to this effect, 
 that remission cannot be conferred in the Eucharist, because 
 commemoration only, and not remission, was the end of that rite 
 by our Lord's account of it r . But here the suggestion is not 
 true ; for our Lord himself has sufficiently intimated, (as I have 
 before proved,) that remission of sins is one end of that service, 
 
 'Quis enim de sua came, cum fide confirmatum ease oportet.' Ra- 
 omnibusconcupiscentiis.crucifigenda cov. Catech. c. iii. 
 
 cogitet, si usus panis et vini, qui quo- r 'Cum is finis ritus istius usur- 
 
 tidie obvius est, possit remissionem pandi sit, ut beneficium a Christo 
 
 peccatorum, &c. consequi ?' Smalc. nobis praestitum commemoremus, 
 
 contr. Frantz. p. 333. seu annuntiemus, nee ullus alius 
 
 P 'O facilem vero et expeditam praeter hunc sit a Christo indicatus 
 
 adipiscendae salutis rationem, si tot finis ; apparet, non eo institutum esse 
 
 tantaque bona, mica panis, et gutta ut aliquid illic beneficii, aliter quam 
 
 vini possis consequi.' Schlicting. quati-nus digne observatus pietatis 
 
 contr. Meisner. p. 799. Christianae pars est, a Christo suma- 
 
 1 ' Qui vult digne coenae Domini mus.' Racov. Catech. c. iv. sect. 6. 
 participare, eum de remissione pec- p. 230. 
 
 catorum, ex parte Dei, certum ac
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 235 
 
 in the very words of the institution s : and if he had not so 
 plainly said it, the very nature of the act proclaims it, taking in 
 what St. Paul has taught. There are more ends than one to be 
 served by the same Sacrament, whether it be of Baptism or 
 of the Eucharist : and all are consistent, because allied and 
 subordinate. Not to mention that commemoration itself, rightly 
 considered, strongly infers and implies present benefits ; as I 
 have observed above l . Moreover the Socinians themselves are 
 forced to allow other ends of the Sacrament, over and above the 
 commemoration of Christ's death : namely, a declaration of their 
 communion with Christ their head, and with their Christian 
 brethren ; besides a further declaration of their spiritual feeding 
 upon Christ, then and at all times, and of their looking upon his 
 death as the seal of the covenant, and upon his doctrine as the 
 food of the soul. Now if they think themselves at liberty to 
 invent as many ends as they please, such as may suit with their 
 other principles, why are we debarred from admitting such 
 other ends of the Sacrament as Scripture plainly points out to 
 us, and the reason also of the thing manifestly requires 1 From 
 hence then it appears that the Socinian pleas in this case 
 carry more of artificial management in them than of truth or 
 sobriety. 
 
 However, it is visible from the last citation, that one principal 
 drift is, to exclude God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and 
 all Divine influences, out of the Sacrament, and to make nothing 
 more of it than a performance of man : and in this view they are 
 content to account it a part of Christian piety. Ruarus, one of 
 the shrewdest and learnedest of them, disliked their granting so 
 much, and charged them, in a note of correction", with an incon- 
 sistency in saying it: because every pious observance contributes, 
 in some measure, towards remission of sins, and they had before 
 absolutely denied any benefit at all that way. Schlictingius left 
 this note of Ruarus without any reply ; though he replied to 
 
 Matth. xxvi. 28. ad remissionem peccatorum nobis 
 
 * See above, p. 71. prodest : quod tamen in initio quae- 
 u ' Si pars est Christianae pietatis, stionis hujus, simpliciter negatum 
 
 utique ad justificationem, atque ita fuit.' Ruari Notae, p. 27.
 
 236 Remission of Sins CHAP. 
 
 several others which went along with it : which shews, either 
 that he found it impossible to evade the doctrine of remission in 
 this Sacrament, unless it were at the expense of self-contradic- 
 tion ; or else, that he was willing, at length, to admit of it, pro- 
 vided only they may claim remission as their due reward for the 
 service, and not as indulged them for the merits of Christ's death 
 and sacrifice therein commemorated. It must be owned, that 
 Ruarus's hint on that head was acute, and came home to the 
 purpose : for, as those men supposed all other requisites for 
 remission to be implied in worthy receiving, and now added this 
 part of Christian piety to the rest, it must of consequence follow, 
 that remission of sins is granted upon it, by their own principles. 
 So then, in the last result, they and we may seem to be nearly 
 agreed as to the point of remission in or upon this service ; and 
 the only remaining difference will be about the meritorious cause 
 of it : and that will resolve into another question, discussed, in 
 some measure, above ; namely, the question concerning the 
 value, virtue, and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 4. There is an insidious way made use of, by some of our 
 Socinians, for the undermining the doctrine of remission in the 
 Eucharist : they depreciate the service, and the preparation 
 proper to it, making both so slight, that no man could justly 
 expect so Divine a grant from so contemptible a performance : 
 ' I know not,' says one, ' to what purpose so many superstitious 
 books are written to teach men to prepare themselves for the 
 memorial supper, when an honest intention and a reverent per- 
 formance are sufficient both preparations and qualifications for 
 and in all Gospel ordinances v . Here is no mention of faith, nor 
 of repentance from dead works ; without which, undoubtedly, 
 there can be no remission of sins, whether in the Sacrament or 
 out of it. The proper answer to this preten.ce will fall under 
 the head of worthy receiving, in a distinct chapter below. In 
 the meanwhile, let it be considered, whether they who require 
 sincere repentance as a necessary qualification for the holy Com- 
 munion ? or they who labour to defeat that most excellent end 
 
 * The Argument of the Unitarians w}tl) th Catholic Church, part i. 
 p. i? ; printed A. p. 1699.
 
 ix. conferred in the Eucharist. 237 
 
 and use of it, do most consult the true interest of religion and 
 virtue ; which the Socinians would be thought much to befriend 
 in what they teach on this head. 
 
 I intended here to have closed this chapter, till it came into 
 my mind that we have had some kind of dispute with the 
 Romanists also, (as well as Socinians,) upon the point of remis- 
 sion in the Eucharist. For the Romanists, as it seems, being 
 apprehensive, that if the people be taught to expect pardon from 
 God in receiving the Communion, they will think they need no 
 other, and that thereupon masses, and indulgences, and other 
 absolutions will sink in their value; I say, the Romanists 
 considering this, have contrived, that venial sins only shall be 
 pardoned upon reception of the Eucharist, but that mortal sins 
 shall be remitted another way. Chemnitius, in his Examen, has 
 taken notice of this matter, and charged it upon them with very 
 little ceremony w . Bellarmiue, in reply, could not deny the 
 main charge, as to their confining the eucharistical remission to 
 venial sins only, or to mortal ones unknown ; but passing over 
 the secret reasons or motives for the doctrine, he employs all his 
 wit and learning to give the fairest colours to it x . Gerhard 
 came after, and defended Chemnitius in that article, confuting 
 Bellarminey. I perceive not that the learned cardinal, with all 
 his acuteness, was able to prove anything with respect to the 
 main question, more than this, (which has been allowed above,) 
 that Baptism is emphatically, or eminently, the Sacrament of 
 remission, and the Eucharist of spiritual growth : and while he 
 is forced to acknoAvledge that venial sins are remitted in the 
 
 w ' Remissionem peccatorum gravi- tioribus peccatis. lit igitur satisfac- 
 orum et mortalium, quae post Baptis- tionis suas et reliquas veniarum nun- 
 mum commissa sunt, decent quaeren- dinationes retineant acerbedimicant, 
 dam et impetrandam esse nostra con- in vero usu Eucharistiae non fieri ap- 
 tritione, confessione, satisfactione, sa- plicationem remissionis peccatorum.' 
 crificio missae, et aliis modis. Vident Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Trident, 
 autem totam illam veniarum structu- pare ii. p. 70. 
 
 ram collapsuram, si remissio ilia et * Bellarmin. torn. iii. lib. iv. de 
 
 reconciliatio quaeratur in corpore et Eucharist, c. 17, iS, 19. 
 
 sanguine Christi. Ne tamen nih.il J' Gerhard. Loc. Comm. torn. v. de 
 
 tribuant Eucharistiae, loquuntur de Sacr. Coen. c. xx. p. 175, &c. Com- 
 
 venialibus, hoc esfc, sicut Jesuitae in- pare Vines, Treatise of the Lord's 
 
 terpretantur, de levioribus et minu- Supper, p. 328 ; printed A.D. 1657,
 
 238 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 Eucharist, and unknown mortal ones, as often as necessary 7 , it is 
 obvious to perceive, that it was not any love of truth, or strength 
 of argument on that side, which withheld him from granting 
 more. His strongest plea, which all the rest do in a manner 
 resolve into, is no more than this ; that as the worthy commu- 
 nicant is supposed to bring with him true faith and sincere 
 repentance to the Lord's table, he comes pardoned thither, and 
 can have no pardon to take out there upon his receiving the 
 Eucharist. I mention not how the argument recoils upon his 
 own hypothesis. The true answer is, that the grace of remission, 
 or justification, is progressive, and may be always improving, as 
 before noted* : and whatever pardon we may conceive ourselves 
 to be entitled to before, or to be then in possession of, yet it is 
 no slight advantage to have the same solemnly renewed, esta- 
 blished, ratified, and sealed in the -holy Communion, by a formal 
 application there made of the merits of the grand atonement, 
 in which only, after our pel-forming the conditions, our remission 
 stands. 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Of tJie Sanctifying Grace of the Holy Spirit conferred in tJie 
 
 EUCHARIST. 
 
 The Greek x<*P ls i the Latin gratia, the English grace, is 
 a word of some latitude, admitting of various acceptations : I 
 need not mention all, but such only as are most for our present 
 
 1 'Posset etiam dici Eucharistiam Worthy Comm. p. 43. 'The Sacra- 
 
 applicare haereditatem, etiam quan- ment ministers pardon, as pardon is 
 
 turn ad remissionem peccatorum, sed ministered in this world, by parts. 
 
 turn solum cum ea est necessaria; In the usual methods of God, par- 
 
 nimirum cum ii qui non indigne ac- don is proportionable to our repent- 
 
 cedunt, habent aliqua peccata mor- ance.' p. 52. 'If we find that we in- 
 
 talia, quorum tamen conscientiam crease in duty, then we may look 
 
 non habent.' Bellarm. ibid. c. xix. p. upon the tradition of the sacramen- 
 
 655. tal symbols, as a direct consignation 
 
 a See above, p. 217. Bishop Tay- of pardon. Not that it is completed : 
 
 lor's doctrine on this head, as it lies for it is a work of time ; it is as long 
 
 scattered in distant pages, may be a doing, as repentance is perfecting, 
 
 worth noting. 'Justification and ... It is then working : and if we go 
 
 sanctification are continued acts : on in duty, God will proceed to finish 
 
 they are like the issues of a fountain his methods of grace. &c. . . . And 
 
 into its receptacles. God is always this he is pleased, by the Sacrament, 
 
 giving, and we are always receiving.' all the way to consign.' p. 74.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 239 
 
 purpose. Grace, in the general, signifies favour, mercy, indul- 
 gence, bounty : in particular, it signifies a gift, and more especi- 
 ally a spiritual gift, and in a sense yet more restrained, the gift 
 of sanctification, or of such spiritual aids as may enable a man 
 both to will and to do according to what God has commanded. 
 The last which I have named appears to be the most prevailing 
 acceptation of the word grace at this day, derived from ancient 
 usage, and common consent, which gives the law to forms of 
 speech, and to the interpretation thereof. The use of the word 
 in the New Testament is various, sometimes larger, sometimes 
 stricter, often doubtful which. I will not be positive, as to 
 several texts where the word grace occurs, and seemingly in the 
 strict sense, that they must necessarily be taken according to 
 such precise meaning, and can bear no larger, or no other con- 
 struction : as where the ' grace of our Lord Jesus Christ' is 
 spoken of b ; or where grace, mercy, and peace are implored ; or 
 grace and peace d ; or where the grace of God is mentioned 6 . In 
 several texts of that sort, the word grace may be understood in 
 the stricter sense, but may also admit of the larger : in which, 
 however, the grace of sanctification must be included among 
 others. The texts which seem to be most expressive of the 
 limited sense, now in use, are such as these : ' Great grace was 
 upon them all f .' ' The grace of God bestowed on the churches 
 of Macedonia 8.' ' My grace is sufficient for theeV Grow in 
 grace '.' ' Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God 
 acceptably J.' ' God giveth grace unto the humble k .' In these 
 and the like places, the word grace, most probably, signifies 
 what we now commonly mean by that name : or if any larger 
 meaning be supposed, yet it is certainly inclusive of the other, 
 signifying that and more. It is not very material whether we 
 
 b Rom. xvi. 20, 24. i Cor. xvi. xx. 24. I Cor. i. 4 ; iii. 10 ; xv. 10. 
 
 23. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Gal. vi. 18. Phil. 2 Cor. i. 12 ; vi. i. Ephes. iii. 7. 
 
 iv. 23. i Thess.v. 28. 2 Thess. iii. 18. Tit. ii. n. i Pet. iv. 10. 
 Philem. 25. Revel, xxii. 21. f Acts iv. 33 : compare verse 31. 
 
 c i Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 2 Cor. viii. I. 
 2 John 3. h 2 Cor. xii. 9. 
 
 d I Pet. i. 2. 2 Pet. i. 2. Revel. i 2 Pet. iii. 18. 
 i. 4. i H b. xii. 28. 
 
 e Acts xiii. 43 ; xiv. 26; xv. 40 ; k Jam. iv. 6. i Pet. v. 5.
 
 240 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 understand the word grace, in the New Testament, in the 
 comprehensive or restrained sense, since it would be disputing 
 only about words or names. The sanctifying operations of the 
 Holy Spirit of God upon the minds of men may be abundantly 
 proved from the New Testament : and so it is of less moment 
 to inquire what names they go under, while we are certain of 
 the things. The phrase ' of grace,' or ' sanctifying grace,' is suffi- 
 ciently warranted by its ancient standing in the Church 1 , so 
 that I need not dwell longer upon it, but may proceed directly 
 to shew, that what we commonly call the grace of sanctificatiou 
 is conferred in the Eucharist. 
 
 1. I argue, first, from the participation of Christ's death, with 
 its fruits, in the Eucharist, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, 
 I Cor. x. 1 6, insinuated also in the words of the institution, as 
 explained at large in a chapter above. They who so partake of 
 Christ, do of course partake of the Spirit of Christ : it cannot be 
 otherwise upon Christian principles taught in the New Testament. 
 If any man is Christ's, he has the Spirit of God dwelling in him m . 
 And this Spirit is the source and fountain of righteousness and 
 true holiness". And no one can be made an acceptable offering 
 unto God, but he who is first sanctified by the Holy Spirit . 
 
 2. The same thing will be proved, by undeniable consequence, 
 from our Lord's doctrine of the import of spiritual feeding laid 
 down in John vi. For since it has been before shewn, that they 
 who do receive worthily do spiritually feed upon Christ, and are 
 thereby made partakers of all the privileges thereto belonging, 
 it plainly follows that they must have Christ dwelling in them P ; 
 and if Christ, they have the Spirit also of Christ, who is insepa- 
 rable from him. Therefore the sanctification of the Spirit is 
 conveyed in the Eucharist, along with the other spiritual bless- 
 ings, which suppose and imply it, and cannot be understood 
 without it, upon Scripture principles. 
 
 1 See some account of the eccle- Scripta, p. 761, &c. Magdeb. 1735- 
 
 siastical use of the word grace, in m Rom. viii. 9. I Cor. vi. 17. 
 
 Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, p. 519, n Rom. viii. 10, 14. I Cor. vi. n. 
 
 &c. Vossius, Histor. Pelag. lib. iii. 2 Thess. ii. 13. 
 
 par. i. Thes. ii. Joh. Just. Von Einem. Rom. xv. 16. 
 
 Select. Animadv. ad Joh. Clerici P John vi. 56.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 241 
 
 3. A further argument may be drawn from the known analogy 
 there is between the two Sacraments, taken together with those 
 several texts which speak directly of the sanctification of the Spirit 
 conferred in Baptism^ ; or an argument may be drawn a fortiori, 
 in this manner : if the putting on Christ (which is done in Baptism) 
 carries with it a conveyance of the Holy Spirit ; much more does 
 the eating or drinking Christ, which is done in the Eucharist. 
 
 4. But to argue yet more directly, (though indirect arguments, 
 where the connection is clear and certain, as in this case, are not 
 the less conclusive,) we may next draw a proof of the same 
 doctrine from the express words of St. Paul, where he says, 
 ' By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body and have 
 been all made to drink into one Spirit 1 ".' That is to say, by 
 one and the same Spirit before spoken of 8 , we Christians (as 
 many of us as are so more than in name) are in Baptism made 
 one mystical body of Christ, and have been all made to drink of 
 the sacramental cup in the Eucharist ; whereby the same Spirit 
 hath again united us, yet more perfectly, to Christ our head, in 
 the same mystical body. Such appears to be the natural and 
 obvious sense of the place : which accordingly has been so 
 understood by judicious interpreters, ancient * and modern u . I 
 shall not dissemble it, that several ancient interpreters, as well 
 as some moderns, have understood the whole text of Baptism 
 only ; interpreting the former part of the outward washing, and 
 the latter part of the Spirit accompanying it v . But, it seems, 
 they did not well consider, that the concurrence of the Spirit in 
 Baptism had been sufficiently insinuated before in the former 
 part of the verse ; ' By one Spirit are we all baptized,' &o^ 
 And therefore to interpret Spirit again of the same Sacrament^ 
 appears to border too nearly upon tautology : neither did they 
 sufficiently reflect, how harsh a figure that of drinking is, if 
 
 i John iii. 5. i Cor. vi. n. mond, Locke, Wells. Vitringa, Ob- 
 
 Ephes. v. 26. Tit, iii. 5. serv. Sacr, lib. v. cap. 7. pp. 109, 
 
 r i Cor. xii. 13, 114. 
 
 8 I Cor. xii. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, II. T Pelagius, under the name of Je- 
 
 * Chrysostom. in loc. torn. v. p. rome ; and Hilary the deacon, under 
 
 324. ed. Paris. Damascen. in loc. the name of Ambrose : as likewise 
 
 Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Theophylact in loc., -and perhaps 
 
 Gerhard, Grotius, Gataker, Ham- more. 
 
 B
 
 343 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 applied to Baptism ; when putting on the Spirit (as is elsewhere 
 said of Christ, with respect to that Sacrament w ) might have 
 been much more proper. They may seem also to have forgot, 
 or not to have considered, how suitable and pertinent it was 
 to the Apostle's argument, to refer to both Sacraments in that 
 place, as I shall now make appear. 
 
 It might be highly proper, and much to the purpose, when 
 the Apostle was mentioning Baptism, as one bond of mystical 
 union, to take notice also of the Eucharist, as another ; which it 
 certainly was, according to his own doctrine in the same Epistle*. 
 Indeed, it might be thought a kind of omission, and in some 
 measure diminishing the force of his argument in this place, had 
 he referred but to one Sacrament, when there was just occasion, 
 or the like occasion, for referring to both. His design was to 
 set forth the inviolable union of Christians, and to represent the 
 several ties by which they were bound together. He knew that 
 the Eucharist was a strong cement of that mystical union, as 
 well as the other Sacrament ; for he had himself declared as 
 much, by saying elsewhere, 'We being many are one body, being 
 all partakers of that one bread.' It was therefore very natural here 
 again to take notice of the Eucharist, when he was enumerating 
 the bonds of union, and amongst them particularly the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, which would obviously lead to the mentioning 
 this other Sacrament. Accordingly, he has briefly and elegantly 
 made mention of this other, in the words ' made to drink into 
 one Spirit.' Where made to drink, but in the Eucharist ? He 
 had formerly signified the mystical union under the emblem of 
 one loaf: and now he chooses to signify the same again under 
 the emblem of one cup, (an emblem, wherein Ignatius, within 
 fifty years after, seems to have followed him 7,) both belonging 
 to one and the same Eucharist, both referring to one and the 
 same mystical head. Dr. Claget well argues against the Roman- 
 ists from this text, as follows : ' St. Paul thought the observation 
 .of the two institutions of our Saviour (viz. Baptism and the 
 Communion of the holy table) was a sufficient proof that 
 
 w Gal. iii. 27. * I Cor. x. 16, 17. 
 
 y *Ey Troriipwv $ tvaxriy -rov <d(j.aros twrov. Ignat. ad Philadelph. cap. 4.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 243 
 
 believers were one body : and we have reason to believe, that if 
 he had known there were other Sacraments he would not have 
 omitted the mention of them here, where he proves the unity of 
 the Church by Baptism and communion of the body and 
 blood of Christ. It is something to our purpose, that St. Paul 
 owns no more than these, where he industriously proves that 
 Christians are one body by these z .' If this reasoning be just, 
 as it appears to be, and if St. Paul knew (as he certainly did 
 know) that the Eucharist has some share in making Christians 
 one body, as well as the other Sacrament, it manifestly follows 
 that he could not well omit the mention of it in this place. I 
 should take notice, that our very judicious Archbishop Sharpe has 
 pressed the same argument, in a fuller and still stronger manner, 
 from the same text a ; and that the Protestants in general have 
 made the like use of the text in their disputes with the Roman- 
 ists, against multiplying Sacraments, or against mutilating the 
 Sacrament of the Eucharist by taking away the cup from it \ 
 So that besides commentators, in great numbers, thus inter- 
 preting this text, there is the concurring judgment of many or 
 most Protestant Divines confirming the same construction. 
 
 Nevertheless, Socinus, having formed a project to throw off 
 water-baptism, laboured extremely to elude the interpretation 
 before mentioned. He considered, that if the latter part of it 
 were interpreted of the external service of the Eucharist, then 
 the former part must of course be understood of external Bap- 
 tism : besides that he was not willing to allow that any inward 
 grace went along with either Sacrament. Such were his motives 
 for eluding the true meaning of this text : his pretexts, or 
 colourings, were as here follow : 
 
 i. He pleaded, that partaking of the Eucharist is never once 
 represented in the New Testament by that particular part of it, 
 the drinking. He acknowledges that the whole Service is some- 
 
 1 Claget, vol. i. Serm. x. p. 263. loco pertendunt, contra substractio- 
 
 * Sharpe, vol. vii. Serrn. v. vi. nem calicis in CommunioneRomaiia,) 
 
 p. 1 06. &c. Serm. x. p. 230. ac alibi per solam pania fractionem 
 
 b 'Nihil obstat quo minus synec- designatur. Acts ii. 42, 46; xx. 7.' 
 
 dochice hoc loco potionis ac poculi Maresius, Hydra Socinianismi, torn. 
 
 nomine explicetur Eucharistia, (quod iii. p. 835. 
 
 Protestantes omnes merito ex hoc 
 
 K 2
 
 244 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 times signified by the other part, (the nobler part, in his 
 judgment,) viz. the eating, or breaking bread ; but that it 
 should be signified by drinking only, the meaner part of the 
 Sacrament, he could not be persuaded to allow c . 
 
 But he seems to me to have been over delicate in this matter, 
 and more scrupulous than need required. For, since the whole 
 Service (as he is forced to confess) may be signified by one part, 
 while the other is understood; why not by the drinking, as well 
 as by the eating 1 Or why must the eating be looked upon as 
 the nobler and better part of the two, in this instance especially, 
 when the blood of Christ (the most precious blood of Christ, so 
 much spoken of in the New Testament) is the thing signified d ? 
 But supposing the eating, or the meat, to be the nobler of the 
 two, then the New Testament, one would think, has paid a pro- 
 per respect to it, by denominating the whole from it more than 
 once ; though taking the liberty to pay some regard also to the 
 other part, by denominating the whole from it once at least, if no 
 more. The Apostle might have particular reasons for doing it 
 here, because, having mentioned washing just before, as belong- 
 ing to one Sacrament, he might think that drinking would best 
 answer to it in the other Sacrament, as water and wine are more 
 analogous than water and bread e . Or since the Apostle had 
 signified Christian unity before f , under the emblem of sacra- 
 mental meat, he might choose the rather now to represent the 
 same unity under the emblem of sacramental drink, being that 
 there is as properly one cup, as there is one loaf. 
 
 2. Socinus and Volkelius further plead, that had the Apostle 
 intended to speak of the Lord's Supper, he would have used the 
 
 c ' Cur quaeso Paulus coenam Do- tingit.' Socin. de Bapt. Aquae, cap. 
 
 minicam cum Baptismo collaturus viii. Cp. Volkel. de Ver. Eelig. lib. 
 
 potionis tantum mentionem fecisset, vi. cap. 14. p. 684, alias 835. 
 
 nonetiam comestionis, sive cibi, quae d It may be noted, that theancients, 
 
 praecipua ex duabus quodammodo when they made any distinction, sup- 
 
 coenae illius partibus censenda est, et posed the cup, the drinking, to be 
 
 cujus solius nomine alicubi tota coena the nobler part of the two, as being 
 
 intelligitur, ut I Cor. xi 33. . . . Fre- the finishing and perfecting part, 
 
 quentissime in Sacris Literis solius See Salmasius de Transubstantiatione 
 
 cibi, aut etiam panis mentione facta, contr. Grot. pp. 280-284. 
 
 ipse quoque potus intelligitur : id e Cp. Hoornbeeck, Socin. Confut. 
 
 quod, saltern in coena Domini, nun- torn. iii. p. 381. 
 
 quam potionis solius nomine fieri con- f i Cor. x. 17.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 245 
 
 word iroTi6p.f6a, to denote the time present, not (Troriadrifjifv, which 
 refers to time past : for the Lord's Supper is what Christians con- 
 tinually partake of with repeated attendance, and so is never wholly 
 past or done with, like Baptism, which is but once submitted to?. 
 Now, in answer to this reasoning, I shall not insist, as I justly 
 might, upon the known latitude of the aorists, which are indefinite 
 as to time ; nor upon any enallage of tenses, which is frequent 
 in tScripture ; but allowing that St. Paul is to be understood of 
 the time past, in that instance, I say, it is no just objection 
 against interpreting the text of the Eucharist. The Apostle is 
 there speaking of the union of Christians as then actually subsist- 
 ing, and therefore made before he spake of it ; made by Baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper, considered as previous to that union, and 
 therefore past. He had nothing to do- with future communions, 
 so far as his argument was concerned : none but past com- 
 munions could have any share in making or strengthening that 
 union, which subsisted before he spake of it. Therefore it 
 might be proper in both the instances, to make use of a verb of 
 the preter tense, referring to time past. Communions which are 
 not, or only will be, or may be, unite nothing, effect nothing in 
 the mean season, but would have been foreign to the Apostle's 
 argument, which looked only to what had been done, and had 
 had its effect already upon the union then subsisting. The 
 Eucharist in that view was a thing past, as much as Baptism ; 
 and so the verbs in both instances were rightly chosen, and aptly 
 answer to each other h : We have been all baptized, and We have 
 been all made to drink i, &c. 
 
 s ' Si Paulus coenam Dominicam in- praeteiitipotius quampraesentis tem- 
 
 tellexisset, non verbo praeteriti tern- porisverboexprimisolent: haecvero, 
 
 poris " potavimu," sed " potamua" cum et in posterum, qualibet se offer- 
 
 praesentis usus fuisset : cum ea coena ente occasione peragenda sit, rectius 
 
 non a quolibet Christiano homiue et communi consuetudini loquendi 
 
 plane et omniuo jam manducata fue- convenientius praesentis temporis 
 
 rit aliquando, sed identidem in pos- verbo effertur.' Volkelius, lib. vi. 
 
 tt-rum, ubi facultas detur, manducari cap. 14. p. 68.;, alias 836. 
 debeat.' Socinus de Bapt. Aquae, h Cp. Hoornbeeck, torn. iii. p. 387. 
 
 cap. viii. pp. 88, 89. Maresius Hydra, torn. iii. p. 836. 
 
 ' Adde quod non '' potavimus," sed ' Tlavrts els ev <njua t^airTiffOrtfietf 
 
 " potamus" dixisset, si de coena Do- . . . irdvrts els ev irvev/j.0. (irortvBrintv. 
 
 minica locutus fuisset. . . . Actiones As to some few copies here reading 
 
 quippe quas semel perfecisse satis est, Tnfyio for irvtvpa, I refer to Dr. Mill,
 
 346 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 3. Socinus and Volkelius further urge, (which looks the most 
 like an argument of anything they have,) that the Apostle, in 
 that chapter, refers only to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and 
 therefore cannot reasonably be understood either of Baptism or 
 the Eucharist, which were common to all Christians, and not to 
 the gifted onlyJ. But it is unfortunate for this objection, that 
 the Apostle should so emphatically word it twice over, We have 
 all &c., as it were on purpose to prevent its being understood to 
 relate to the gifted only. The universality of the Apostle's 
 expression is a much stronger argument for interpreting him of 
 the Sacraments, than anything else in the context can be for 
 understanding the words of the extraordinary gifts : for it is 
 plain, and is on all hands confessed, that the extraordinary gifts 
 were not common to all, or to many, but rather peculiar to a few 
 only in comparison. But to answer more directly to the pretence 
 drawn from the context, it may be observed, that the design of 
 the Apostle in that chapter does not only well suit with the 
 interpretation we contend for, but is better cleared upon that 
 foot than upon any other. His design was to prevent, as much as 
 possible, any emulation between the gifted and ungifted brethren. 
 How does he execute it ? By representing how many things 
 were common to all, and how far all of them participated of 
 the Spirit, one way or other, i. They all owned Christ Jesus 
 for their Lord, which none could do 'but by the Holy Ghost k ;' 
 therefore they were so far upon a level, with respect to the favour 
 of the Holy Spirit. 2. Those extraordinary gifts, imparted to a 
 few, were really intended for the common benefit of the whole 
 body : they were given to every one of the gifted, to profit others 
 withal 1 . The same Spirit was present to the whole Church, 
 to all true members of it, in both Sacraments m ; so that they did 
 not only reap the benefits of what the gifted men did, but they 
 
 who vindicates the present reading, p. 84. 'Paulus isto in loco de variis 
 
 But the sense might be the same Spiritus Sancti donis disserit, quibus 
 
 either way, because the preceding Deus per Filium suum primam illam 
 
 words, ' by one Spirit,' might be ap- Ecclesiara mirum in moduin locuple- 
 
 plied to both parts of the sentence. taverat.' Volkelius, lib. vi. cap. 14. 
 
 1 'De donis spiritualibus ; ut uni- p. 675, alias 815. 
 cuique totum caput accurate legenti k i Cor. xii. 3. 1 i Cor. xii. 7. 
 constare poterit.' Socinus:, cap. viii. m i Cor. xii. 1 3.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 247 
 
 had themselves an immediate communion with the self-same 
 Spirit, in as useful, though not altogether so glaring a way. 
 4. However pompous those shining gifts might appear, and be 
 apt to dazzle, yet there were other gifts more excellent n by far 
 than they, and common to all good Christians ; namely, the gifts 
 of faith, hope, and charity , from the same Spirit?. Such 
 appears to be the scope and connection of the Apostle's discourse 
 in that chapter and the chapter following : and it is so far from 
 proving that the text which we are now considering belongs not 
 to the Sacraments, that, on the contrary, it very much confirms 
 that construction <>, 
 
 Enough, I presume, hath been said for the vindicating our 
 construction of this text against the forced glosses and unnatural 
 evasions of Socinus and his followers : though some of them, 
 either more acute or more ingenuous than the rest, have not 
 scrupled to give up the new construction, so far as to under- 
 stand the text of both Sacraments r . 
 
 The construction of the text being thus far fixed and settled, 
 it remains now that we draw the just conclusion from it, and so 
 wind up our argument. If the drinking of the sacramental cup 
 is drinking into one Spirit, the Spirit of God, then the Eucha- 
 rist, duly administered and duly received, is a medium by which 
 we ordinarily partake of the same Spirit, and consequently of 
 the sanctifying gifts or graces of the Spirit. By this we under- 
 stand, how he that is joined unto Christ our Lord is one spirit 8 
 with him : because that Spirit who is essentially one with him 
 is sacramentally united with us. And as Christ dwelleth in all 
 those who spiritually feed upon him*, so are all such the temple 
 of the Holy Ghost" ; and while they are so, they are sanctified 
 
 n I Cor. xiL 31. Baptismum tantum, sed ad coenam 
 
 i Cor. xiii. 1-13. Domini quoque respici putant : 
 P That appears to be insinuated by utrumque enim institutum nos tarn 
 
 the Apostle there : but elsewhere he ad unitatem et communionem unius 
 
 expressly teaches, that all such Chris- corporis Ecclesiae accedere, quam in 
 
 tian virtues are the fruits of the Spirit, unitate corporis ejusdem manere tes- 
 
 Gal. v. 22. Ephes. v. 9. tatur.' Sam. Przipcovius in loc. p. 93. 
 
 1 Compare Clem. Alexandrin. Pae- i Cor. vi. 17. 
 dag. lib. i. cap. n. pp. 106, 107. e John vi. 56. 
 
 T 'Nee ausim multum ab iis dis- u i Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 
 sentire, qui in istis yerbis non ad 1.6. Ephes. ii. 21, 23. i Pet. ii. 5.
 
 248 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 both in body and soul. Such sanctification carries in it all that 
 the Scripture reckons up among the fruits of the Spirit, as 
 enriching the soul v ; and likewise all that concerns the immor- 
 talizing of the body x , and sealing the whole man to future glory v. 
 All these blessings and privileges are conferred in the Eucharist, 
 to them who receive worthily ; because the Spirit is conferred in 
 it, who is the fountain of them all, and whose gracious presence 
 supposes them. 
 
 In confirmation of what hath been advanced upon Scripture 
 principles, it may now be proper to descend to Fathers, who had 
 the same Scriptures before them, and whose sentiments, if con- 
 curring, may be of use to give us the more abundant satisfaction 
 in the present article. I have occasionally, in the course of these 
 papers, cited several passages which speak expressly or implicitly 
 of sanctification, as conferred in or by the Eucharist. I shall 
 not here repeat the same at full length, but shall throw them 
 together in a summary way, to serve as hints for recollection. 
 What has been cited above 2 from Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus, 
 of the beneficial nature of the Sacrament, necessarily infers or 
 implies the graces of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria, upon another occasion, has been cited, 
 expressly saying that they who receive the Eucharist with faith 
 are ' sanctified both in body and soul a .' Tertullian says, that 
 the body is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the ' soul 
 may be replenished with God V In like manner, Origen asserts, 
 that the Eucharist does sanctify them that ' use it as they 
 ought c .' The same thing is intimated by Cyprian of that time, 
 under some variety of expression d . Cyril of Jerusalem ex- 
 pressly says, that the heavenly bread and salutary cup 'sanctify 
 both body and soul e .' Gaudentius Brixiensis, M'hom I have not 
 quoted before, says of the Eucharistical food, that it ' sanctifies 
 
 Gal. v. 22. Ephes. v. 9. viii. p. 330. See above, cap. vii. p. 152. 
 
 Rom. viii. 10, u. c Origen. in Matt. p. 254. Contr. 
 
 2 Cor. i. 22. Ephes. i. 13, 14; iv. 30. Cels. lib. viii. p. 766. See above, 
 
 Sea above, pp. 101, 141-147. cap. v. pp. 85, 86. 
 
 Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. d Cyprian. Ep. 54, 63. See above, 
 
 2. p. 178. See above, cap. vii. p. cap. vii. p. 155. 
 
 1 48. e Cyrill. Hieros. Mystag. iv. p. 32 1 . 
 
 b Tertullian. de Eesurr. Cam. cap. See above, cap. vii. p. 158.
 
 x. conferred in ihe Eucharist. 249 
 
 even them who consecrate it f .' Lastly, Cyril of Alexandria 
 maintains, that faithful communicants are 'sanctified by being 
 partakers of the holy flesh and precious blood of Christ, the 
 Saviour of us all .' These testimonies might suffice to shew 
 how unanimous the ancients were, in asserting sanctification, as 
 conferred in the Eucharist. 
 
 But for the further confirmation or illustration of this par- 
 ticular, I shall now proceed to consider what the ancients taught 
 concerning the descent or illapse of the Holy Spirit upon the 
 symbols or upon the communicants in this holy solemnity. 
 Which I the rather choose to do, that I may at the same time 
 clear up that important article, in some measure, and remove 
 some common mistakes. 
 
 To give the reader a just idea of tke whole thing, it will be 
 necessary to begin with the Sacrament of Baptism, wherein the 
 like descent or illapse of the Holy Ghost was expected, and 
 where the like invocation obtained very early ; sooner,. I con- 
 ceive, than in the service of the Eucharist, so far as may be 
 judged from the records now remaining. The form of Baptism, 
 probably, might give the first handle for it, as it ran in the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Or, there appeared suffi- 
 cient warrant in the New Testament for beseeching God to send 
 the Holy Spirit, since our Lord had promised that his heavenly 
 Father would 'give the Holy Spirit to them that would ask 
 him 11 .' Where could they more properly ask it than in their 
 Sacramental Offices, in that of Baptism especially, when the 
 New Testament makes such frequent mention of the Holy Spirit, 
 as assisting to it, or presiding in it * ? Indeed, we find no express 
 mention in the New Testament of any ordinary descent or illapse 
 of the Spirit in either Sacrament, nor any direct precept for a 
 special invocation of that kind : neither can we be certain of 
 apostolical practice as to that particular. The custom might 
 
 f 'Consecrantes sanctificat conse- Cyrilli et Synod. Alesandr. Epist. 
 
 cratus.' Gaudent. Brix. de Exod. ii. apud Binium, vol. ii. p. 210. Cp. 
 
 p. 806. Theophil. Alexandrin. Pasch. i. in- 
 
 8 'Ayiatyfit 0a neroxot yev6/j.fvot TT)J ter Opp. Hieron. torn. iv. p. 698. 
 
 Tt aytas (rapids, Kol rov n^iov a'/jua- k Luke xi. 13. 
 
 TOS rov jcd.vruv rjp.wi' <7(er?tpos Xptarov. ' See above, in this chapter, p. 241 .
 
 250 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 commence in the apostolical age, or it might come in later : but 
 whenever it commenced, it seems to have been grounded upon 
 such Scripture principles as I have just now hinted. 
 
 Tertullian (about A.D. 200) is, I think, the first who speaks 
 anything plainly and fully to this matter k . He supposes that 
 ever since 'the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 
 waters 1 ,' all waters have been privileged for receiving the Spirit, 
 and becoming signs and instruments of sanctification, upon prayer 
 made to God : particularly, in Baptism, after prayer has been 
 sent up, the Holy Ghost comes down upon the waters, and sanc- 
 tifies them, yea and gives them a sanctifying quality. But he 
 supposes the angel of Baptism to be sent beforehand, to prepare 
 the way for the reception of the Spirit ; which he endeavours 
 to illustrate from some resembling cases in the New Testament 11 . 
 After the angel's performing his part upon the waters, the Holy 
 Spirit descended in person on the parties coming to be baptized, 
 and rested, as it were, upon the waters?. So writes our author : 
 and the true meaning or result of all is, that the Holy Spirit, by 
 his coming, sanctifies the persons in the use of those waters, or 
 use of that service <J. Allowances must be made for something of 
 
 k ' Omnes aquae de pristina originis they sometimes mention, besides the 
 praerogativasacramentumsanctifica- angel of Baptism, (which means any 
 tionis consequuntur, invocato Deo: or every angel so employed,) the angel 
 supervenit enim statim Spiritus de also of prayer, angel of repentance, 
 caelis, et aquis superest, sanctificans angel of peace, and angel of light, or 
 eas de semetipso ; et ita sanctificatae the like : such manner of speaking 
 vim sanctificandi combibunt.' Ter- and thinking was just and innocent, 
 tullian. de Baptism, cap. iv. p. 225. till the succeeding abuses by angel- 
 1 Gen. i. 2. worship made it almost necessary for 
 m Tertull. ibid. cap. vi. ' Angelus wise men to lay it aside. 
 Baptismi arbiter superventuro Spi- P 'Tune ille sanctissimus Spiritus 
 ritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione super emundata et benedicta corpora 
 delictorum, quam fides impetrat, ob- libens a Patre descendit, super Bap- 
 signata in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu tismi aquas, tanquampristinamsedem 
 Sancto.' p. 226. recognoscens conquiescit, columbae 
 n John v. 4. Matt. iii. 3. figura dilapsus in Doininum, ut natu- 
 It is frequent with the ancients ra,'&c. Tertull. ibid, cap.viii. p. 227. 
 to speak of the offices of angels, which ' Eadem dispositione spiritalis 
 they supposed to be employed in effectus, terrae, id est, carni nostrae, 
 ministering to God for the heirs of emergenti de lavacro post vetera de- 
 salvation, according to Heb. i. 14. licta, columba Sancti Spiritus advo- 
 And according to their respective lat, pacem Dei adferens, emissa de 
 offices, they assigned them names, caelis, ubi Ecclesia est area figurata." 
 having no other rule to go by. So Tertull. ibid. cap. viii. p. 227.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 25 * 
 
 oratorical flight and figure, contrived for ornament, and to make 
 the more lively impression : it would be wrong to conceive, that 
 every pool, pond, or river, in which any person happened to be 
 baptized, contracted any abiding holiness from that time for- 
 wards, or that it was not left open to all common uses as before. 
 It is evident that Tertullian, where he came to explain his notion, 
 and, as it were, to correct his looser and less accurate expressions, 
 did not suppose the waters to be so much as the medium, properly 
 speaking, of sanctification ; but he conceived the illapse of the 
 Spirit upon the persons to come afterwards, when the washing 
 was over and done with r . I shall only note further, with re- 
 spect to these passages of Tertullian, that it cannot be certainly 
 concluded from them, that a formal prayer for the descent of the 
 Holy Spirit was in use at that time : but from his saying that 
 immediately after invocation of God, such descent followed, and 
 from his adding afterwards, that in or by the benediction the 
 Spirit was called and invited 8 , I look upon it as extremely pro- 
 bable *, that the practice did then obtain, in the African churches, 
 formally to pray for the descent of the Holy Ghost, either before 
 the immersion or after, (upon the imposition of hands,) or 
 perhaps both before and after. 
 
 Our next author is Origen, (about A.D. 240,) not that he 
 directly says anything of the descent of the Spirit in Baptism, or 
 of any prayer made use of for that purpose : but he occasionally 
 drops some things which may give light to the present question. 
 His notion was, that the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to sanc- 
 tify, operates not at all upon inanimate things, nor upon persons 
 of obdurate wickedness, but upon those only who are capable of 
 
 r ' Eestituitur homo Deo, ad simi- benedictionem advocans et invitans 
 
 litudinem ejus qui retro ad imaginem Spiritura Sanctum.' cap. viii. pp. 226, 
 
 Dei fuerat. . . . Eecipit enim ilium Dei 227. 
 
 Spiritum, quern tune de afflatu ejus * It might be, that upon a benedic- 
 acceperat, sed post amiserat per delic- tion formed in general terms, Chris- 
 tum. Non quod in aquis Spiritum tians might expect the illapse of the 
 Sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua Spirit : but it appears more natural 
 emun.iati sub angelo, Spiritui Sancto to think, from what Tertullian here 
 praeparamur.' Ibid. cap. v. vi. p. says, that they directly and formally 
 226. prayed for it. 
 
 8 ' Dehinc manus imponitur, per
 
 2 52 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 receiving his sanctifying influences u . Now from his saying that 
 the Holy Spirit operates not on things inanimate, it must follow, 
 that he thought not at that time of any descent of the Holy 
 Ghost upon the waters of Baptism, but upon the persons only, 
 those that were worthy. Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, in 
 the decline of the fourth century, charged his doctrine with that 
 consequence, and thereupon condemned it, as overturning the con- 
 secration of the waters of Baptism, supposed to be made by the 
 coming of the Holy Ghost upon them x . But it is certain that 
 Origen did admit of a consecration of the water y, though he might 
 not perhaps explain it in the manner which Theophilus most ap- 
 proved of, one hundred and fifty years after : and it is his constant 
 doctrine, that the Baptism of the Spirit goes along with the out- 
 ward washing, wherever there is no obstacle on the part of the 
 recipient z . Nay r he scrupled not to admit, that ' the Spirit of 
 God now moves upon the face of the waters a ' of Baptism, alluding 
 to Gen. i. 2 ; so that Origen could not be much out of the way 
 upon this article : but this we may collect from him, that, pro- 
 perly speaking, the work of the Spirit in Baptism was upon the 
 persons, when fitly qualified, rather than upon the outward ele- 
 ment ; and that the Spirit's coming upon the water, and other 
 the like phrases, ought not to be too rigorously interpreted, but 
 should be understood with due grains of allowance. 
 
 A late learned writer, apologizing for Origen, takes notice, 
 that Chrysostom was very positive for the illapse of the Spirit on 
 the outward symbols ; a plain sign that he did not think Origen 
 
 u Vid. Origen. irtpl dp*, p. 62. ' (in Matt. p. 254), where the reason is 
 
 edit. Bened. Cp. Huetii Origeniana, the same. See also Albertinus, p. 358. 
 
 p. 46. Albertin. lib. ii. p. 357. z Vid. Origen. in Matt. pp. 391, 
 
 * 'Dicit (Origen es)Spiritum Sane- 416; in Joann. pp. 124, 125. 
 
 turn non operari in ea quae inanima a Kat ira\i'yyei>t(rias ovoij.a.^6fjifvov 
 
 sunt, nee ad irrationabilia pervenire : Kovrpbv fj.fra avaKaiviaattas yiv6p.tvov 
 
 quod adserens, non recogitat aquas TrvevpaTos, TOV Kal vvv 6iri(f>fpo^fvov, 
 
 in Baptisinate mysticas adventu tirfiSri trtpl eoD fcrni/, firdvia TOV 
 
 Sancti Spiritus consecrari.' Theoph. SSaros, a\\' ov ira.cn /xera rJ> uSaip 
 
 Alex. Lib. Paschal, i. p. 698 ; apud tyytvo/j.fvov. Ibid. p. 125. 
 
 Hieronym. Opp. torn. iv. edit. Bened. Note, that the Latin version has 
 
 y Vid. Origen. in Joann. p. 124. obscured the sense of the passage, 
 
 edit. Huet. And compare what he not observing, perhaps, the allusion 
 
 says of the eucharistical consecration, to Genesis.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 253 
 
 to be guilty of the error charged upon him b . I rather think, 
 that Chrysostom understood the popular way of expressing the 
 illapse of the Spirit, in the same qualified sense that Origen 
 before did ; and that was one reason why he would not come 
 into the warm measures of Theophilus, Epiphanius, and other 
 Eustathians c of that time, about the year 400. And whereas it 
 is suggested by the same learned writer* 1 , that a solemn consecra- 
 tion of things inanimate to holy uses, without supposing a formal 
 illapse of the Spirit upon them, is a degrading account of a 
 venerable mystery, and leaves no difference between the conse- 
 cration of a church and the consecration of baptismal water, 
 &c. ; I must take leave to reply, that the conclusion is not 
 just : for in things so consecrated to holy uses, there will always 
 be as much difference as there is between more and less sacred, 
 according as the ends and uses are higher or lower, holier or less 
 holy. The higher and holier the use is to which anything is 
 consecrated by proper ministers, so much the more worthy it is, 
 and so much the nearer and more important relation it bears to 
 God and religion ; demanding thereupon so much the greater 
 reverence and more awful regard. 
 
 St. Cyprian (A.D, 255) speaks of a sacerdotal cleansing and 
 sanctification of the baptismal water ; which he supposes to be 
 wrought by the Holy Spirit 6 , and very frequently makes mention 
 of it, up and down in his works. But he says nothing from 
 whence one may certainly collect whether any formal prayer for 
 the descent was then in use ; neither does he explain in what 
 sense the Holy Ghost was understood to sanctify the baptismal 
 waters. Only, as he intimates over and over, that the end and 
 use of sanctifying the water was to convey spiritual graces to the 
 persons coming to be baptized in it ; and as it is certain that 
 those spiritual graces could not reside in or upon the outward 
 
 b Johnson, Unbloody Sacrifice, c 'Oportet ergo mundari et sancti- 
 
 parti, p. 181, alias 186. ficari aquam prius a sacerdote, ut 
 
 c A short account of the odium possit Baptismo suo peccata hominis 
 
 raised agiinst Origen may be seen in qui baptizatur abluere Quoinodo 
 
 my Second Defence, vol. ii. p. 639, autemmundareet sanctificare aquam 
 
 &c., and a larger in Huetius' Orige- potest, qui ipse immundus est, et 
 
 niana. apud quern Spiritus Sanctus non est ?' 
 
 d Johnson, ibid. p. 182, alias 185. Cyprian. Epist. Ixx. p. 190.
 
 254 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 element ; it is more than probable that he supposed the Spirit 
 to rest where those spiritual effects rested, that is, upon the 
 persons only : and then the sanctifying of the waters can mean 
 no more than the consecrating them to the uses of personal 
 sanctification. The Spirit made use of them as a symbol, for 
 conveying his graces ; and in that use consisted their relative 
 holiness : but the Spirit dwells not properly upon them, but 
 upon the persons baptized. 
 
 When we come down to the fourth century, there we find 
 plainer evidences of formal prayers offered for the descent of the 
 Holy Ghost upon the waters of Baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 (who wrote A.D. 348) speaks to his catechumens thus f : 'The 
 Holy Ghost is coming to seal your souls : . . . . look not upon 
 the laver as common water, but to the spiritual grace bestowed 
 along with it.. ..This common water, upon receiving the in- 
 vocation of the Holy Spirit, and of Christ, and of the Father, 
 acquires a virtue of sanctification.' It may be doubted whether 
 Cyril here refers to the prayer of Consecration or to the form 
 of Baptism : but it appears most probable that he refers to the 
 Consecration; as the Benedictine editor has endeavoured to prove 
 at large, in his notes upon the place. What I have further to 
 observe upon it is, that Cyril speaks of the water as receiving a 
 sanctifying virtue. And what does he mean by it 1 He means 
 what he had just before said, that the outward washing and 
 the inward graces go together, and are both conferred at once 
 upon the worthy receiver in the self-same act. The visible sign 
 is connected, in certain effect, with the invisible grace; and both 
 are applied, at the same instant, to the same man, jointly con- 
 curring to the same end and use P. This is the foundation of the 
 common way of speaking, as if the Spirit and the water were 
 physically united with each other ; which is not strictly true in 
 notion, but amounts to the same in moral effect. 
 
 { MAAei tb iri/eujua rb ayiov ffippa- iirlK\i)ffiv \affbv Swaaiv, 
 
 yleu> vniav raj fyvxds. ..^ ws vSan iiriKrarai. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. 
 
 Arr< irp6(Tfxf TV Aovrpy, a\\a rfj iii. sect. 3. pp. 40, 41. 
 
 juera rov SSaros StSofjLfrri itvfv/MrtKy Vid. Vossius Harmon. Evangel. 
 
 X<ipiri.. . . rb \trbr vSup wev/j.aros lib. iii. cap. 4. p. 233. Opp. torn. 
 
 bylov, KJ Xpurrov, Kal irarpbs T)JV vi.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 255 
 
 Optatus, an African Bishop, (A.D. 368,) alluding to the name 
 l\6vs, (a technical name of our Lord,) says ; ' This fish (meaning 
 Christ) is brought doAvn upon the waters of the font, in Baptism, 
 by invocation 11 .' I presume this refers to the Consecration 
 prayer i : and so it imports an expectance of, or petition for, the 
 divine presence of Christ, to sanctify the person baptized in the 
 use of the appointed service. 
 
 St. Basil, of the same age, (A.D. 374,) speaks of the conjunc- 
 tion of water and the Spirit in Baptism ; first observing, (in 
 order to obviate mistakes or invidious constructions,) that the 
 Church did not mean to prefer water before all other creatures ; 
 much less to give it a share in the honours due to the Father 
 and the Son k : but he takes notice, that the water serves to 
 make out the symbol of a death unto sin, and the Spirit is 
 the pledge or earnest of life 1 : therefore water and the Spirit go 
 together in that Sacrament. Then he adds, that as to the grace 
 supposed to be in the water, it belongs not properly to the water, 
 but is entirely owing to the presence of the Spirit m . Presence 
 how, and where ? To the water, or to the persons 1 His next im- 
 mediate words will decide the question ; for he adds, in the lan- 
 guage of St. Peter, that ' Baptism is not the putting away the 
 filth of the flesh, but the stipulation of a good conscience towards 
 God n .' The Spirit therefore, in his account, must rest upon 
 the persons, to answer the end. He proceeds, soon after, to 
 observe how much the Baptism of the Spirit is preferable to 
 baptizing merely with water ; and he takes notice, that there is 
 a Baptism, as valuable as any, wherein no water at all is needful, 
 namely, Baptism in one's own blood, as a martyr for the name of 
 Christ. Then he closes up the article he was upon in these 
 
 h ' Hie est piscis qui in Baptismate, ffofiev. Basil, de Spir. Sanct. cap. 
 
 per invocationem, fontalibus undis xv. p. 28. torn. iii. edit. Bened. 
 inseritur,' &c. Optat. lib. iii. p. J Basil, ibid. p. 29. 
 6 r . m "n<rTf ff TIS (trrlv iv rqi vfiari 
 
 1 See Bingham, Christian Antiq. X^P IS > ^ K >/c T ^ s <pvaf<as tan rov 
 
 b. xi. c. 10. sect. i. vol. iv. p. 167, vSaros, a\\' fK TTJS TOV KVfv/j.aros 
 
 &C. Oxf. edit. Trapovaias. ov yap t<m rb &a.irTtcrfi.a, 
 
 k Kal (Is vStap f}atrTi6(jLf0a, Kal pinrov ffapKos airdBfcris, aAAci ffvvftS'fi- 
 
 ouJWprou rii vSwp irdffrjs 6fj.ov TTJJ ffftas ayaffrjs eTTfpcarriiJ.il fls 9f6f, 
 
 Kritrtuis irpoTifiiicro/jiev, i) Kal avrif Basil. Ibid. p. 29. 
 TTJJ irarpbs Kal vlov TI/J.TJS /xra5(6- n i Pet. iii. 21.
 
 256 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 words : ' Not that I say this in order to disparage water- 
 baptism, but to baffle the reasonings of those who rise up 
 against the Spirit, and who would blend things together which 
 are not blended, and compare things together which admit not 
 of comparison .' 
 
 I have laid these things together, as explanatory of what the 
 ancient Fathers meant by joining the Spirit with the outward 
 elements in the Sacraments, (for the reason is the same in both,) 
 and as serving to clear up some of their other more dubious or 
 less guarded expressions. Here, when an objection was raised by 
 adversaries! 1 , grounded on nothing but words and names, this 
 good Father then rejected with abhorrence any such mixture 
 of the Spirit and the water as the Catholics were maliciously 
 charged with : and he declared they were a/itwa, not mixed 
 with each other. At the same time, he insinuated the true 
 meaning of all to be, that the Spirit and the water so far went 
 together Q, as to be applied at once to the same man, in the same 
 service; but that the Spirit properly rested upon the person 
 baptized, and not upon the outward element. Had the Romanists 
 been as careful to distinguish in the matter of the Eucharist, as 
 Basil here was with respect to Baptism, they would have seen 
 no more reason for adoration of the Host, than Basil could find 
 for adoration of water. He rejected the latter with the utmost 
 disdain ; and so should they likewise have rejected the former. 
 But I proceed. 
 
 In the same treatise, the same excellent writer speaks of the 
 
 Kal OVK o.QtTu>v rb iv r<p SSari argument, as much as the Spirit. It 
 
 pd.KTi.ffna. TO.VTO. \tyw a\\a rovs wasinreplytosuchimpertinentcavils, 
 
 \oyiirp.ovs KaPatptav TWV ^iraipofufvuv that Basil took occasion to explain 
 
 Kara. TOV Trreu/xaroj, Ka.1 fjuyvvvruv what concerned the water and what 
 
 TO. S/ziKTO, Kal irap(iKa6vT(av TO aow- the Spirit in that Sacrament, 
 
 ei/coo-ra. Basil, p. 30. i This is clearly expressed by Na- 
 
 P As the Catholics had argued zianzen of the same time : 
 
 justly for the divinity of the Holy AITT}/ KO.I fj KaBapffis, Si* SSar6s 
 
 Ghost, from our being baptized into rt tpr)(d, (cal irvtvfia.Tos, TOV /j.tv Occc- 
 
 the Spirit, and sanctified by the Spirit, pijrus re KOI crco/uaTiKcSs \a.nf3avofjif- 
 
 the Macedonians, on the other hand, vov, TOV 5e a.ffcafj.a.Tcas Ka.1 adecapTirus 
 
 frowardly retorted, that we are bap- (nurpexoj'Tos. Nazianz. Orat. xl. in 
 
 tized also tis SS<ap, in, or into water, Baptism, p, 641. Cp. Greg. Nyss. 
 
 and sanctified by water ; and there- torn. ii. p. 8ci, de Bapt. Christi. 
 fore water would be divine, by that
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 257 
 
 consecration, or benediction, that passes upon the waters of Bap- 
 tism, analogous to that of the Eucharist, which he had spoken 
 of a little before. *' We also bless,' says he, ' the water of 
 Baptism, and the oil of Chrism, and the person likewise whom 
 we baptize 1 ".' But yet he understood the difference (as may 
 appear from what hath been before said) between the rela- 
 tive holiness thereupon accruing to the water, or the oil, and 
 the grace of the Spirit accruing to the person baptized. Having 
 dwelt thus largely upon Basil, who may serve as a key to all 
 the rest, I shall but touch upon others who came after, con- 
 tenting myself with a bare recital of their testimonies, as needing 
 no further comment. 
 
 Gregory Nyssen, of the same time, (Basil's younger brother,) 
 speaking of Baptism, says ; 'It is not the water that confers 
 this benefit, (for then would it be superior to the whole crea- 
 tion,) but it is the appointment of God, and the supervening of 
 the Spirit, mystically advancing to our rescue : however, the 
 water serves to signify the cleansing 8 .' A little after he ob- 
 serves, that the Spirit invisible, being called by faith, comes in 
 a manner ineffable, and blesses both the person and the water : 
 and the water so blessed purifies and illuminates the man * : 
 but if the man is not bettered, the water is mere water to him, 
 destitute of the Spiint u . 
 
 St. Ambrose (or whoever is the author) speaks of the descent 
 
 r E,v\oyovfj.fV KOU r6 re vSwp rov 8 Tavrrjv 8e rfyv fvfpytffiav oil rb 
 
 jSa-irTicr/uaTos, al rb t\aiov TJJI xp' l ~ vSdip xaf"'C 6Ta '- %" 7&p &i> iraffj\s rrjs 
 
 crews, /cal irpofffn avrbv rbv /Sair- Krifftos v\^ri\6repov a\\a ecu irpoff- 
 
 n6ptvop. Basil, de Sp. Sanct. cap. ray/jut, Kal f; TOV Trvtv/iiaros firi<potrT]- 
 
 2 7- P- 55- ffls < f^vffrtKuis ffxofjitvr} irpbs T^V rjfie- 
 
 ' Cum veteres aiunt sanguinem rfpav t\fv6tpicu>. SScap Se virripfTfi 
 
 Christi et Spiritum Sanctum se aquae irpbs ev$fiiv TTJJ KaOdpffeus. Greg. 
 
 miscere, populare estloquendi genus; Nyss. in Baptism. Christi, p. 801. 
 
 quoditacapere oportetquasidicerent, * nvcv/j.a rb a<pavfs, ir'taTti /coAor- 
 
 quando aqua abluimur foris, oculis futvov, OPPTJTWJ Trapa.yiv6ti.fvov . . . fit- 
 
 fidei intuendum esse sanguinem et Koytt rb @aim6/j.f>'oi', Kal rb iiSap 
 
 spiritum Christi, qui a haec cum aqua rb /Sairrifo^. p. 801. iiSoip ev\oyov- 
 
 coucurrunt, haud secus, ac si misce- /ifvov Ka6cupi /col <pwriei rlv &v- 
 
 rentur cum aqua.' Voss. de Bapt. Bpcairov. p. 803. 
 
 Disp. v. p. 274. Cp. de Saeram. u 'Eirl rovraiv rb vStap vSwp tarlv, 
 
 Vi et Effiracia, pp. 252, 253. torn. ovSa/Mov rijs Sscpeas rov ayiov irvfv~ 
 
 vi. fiaros tirupaveiffns, &c. p. 540.
 
 358 Sanctifying Grace CHAP/ 
 
 of the Holy Ghost in Baptism * : and also of the presence of 
 Christ upon the sacerdotal invocation Y. But it is remarkable, 
 how in one place he distinguishes the descent of the Spirit upon 
 the water from the descent upon the persons, and, as it were, 
 corrects an inaccurate expression by one more proper 2 , intimating 
 what the vulgar way of speaking really and strictly meant. In 
 another treatise, he mentions the descent of the Holy Ghost in 
 Baptism, after the sacerdotal invocation a : from whence it is 
 manifest that some prayer was then used to be offered up for that 
 purpose, imploring such descent. The book De Sacramentis 
 is not justly ascribed to St. Ambrose : some think it may have 
 been compiled not long after him, by some of his chief admirers b , 
 others set it later. I shall only take notice of a custom then 
 prevailing, of praying for the presence of the Son and Holy Ghost, 
 in their Baptismal Offices ; or sometimes of the whole Trinity c . 
 I shall descend no lower in this account, (since enough has 
 been said,) except it be to present the reader with two or three 
 forms of the invocation made in Baptism, beseeching God to 
 send the Holy Spirit to sanctify the baptismal waters, or the per- 
 sons to be baptized. We have not many of those forms remain- 
 ing, in comparison of what we have with respect to the other 
 
 * ' Illis angelus descendebat : tibi b See the Editor's preface fco that 
 Spiritus Sanctus : illis creatura mo- work. Oudin brings it down to the 
 vebatur, tibi Christus operatur, ipse eighth century, about 780. See 
 Dominus creaturae.' Ambros. de Oudin, torn. i. p. 1858. Some attri- 
 Myster. cap. iv. p. 330. edit. Bened. bute it to Maximus Taurinensis of 
 ' In hunc fontem vis divina descendit.' the fifth. Vid. Fabricius, Bibl. Med. 
 p. 331 ; cp. 342. et Infim. Latin, lib. xii. p. 191. 
 
 y 'Crede ergo adesse Dominum c 'Ubiprimumingreditursacerdos, 
 
 Jesum, invocatum precibus sacerdo- exorcismum facit secundum creatu- 
 
 tum.' p. 332. ram aquae ; invocatione postea et pre- 
 
 1 ' Non utique dubitandum est, cem defert, ut sanctificetur fons, et 
 
 quod (Spiritus) superveniens in fon- adsit praesentia Trinitatis aeternae.' 
 
 tern, vel super eos qui Baptismum Pseud- Ambros. de Sacram. lib. i. cap. 
 
 consequuntur, veritateni regenera- v. p. 353. 
 
 tionis operetur.' Ambros. ibid. cap. 'Venit sacerdos, precem dicit ad 
 
 ix. p. 342. fontem, invocat Patris nomen, prae- 
 
 * ' Quid in hoc typo angelus, nisi sentiam Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.' 
 descensionem Sancti Spiritus nuncia- Lib. ii. cap. 5. pp. 357, 358. 
 
 bat, quae nostris futura temporibus, The reader may see more au- 
 
 aquas sacerdotalibus invocata preci- thorities of like kind in Albertin. 
 
 bus consecraret ? ' Ambros. de Sp. p. 465. 
 Sanct. lib. i. cap. 7. p. 618.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 259 
 
 Sacrament, less care having been taken to preserve or to collect 
 them : but we have enough for our purpose. One of them 
 occurs in the Constitutions; the oldest perhaps that is extant, 
 though of uncertain date. It runs thus : ' Look down from 
 heaven, and sanctify this water : give it grace and power, that he 
 who is baptized therein, according to the command of thy Christ, 
 may be crucified with him, and die with him, and be buried 
 with him, and rise again with him to that adoption which comes 
 by him ; that dying unto sin, he may live unto righteousness d .' 
 Here indeed no express mention is made of the Holy Ghost the 
 Sanctifier : but it is implied in the word ' sanctify,' and ' grace,' 
 and 'power,' or 'virtue.' The blessing, we may note, is craved 
 upon the water : but as no grace can properly rest there as in 
 its subject, it is plain what all means, viz. that the persons should 
 receive the grace of the Holy Ghost in the use of that water ac- 
 cording to divine appointment ; or that the outward washing and 
 the inward graces go together 6 . So, in common or customary 
 speech, when any one prays that God may bless the means 
 made use of for any person's recovery, nobody understands more 
 in it than that God may bless the persons in the use of those 
 means, and crown them with the success desired. We have 
 another the like form in Pope Gregory's Sacramentarium : which 
 however in its present state is not altogether so old as that 
 Pope ; for the Sacramentary is not without interpolations f . The 
 
 d KariSe ^| ovpavov, Kal ayiaffov TO nino saeculo Constitutiones quasdam 
 
 vSup rovro' Sbs Se X C V" / K0 " 9tfafUf t Apostolicas innotuisse, quae postea 
 
 Sxrre rbv pa.TrTi6fi.fi/ov, KO.T' eWoAV circa sextum saeculum ab homine 
 
 rov Xpur-rov ffov, avrf crvffravptaBfj- quodam Ariano corruptae fuerint et 
 
 vai, &c. Constitut. Apost. lib. vii. interpolatae.' Budd. Isagog. p. 747. 
 
 cap. 43. p. 384. Cp. Turner, ch. xxiii. p. 237, &c. 
 
 N. B. As to the age of the Con- Fabric. Bibl. Graec. torn. v. p. 33. 
 
 stitutions 1 , Mr. Dodwell observes, torn. xi. pp. 7-10. 
 that there is no evidence for them, c Accordingly, the person baptized 
 
 (as we now have them in eight books,) is directed, immediately after to pray 
 
 elder than the time of Dionysius for the descent of the Holy Ghost 
 
 Exiguus, who was of the sixth cen- upon him. A6s /tot . . . irix vparos ayiov 
 
 tury. See Dodwell of Incensing, p. eirj^on-Tjow trpbs K-rfifftv Kal irKtjpo- 
 
 164. Ittigius and Buddaeus give the tpoplav TTJS oATjOei'as, Sia rov Xpicrrov 
 
 like judgment. Others name the aov. Ibid. cap. xlv. p. 385. 
 fifth century. * Qf the age of the Gregorian Sa- 
 
 ' Praef erenda mini reliquis videtur cramentary, see Dodwell of Incense, 
 
 sententia Thomae Ittigii, quarto om- p. 218, &c. 
 
 S 2
 
 2<5o Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 form runs thus : ' Let the virtue of thy Spirit descend, Lord, 
 upon the plenitude of this font, and impregnate all the substance 
 of this water with a regenerating efficacy : here may the spots 
 of all sins be washed off; here may that nature, formed after thy 
 image, and now restored to its original purity, be cleansed from 
 all its former stains ; that every one coming to this Sacrament 
 of regeneration may be born again to a new infancy of true inno- 
 cence &.' Hefe we may observe, that the petition is put up for 
 the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the waters, as usual, for the 
 benefit of the persons, that they may therein receive remission 
 of sins, and all other spiritual graces, for restoring original 
 righteousness lost by the fall of Adam, and for supporting and 
 sustaining the Christian life. 
 
 The Gothic Missal published by Mabillon h , bearing date as 
 "high as the eighth century *, will furnish us with another form ; 
 wherein the descent of the Holy Spirit is directly prayed for, to 
 sanctify the baptismal waters, in order to derive pardon and grace 
 upon the persons brought to the font k . I shall take notice of 
 but one more, which occurs in the Gallican Sacramentary, of the 
 latter end of the eighth century, or thereabout \ There also 
 prayer is directly and in terms made, that God would send his 
 Holy Spirit upon the water, in order to the purifying and rege- 
 nerating the persons coming to Baptism m . 
 
 8 ' Descendat, Domine, in bane super earn virtus tua : desuper in- 
 plenitudinem fontis virtus Spiritus funde Spiritum tuum, sanctum Para- 
 tui ; totamque hujus aquae substan- clitum, angelum veritatis. Sanctifica, 
 tiam regenerandi foecundet effectu. Domine, hujus laticis undas, sicut 
 Hie omnium peccatorum maculae sanctificasti fluenta Jordanis, ut qui 
 deleantur, bic natura ad imaginem in hunc fontem descenderint, in no- 
 Dei condita, et ad honorem sui re- mine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus 
 formata principis, vetustatis cunctis Sancti, et peccatorum veniam, et 
 squaloribus emundetur, omnis homo Sancti Spiritus infusionem consequi 
 hoc Sacramentum regenerationis in- mereantur.' Missal. Goth. p. 248. 
 gressus, in verae inuocentiae novam ' See Mabillon. Muse. Italic, torn, 
 infant iain reuascatur.' Gregor. Mag. i. in Praefat. ad Sacram. G. p. 275. 
 Lib. Sacram. p. 73. ed. Bened. Dodwell of Incense, p. 203, &c. 
 
 h Mabillon de Liturgia Gallicana, m 'Te Deum Patrem omnipoten- 
 
 p. 1 88, &c. tern deprecamur, ut hie Spiritum 
 
 ' See Mabillon. Praef. sect. is. Sanctum in aquam hanc supermictere 
 
 And compare Dodwell of Incense, digneris, ut quoscunque baptizave- 
 
 p. 190. rimus in nomine, &c., purificans et 
 
 k ' Bsnedic, Domine Deus noster, regenerans accipias eos in numero 
 
 hanc creaturam aquae, et descendat sanctorum tuorum, et consumines in
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 261 
 
 I hope my readers will not think much of the excursion which 
 I have here made into the Sacrament of Baptism, with a view to 
 illustrate what belongs to our present subject of the Eucharist. 
 For indeed I know of no surer or shorter way of coming at a 
 just and clear apprehension of what concerns one, than by com- 
 paring together and duly weighing the circumstances of both. 
 They are both of them equally Sacraments of the Christian 
 Church, and have the like promise of the Holy Spirit, founded 
 in the same merits of Christ's obedience and sufferings : there is 
 the same reason for a consecration of the outward symbols in 
 both, the same ground for expecting the presence of the Spirit ; 
 the same warrant for asking it ; the same rule to go by in the 
 doing it ; and the like primitive practice to countenance it. If 
 we proceed upon favourable presumption, that what obtained 
 universally, without order of councils, in the third or fourth cen- 
 tury, (and of which there is no memorandum left when it began,) 
 must be taken for apostolical, then the practice as to either 
 Sacrament will bear the same date : but if we choose rather, 
 apart from all conjectures, to set the practice in each no higher 
 than we have certain evidences of it, from monuments now ex- 
 tant, then we must date the practice with respect to Baptism no 
 higher than the third, or however second century, when Tertul- 
 lian flourished ; and with respect to the Eucharist, no higher 
 perhaps than the fourth, as we shall see presently . 
 
 I am aware, that several very worthy and learned men (and 
 among the rest Dr. Grabe) have thought of an earlier date than 
 I have just now mentioned ; and by their united labours and 
 searches into that question, have enabled those that come after 
 them to see the more clearly into it. Two very learned writers, 
 (not to mention more now,) Mr. Pfaffius abroad, and Mr. John- 
 son at home, have particularly traced that matter with all the 
 diligence imaginable, and have both of them endeavoured to carry 
 it up as high as there was any colour for carrying it. One of 
 
 Spiritu tuo sancto in vitam aeternam, Pfaffius, p. 37^, &c. Bingham, xv. 
 
 in saecula saeculorum.' Sacrament. 3, n. Collier, Keasons, &c. p. 21, 
 
 Galilean, p. 124. &c. Deylingius, Observ. Miscell. 
 
 n The testimonies of such invoca- p. 196, &c. 344, &c. 
 tion in the Eucharist are collected by
 
 262 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 them appeals even to Ignatius, as a voucher for the practice , 
 because he makes mention of some heretics who ' abstained from 
 the Eucharist and prayer, as not acknowledging the Eucharist 
 to be the flesh of Christ Jesus P.' But I cannot see how, by any 
 ever so distant consequence, we can thence fairly conclude, that 
 it was the practice of that time to pray for the descent of the 
 Holy Ghost in the Eucharist : for if the words of the institution 
 were but used in the prayer of Consecration in those days, that 
 alone is sufficient to account for all that Ignatius says there, 
 or anywhere else. 
 
 Mr. Pfaffius, more plausibly, endeavours to run up the practice 
 as high as Irenaeus of the second century. And, indeed, could 
 he have sufficiently warranted the genuineness of those fragments 
 which he has obliged the learned world with, under the name of 
 Ii'enaeus, there could have been no room left for further dispute 
 on that head 1. But he has not done it ; neither is it, I believe, 
 possible to be done r . As to his argument drawn from the use 
 of the word fKK\r}<ns, or eVtVXqo-ts, invocation of God, in Irenaeus's 
 certainly genuine works 8 , it is too precarious a topic to build a 
 thing of this moment upon ; because there may be an invocation 
 of God in prayer, without any praying for the descent of the 
 Holy Spirit ; and eWKXijo-tj is nothing but a common name for 
 any kind of invocation in prayer ; as when the three Persons are 
 named or invoked in the form of Baptism, (for so Origen uses 
 it r ,) or are otherwise named in the Eucharist ; as they certainly 
 were by Justin Martyr's account u . No proof therefore hath been 
 yet given of the practice of praying for the descent of the Holy 
 Ghost, in the eucharistical service, so early as Irenaeus's days. 
 
 Mr. Pfaffius endeavours next w to make it at least as ancient as 
 the third century ; because the Dialogue against the Marcionites, 
 
 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, Cassiodori Complex, pp. 240, 241. 
 part i. p. 241, alias 245 ; part ii. p. Iren. pp. 60, 251. edit. Bened. 
 j8o. Compare Collier, Reasons, &c. Cp. Pfaffius, p. 96, &c. 
 
 p. 22. Defence, p. 101, &c. Vindi- * Origen. in Joann. p. 124, et 
 
 cation, p. 109, &c. 128, &c. apud Basil, de Spir. Sanct. cap. 29. 
 
 P Ignat. Ep. adSmyrn. cap.vii.p. 4. u Justin. Martyr. Apol. i. p. 96. 
 
 1 Vid. Fragmenta Irenaei ap. Pfaff. Cp. Cyrill. Hieros. Mystag. i. sect, 
 p. 27; cp. p. 94, &c. vii. p. 308. 
 
 r Vid. Scipio Maffeius in Notis ad w Pfaffius in Praefat.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 263 
 
 commonly ascribed to Crigen, or else to Maximus of the same 
 age, makes mention of the Holy Spirit's coming upon the Eu- 
 charist^ But besides that there is no mention of any prayer 
 for such descent, (so that the evidence here comes not up to the 
 point in question,) I say, besides that, the author of that Dia- 
 logue, most certainly, was neither Origen, nor Maximus, nor any 
 of that age, but probably another Adamantius, who lived in the 
 fourth century, in the time of Constantine ; as the learned 
 editor in his new edition of Origen has observed at large y. At 
 last then, we must be content to come down as low as the fourth 
 century, and indeed towards the middle of it, (when the elder 
 Cyril wrote,) for clear and undoubted evidence of the practice of 
 praying for the illapse of the Spirit upon the symbols in the 
 holy Communion. No doubt but it was used in the Church of 
 Jerusalem before, for Cyril did not invent it, nor first use it : but 
 how long before, is the question ; which, for want of higher 
 records, we cannot now certainly determine. Cyril intimates 
 part of the very form of the invocation then in use ; and it may 
 be worth the setting down here for the reader's perusal. 'We 
 beseech the all-merciful God to send the Holy Ghost upon the 
 elements, that he may make the bread Christ's body, and the 
 wine Christ's blood. For whatsoever the Holy Ghost once 
 touches, that most certainly must be sanctified and changed z .' 
 That is, as to its uses or offices. Some time after, the Priest 
 says ; ' Holy are the elements which lie before us, having re- 
 ceived the illapse of the Holy Spirit : holy also are ye, being 
 now endowed with the Holy Spirit a .' This was said before 
 the receiving ; which I note, for the sake of some inferences 
 to be made from it : i. That the elements are not here made 
 the conduit of the Holy Spirit, (for the Spirit is supposed to be 
 
 x Tb aytov iri/eDjua eiri TTJS tvx&pi- cfip.a Xpi<nov - iravrtas 
 
 ffr(as epxercu. Adamantius Dialog, ^turo rb ayiov irvtvfj.a, TOVTO fiytcurrat 
 
 sect. ii. p. 826. edit. Bened. /cat jueTa/3e)3A7?Ta{. Cyrill. Mystag. v. 
 
 y Delarue in Admonitione praevia, cap. 7. p. 327. Cp. Albertin. 320. 
 p. 800, &c. a "Ayta Tct Trpo/cei'/*e o, firi<poiTr](nv 
 
 z HapaKaXov/jLev rbv <pi\di>0p(airoi' Sffa/uepo ayiov irpfUjUOTOS' aytoi KOU 
 
 @fbv, T& ayiov irreC/ua aTro<TT?Ao< fyutTy iri/eu/ttoros aylov Ka.Taui>6ft>Tfs. 
 
 tTTi TO irpoKti/j.fva' Iva. iroi4]crri rbv Ta a-yia o$v TO?S ayiois Ka.rd\\r)\a. 
 
 juep &prov oriufta. XpiffTov, rbp St olvov Ibid. c. xix. p. 33 1 -
 
 364 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 received by the communicants before them and without them,) 
 but the service of the Eucharist is the conduit rather, if either 
 of them properly be so. 2. That the meaning of the prayer for 
 the illapse of the Spirit is, to invite the Spirit to come down 
 upon the communicants immediately, or principally, to make 
 them holy in a sense proper to them, as well as to make the ele- 
 ments holy in a sense proper to things inanimate: therefore 
 Cyril adds, ' holy things' then are meet for holy men.' Hence 
 also came that ancient eucharistical form of ' sancta sanctis,' holy 
 things for holy men b , made use of previously to the reception of 
 the sacred symbols. 3. Though the elements are sanctified by 
 the Holy Ghost, and thereupon become relatively holy, as being 
 now sacred symbols and representatives of our Lord's body and 
 blood, yet they are not beneficial to unholy persons, but hurtful, 
 and therefore are not to them the body and blood of Christ in 
 real grace, virtue, energy, or effect. 4. Since the persons are 
 supposed to become holy by the presence of the Holy Spirit, pre- 
 viously to receiving, in order to reap benefit from it, it is plain 
 that, as to the request for making the elements Christ's body and 
 blood, the meaning only is, that they may be so made, not in 
 themselves, but to the communicants c , considered as holy : for, 
 
 * A full account of it may be seen to -become the body and blood of 
 in Menardus's Notes upon the Grego- Christ to them that communicate, 
 rian Sacramentary, p. 566. ToutteVs that true sense is so well signified 
 Notes on Cyril, p. 331. And Bing- and expressed, that the words can- 
 ham's Eccles. Antiq. book xv. ch. 3. not well be understood otherwise 
 sect. 31. vol. v. p. 344. Oxf. edit. than to import, not the corporal 
 
 c So in the Canon of the Mass, and substance, but the spiritual iise of 
 
 in our Communion Service of King them.' Thorndike, Relig. Assemb. 
 
 Edward's Prayer-Book of the first p. 369. 
 
 edition, the words run, 'That they 'In the book of the holy Commu- 
 
 may become to us the body and nion we do not pray absolutely, that 
 
 blood of Christ.' Of which Mr. the bread and wine may be made 
 
 Thorndike very judiciously com- the body and blood of Christ, but 
 
 ments, as here follows : that unto us, in that holy mystery, 
 
 ' These words " to us," make an they may be so : that is to say, that 
 
 abatement in the proper signification we may so worthily receive the 
 
 of the body and blood. For the same, that we may be partakers of 
 
 elements may be said to become the Christ's body and blood, and that 
 
 body and blood of Christ without therewith in spirit and in truth we 
 
 addition, in the same true sense in may be spiritually nourished." Arch- 
 
 which they are so called in the bishop Cranmer against Gardiner, 
 
 Scriptures: but when they are said p. 79. edit. 1580.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 265 
 
 were the elements absolutely Christ's body and blood, they would 
 be so both to the holy and unholy, which they are not. Indeed 
 both good and bad do receive the consecrated signs, but those 
 only who are worthy do receive the things signified. 
 
 The next oldest form we meet with, after Cyril's, may be that 
 of the Constitutions, falsely called Apostolical : ' We beseech 
 thee, God, thou that art above the need of anything, to look 
 graciously down upon these gifts here lying before thee, and to 
 accept them favourably for the honour of thy Christ, and to 
 send thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, the witness of the 
 sufferings of the Lord Jesus ; that he may make this bread 
 become the body of thy Christ, and this cup become the blood 
 of thy Christ ; that they who partake thereof may be confirmed 
 in godliness, may obtain remission of sins, may be delivered 
 from the devil and his impostures, may be filled with the Holy 
 Ghost,' &c. d I need not go on to later forms of like kind, 
 many of which are to be met with in the large Collections of 
 Liturgies, published by Fabricius, Goar, Renaudot, Mabillon, 
 and others. The English reader may find a competent number 
 of the same in a Collection translated by several hands, and 
 published by the Reverend Dr. Brett, with several very learned 
 and curious Dissertations upon them, worth the considering^. 
 All I need do here is to make some general remarks, proper to 
 give light to the true and full meaning of those liturgic forms, 
 with respect to the descent or illapse of the Spirit, either upon 
 the communicants or upon the symbols. 
 
 i . It is observable, that the naked symbols, before the Spirit 
 is supposed to approach, or to make them Christ's body and 
 blood, are offered up as gifts, and called a sacrifice. I inquire 
 not now in what sense, designing a distinct chapter for that 
 
 A 'Aioi)fj.ft> ffe oncas vntvcas firi- itOTi)piov TOVTO aljtta TOV XptirTov ffov, 
 
 fi\tyris lif\ TO VpMf/fMfa 8%>a TO.VTO. 'iva ol /j.fra\al36vTes UVTOV /3e/3cutii0<a(ri 
 
 tvdffiAv ffov, av & avfvtitTjs tbs, KCU irpbs fvoffifiav, atyffftws a^aprijjueiTcov 
 
 fiiSomjcn?* (if aiiTols els TI/JL^V TOV TVXOXTI, TOV AiaJ&Aov KO.\ TTJS ir\dvris 
 
 XpLffrov ffov, leal Ka.Tairt/j.fyr]s rb ayi6v avrov pvarOaiffi, Trvfv/j.a.Tos ay'wv irATj- 
 
 ffov Trvtv/J.a firl T)JV Ovffiav TavnjVj T}>V paBwfftv. K. T. \. Const. Apost. lib. 
 
 /j.dprvpa Tiav ira6r)iJ.d.T(ov TOV Kvpiov viii. cap. 12. p. 407. 
 'Ir/ffow, Sircos o-7ro(j>Vj7 T'OV &pToi> TOV- e Brett's Collection of the principal 
 
 TOV (Tai^a TOV Xpiarov ffov, KOI TO Liturgies^ printed A. D. 1720.
 
 a66 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 purpose below : but such is the common form and tenor of 
 most of the other Liturgies, Greek ones especially; St. James's f , 
 St. Mark's , St. Basil's h , and St. Gregory's ', as they are called. 
 
 2. Next it is observable, from the old Liturgies, that after the 
 oblation and sacrifice, and after the illapse of the Spirit upon the 
 symbols, to make them authentic and effective representatives of 
 our Lord's body and blood, another very solemn prayer was wont 
 to be put up, pleading to God the merits of Christ's passion, and 
 beseeching him, for the sake thereof, to be propitious towards 
 the communicants in particular, and towards the Church in 
 general. Cyril represents that part of the service thus : ' After 
 the finishing the spiritual sacrifice, the unbloody service ; over 
 that sacrifice of propitiation, we beseech God in behalf of the 
 common peace of the churches ... we offer Christ slain for our 
 sins, entreating the all-merciful God to be propitious to ourselves 
 and others V There is such another form of prayer in the 
 Constitutions 1 : it follows the oblation, and may itself be called, 
 and often has been called, another oblation. But the proper 
 name for it is Commemoration of the passion, now made before 
 God, pleading the merit of the same, in order to obtain the fruits 
 and benefits of it. This part of the service was very ancient, 
 and most undoubtedly did obtain, in some shape or other, even 
 from the beginning ; pursuant to our Lord's command, to make 
 commemoration of him, and to St. Paul's account of the Eu- 
 charist, as shewing the Lord's death till his coming again. Such 
 memorial of the passion is more than once mentioned by Justin 
 Martyr, and Origen, and Cyprian, and Eusebius, and Chrysostom, 
 and many more. The meaning of the petition which went 
 
 f Jacobi Liturg. apud Fabric, pp. KOIVTJS rHav fKKK^atSsv tlpr)i>ris . . . Xpi- 
 
 66. 68, 70, 82, 96. ffrbv ^fftyayicrfievov vittp ruv f)(j.tTfpti>v 
 
 s Marci Liturg. apud Fabric, pp. o^iopTTj/xaTou' irpoatytponei', ti\fov- 
 
 275, 278, 286, 287. fj-fvoi inrfp avrHov re Kal fi(j.cav (pi\aj/- 
 
 h Basil. Liturg. in Renaudot. pp. Bpiairov t:6i>. Cyrill. Mystag. v. pp. 
 
 57,6i,68. 3^7.3^8. 
 
 ' Gregorii Liturg. apud Renaudot. ' Constitut. Apostol. lib. viii. cap. 
 
 pp. 90, 94, 95, 105. 13. pp. 408, 409. 
 
 k Elra, fj.fTa. rb airapTicrBrjrai T^V m See above, oh. i. pp. 21, 32, 
 
 irvfvfj.ariK^v 6v<riai>, r^v avai^aKTov under the name Oblation and Me- 
 
 AorpefoJ', tirl TTJS 6vfftas tKflvTjs rov morial. 
 rbf Qtbv v*fp
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 267 
 
 along with it was, that our blessed Saviour, who is our intercessor 
 and advocate above, might vouchsafe to make those prayers 
 acceptable at the throne of grace, pleading the interest of his 
 all-prevailing sacrifice in heaven". The Liturgy in Ambrose 
 has the like memorial with the former, after the consecration : 
 and so has the Gallican SacramentaryP. The Greek and Oriental 
 Liturgies have commonly the same, but not always in the same 
 order ; sometimes placing the memorial, or annunciation, im- 
 properly, before the consecration <J, and again, more properly, 
 after r : which is an argument of the lateness of those Litm-gies, 
 as we now have them, and of the confused state wherein most 
 of them are. 
 
 3. But the most material point of all is to fix the true mean- 
 ing of the invocation and illapse of the Spirit, into which the 
 Greeks commonly resolve the consecration. The Romish Divines 
 have frequently laid hold of what is said concerning the illapse 
 of the Spirit, as favourable to their tenet of transubstantiation ; 
 because the Holy Ghost is said to make the bread the body, and 
 the wine the blood of Christ. But when it came to be observed, 
 that the Greeks constantly used that prayer of invocation, for 
 the descent of the Spirit, after the words of the institution, 
 (in which the Romanists fix the consecration,) a great difficulty 
 arose, how to reconcile Greeks and Latins, upon the article of 
 consecration : for the former placed it in the descent of the 
 Holy Spirit, and the latter in the words of institution. A solu- 
 tion 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 
 
 
 
 n 'Offert se ipse quasi sacerdos, Pseudo-Ambrosias de Sacrament. 
 
 ut peccata nostra dimitt-tt : hie in lib. iv. cap. 6. 
 
 imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud P Sacramentar. Gallican. p. 280. 
 Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus q Jacob. Liturg. ap. Fabric, p. 
 
 intervenit.' Ambrosias de Offic. 82. Basil. Liturg. pp. 6r. 68. 
 lib. i. cap. 48. r Jacob. Liturg. p 96.
 
 268 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 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 judgment 8 . 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 f . 
 
 It must however be owned, that the later and shrewder Ro- 
 manists, observing how their friends were caught in their own 
 snare, have been very solicitous to retract that occasional con- 
 cession, and to condemn Bessarion, Arcudius, and others, for 
 giving into it. Lequien is one of those who endeavour to recall 
 the grant u ; and Renaudot is another x ; and Toutte'e a third y. 
 They are justly sensible, how their most specious pretences from 
 the ancients are at once taken from them, and that the Pro- 
 testant 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 shew, 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 
 
 8 See particularly Arcudius de sima est Protestantium doctrina. . . . 
 
 Concord. Eccles. Occident, et Orient. Si haec ad solam fructuosam commu- 
 
 1. iii. cap. 33. p. 287, &c. nionera referantur, nulla niagis coin- 
 
 * See Dr. Covel's Account of the moda Protestantium causae interpre- 
 Gr. Church, p. 54, &c. tatio excogitari poterat. Renaudot. 
 
 u Lequien in Notis ad Damascen. Liturg. Orient, torn. ii. p. 93. 
 torn. i. p. 269. v ' Verba haec detorquere ad ef- 
 
 * ' Quod aiunt Bessarionis et Arcu- fectus Eucharistiae in nobis postu- 
 dii imitatores totam orationera referri landos, ecclesiam luculentissimo, an- 
 ad fructuosam mysterii susceptionem, tiquissimo, et constantissimo tran- 
 ferri non potest. . . . Unde sequeretur substantiations testimonio privare 
 nullam esse transmutationem erga in- est.' Toiitte"e Cyrillian. Dissertat. 
 dignecommunicantes, quaegermanis- iii. p. 238.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 269 
 
 change only in the elements, as to relations and uses, and a gra- 
 cious presence of the Holy Spirit upon the communicants z . 
 
 One argument of it may be drawn from the style of the 
 prayer, 'super nos, et super haec dona a ,' begging the descent upon 
 the communicants fh'st, and then upon the elements ; that is to 
 say, upon the communicants in the use of those now holy or con- 
 secrated symbols. Renaudot would persuade us, that the ' super 
 nos' relates to the consecrators, or to the officiating clergy b . 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 c , and 
 from thence derived to the Canon of the Mass. I have shewn 
 the meaning of it before, and need not here repeat. 
 
 But the clearest and strongest argument of all may be 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 1 
 
 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 
 
 z Vid. Fulgent, ad Monim. lib. ii. omnibus quaesumns benedictam . . . 
 
 cap. 9, 10. facere digneris, ut nobis corpus et 
 
 " See the Liturgies in Fabricius, sanguis fiat,' &c. 
 
 68, 84, 85, 98, 204, 205, 243, 298, d Compare what Mr. Pfaffius has 
 
 300 ; or in lienaudotius, torn. i. pp. well urged on this head, p. 76, &c. 
 
 16, 31, 46, 48, 68, 105 ; torn. ii. pp. Though it must be said, that his own 
 
 118, 143, 313, 325. hypothesis will no more clear this 
 
 b Renaudot. Liturg. Orient, torn, article, than the Popish one can ; for 
 
 i. p. 340. the invocation in Baptism draws 
 
 c 'Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in down nothing but what is spiritual.
 
 270 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 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 blood 6 . 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 Eucha- 
 rist ; and therefore if in those it amounted only to a moral or 
 spiritual change, it cannot, upon their principles, amount to more 
 in this. Cyril of Jerusalem, as before quoted, plainly makes 
 those several cases so far parallel f ; and so does Gregory Nys- 
 sen s 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 
 
 e ' Invocatur quoque ut mittat pare Bingham, book si. ch. x. sect. 4. 
 Spiritual Sanctum super aquas bap- s Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptismo 
 
 tismales, ut in illis baptizati accipiant Christi, torn. ii. pp. 801, 802. edit, 
 
 regenerationem, omniumque pecca- Paris. 1615. Dr. Covel has observed 
 
 torum remissionem : super oleum, et the same at large, with respect to 
 
 chrisma, ut gratiam baptizatis novam the later rituals, in his Account of 
 
 conferant : super ordinandos, ut ac- the Greek Church, p. 33, &c. And 
 
 cipiant sanctimoniam et potestatem though he intended the instances 
 
 ad sacra ministeria sancte exercenda : there given only to shew, that such 
 
 super oleum infirmorum, ut ejus forms implied no physical change in 
 
 unctio prosit infirmis ad salutem ani- the things so consecrated, yet they 
 
 mae et corporis. . . . Verum in Eu- really prove more, viz. that the Holy 
 
 charistia consecranda, aliud quiddam Spirit was supposed to rest upon the 
 
 se petere designant, nempe illapsum persons in the use of the symbols, 
 
 efficacem Spiritus Sancti in dona and not upon the symbols themselves, 
 
 proposita, ut mutentur et trans- in strictness of speech. I may note 
 
 ferantur in corpus et sanguinem also, that in pp. 56, 57, he has fully 
 
 Domini : quod de aqua, chrismate, confuted the most specious pretence 
 
 oleoque, aliisque Sacramentis, nun- which the Romanists commonly make 
 
 quam postulasse orientales repe- from some corrupt copies of Basil's 
 
 riuntur.' Renaudot. torn. i. pp. Liturgy, by producing a truer read- 
 
 196. 197. ing out of a different copy, near six 
 
 f See above, ch. vii. p. 159. Com- hundred years old.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 271 
 
 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 clipped in his blood here, which is tantamount. Nay, we are 
 partakers of the body and blood in both, according to the prin- 
 ciples 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 refer h , 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 Eu- 
 charist, 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 Communion k : 
 
 h Bishop Moreton on the Sacra- tion of thy holy name. Sanctify this 
 
 ment, p. 568, &c. Albertinus, pp. fountain of Baptism,' &c. 
 
 223, 426. Bin gham, book xi. chap. k 'Hear us, O merciful Father, 
 
 1 6. sect. 4. we beseech thee, and with thy Holy 
 
 i In King Edward's first Prayer- Spirit and Word, vouchsafe to bless 
 
 Book, A. D. 1549. ' most merciful and sanctify these thy gifts, and 
 
 God our Saviour Jesu Christ . . . creatures of bread and wine, that 
 
 upon whom, being baptized in the they may be unto us the body and 
 
 river of Jordan, the Holy Ghost blood of thy most dearly beloved 
 
 came down in the likeness of a dove, Son Jesus Christ.' 
 
 send down, we beseech thee, the N. B. If it should be asked, how 
 
 same thy Holy Spirit, to assist us, they are so unto us, if they be not 
 
 and to be present at this our invoca- first absolutely so 1 Answ. They are
 
 27 2 Sanctifying Grace CIIA.P. 
 
 for there is, undoubtedly, as much reason and as great autho- 
 rity 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 Litui-gy in 1551 1. It 
 was thought, perhaps, as there was no express Scripture precept, 
 nor any clear proof of apostolical practice, either for this form or 
 another, that therefore every church was at liberty in such cases. 
 It might be considered further, that several centuries probably 
 had passed, before there were any public written Liturgies at all : 
 and the Bishops commonly, in and for their respective churches, 
 had been left to draw up such forms as they judged most proper 
 to times and circumstances, conformable to the analogy of faith m . 
 And since an ill use had often been made, by Eomanists, of those 
 words of the Communion Office, in favour of transubstantiation n , 
 (for which there appeared some colour, though colour only, and 
 owing to misconstruction and wrong iufei*ences,) prudence might 
 require some alteration, under such circumstances. However, 
 in our present Offices, we have some remains of the ancient way 
 of praying for the assistance of the Holy Spirit in both Sacra- 
 ments. In our Office of Public Baptism, we have the invocation 
 couched under general expressions : the people are admonished 
 to call upon God the Father, that the child brought to the 
 font may be baptized with water ' and the Holy Ghost.' Then 
 again, ' sanctify him with the Holy Ghost,' and ' give thy 
 Holy Spirit to this infant : ' and as to the outward element, 
 ' sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin.' These 
 passages, penned in a more reserved, general way, do yet 
 really contain all that the more ancient invocation in Baptism 
 amounted to. 
 
 said to be so unto us, when the bene- m See Bingham, book i. chap. 19. 
 
 ficial effect goes along with them. sect. 17 ; book xiii. chap. 5. sect. I ; 
 
 See Cranmer and Thorndike, cited book ii. chap. 6. sect. 2. lienaudot, 
 
 above, p. 264. torn. i. p. 9. 
 
 1 See Wheatly on the Common- n See Cranmer, p. 325. Dr. Aid- 
 Prayer, p. 26. Collitr, Vindic. of rich, Reply to two Oxford Discourses, 
 Keas. and Def. p. 150. pp. 8, 9.
 
 x. conferred in the Eucharist. 273 
 
 In our Communion Service, the invocation is more obscurely 
 intimated under a few, and those general terms : ' Grant that 
 we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine . . . may be 
 partakers of his most precious body and blood .' This was part 
 of the ancient invocation ; and it expresses the thing formerly 
 prayed for, without specifying the particular manner, or means, 
 viz. the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit : though that also 
 must of course be understood and implied, upon Christian prin- 
 ciples taught' in Scripture. After all, I see no reason why it may 
 not be justly thought as modest, and as reverent, to beg of God 
 the Father the things which we want, understanding that he will 
 grant them by his Holy Spirit, as to make a formal petition to 
 him, to send his Holy Spirit upon the elements or upon the 
 communicants ; unless Scripture had particularly ordered some 
 such special form, to be made use of in our sacramental solem- 
 nities, which it has not done P. 
 
 It must be owned, that there was something very affecting 
 and awful in many of the ancient forms, apt to strike the minds 
 of an assembly, and to raise their devout affections, when pro- 
 perly executed with a becoming dignity, by grave and venerable 
 men. Such was that prefatory part in several old Liturgies, 
 ' How dreadful is this season,' &c., made use of just before the 
 expected coming of the Holy Spirit, in order to prepare every 
 humble communicant to wait for it with the most pi'ofound 
 reverence and most exalted devotions. But it may be doubted, 
 whether such forms are proper at all times and in all circum- 
 stances ; and whether they might not, in some circumstances, 
 rather obstruct than further the good ends designed by them. 
 The more general and reserved method is certainly the less 
 
 That is, partakers of the merits tamen in genuinis Apostolorum scrip- 
 
 and virtue of the body as crucified, tis ne ypv.' Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. 
 
 and blood as spilled ; and partakers Nov. Test. part. iii. in praefatione. 
 also of the same body considered as ' Nos equidem illam Spiritus Sancti 
 
 raised again, and mystically united firi<poirj](jiv neque ad symbolorum 
 
 with worthy receivers. consecrationem necessariam, nee exo- 
 
 P ' Mirum in hisce, aliisque Orien- randam, nee Graecorum Liturgiam 
 
 talium. Liturgiis, consensum videas ea in parte defendendam, aut imi- 
 
 circa invocationem Spiritus Sancti, taridamesse arbitramur.' Deylingius, 
 
 ut dona faciat corpus et sanguinem Observ. Miscellan. p. 159. 
 Christi : de hac liturgica invocatione
 
 274 Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 affecting ; but yet it may be, all things considered, the surest way 
 to keep up the dignity of the Sacraments among the generality, 
 and to secure the sacred Offices from contempt. But I have 
 said enough of this matter, which came in only by the way. 
 
 While I am speaking of our excellent Liturgy, it may not be 
 amiss to take notice of another article relating to this head, 
 wherein it may appear to some short and defective. It is very 
 certain, that the commemoration, memorial, or annunciation of 
 our Lord's passion, with an address to God for his propitious 
 favour thereupon, has been a very ancient, eminent, and solemn 
 part of the Communion Service. There is now no direct formal 
 application of that kind in our Offices. There was in King 
 Edward's Liturgy of 1549, in these words: 'We thy humble 
 servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty 
 with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son has willed 
 us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty 
 resurrection,' &c. Why this part was struck out in the review, 
 I know not ; unless it was owing to some scruple (which how- 
 ever was needless) about making the memorial before God, which 
 at that time might appear to give some umbrage to the Popish 
 sacrifice, among such as knew not how to distinguish. However 
 that were, we have still the sum and substance of the primitive 
 memorial remaining in our present Offices ; not all in a place, 
 but interspersed here and there in the exhoiiations and prayers. 
 In a previous exhortation, we read ; ' Above all things ye must 
 give most humble and hearty thanks to God the Father, &c. for 
 the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our 
 Saviour Christ both God and man,' &c. There is the sense and 
 signification of the ancient memorial, only under a different form. 
 In the Post-Communion, we beseech God 'to accept our sacrifice 
 of praise and thanksgiving, and to grant remission of sins to us 
 and to the whole Church, by the merits and death of Christ Jesus.' 
 Which words contain the substance of what was anciently the 
 appendage to the memorial. There was besides, in most of the 
 old Liturgies % a particular petition added, that the angels might 
 
 i See in Fabricius's Collection, 265, 273, and in Renaudot's passim, 
 pp. 36, 54, 70, 96, 147, 173, 206, 234, Compare Apostol. Constit. lib. viii.
 
 X. conferred in the Eucharist. 2,J$ 
 
 carry up our prayers to the high altar in heaven ; and this also 
 was inserted in King Edward's first Liturgy, but struck out at 
 the first review. As to the altar in heaven, I shall have occasion 
 to say more in a chapter below, and therefore pass it over here. 
 As to the notion of angels conveying the prayers of the suppli- 
 cants to the throne above, I know not whether it had any better 
 grounds than the authority of the apocryphal book of Tobit r , as 
 Bucer observed 8 . It seems to have been originally a Jewish 
 notion *; though a late learned writer chooses rather to derive it 
 from the Platonic philosophy" : I think, improperly ; for it will 
 be hard to prove, that Plato was before Tobit, or before the book 
 bearing his name x . Besides that, the Pagans were more likely 
 to borrow such things from Jews, than the Jews from them, But 
 be that as it will, since the notion has no certain warrant in 
 canonical Scripture, it was prudent to strike it out of our Church 
 Offices. Upon the whole, though all human compositions must 
 have their defects, more or less, I am persuaded, that our Com- 
 munion Service, as it now stands, is as grave, and solemn, and as 
 judicious, as any other that can be named, be it ancient or 
 modern. It may want some things which were well inserted in 
 other Offices ; but then it has well left out several other things, 
 which most Liturgies are rather burdened with, than benefited. 
 But I return. 
 
 As to the main point now in hand, it is very plain from all 
 liturgies, and from all kinds of ancient testimonies, that the 
 Christian world has all along believed, that the Spirit of God is 
 invisibly present, and operates effectually in both Sacraments; as 
 well to confer a relative holiness upon the outward symbols, as 
 to convey the grace of sanctification to the faithful recipients. 
 Therefore the Socinians stand condemned as to this article, by 
 all churches, ancient or modern, as well as by Scripture itself, and 
 the plainest reason : neither have they any plea to offer on that 
 
 cap 13, and Pseud- Ainbros. de Sacr. u Eisner, in Grace. Testam. torn. 
 
 lib. iv. cap. 6. ii. p. 117. 
 
 ' Tobit xii. 15. x Of Tobit, see Prideaux's Con- 
 
 Bucer. Script. Anglican, p. 473. nection, part i. p. 39. fol. edit. Fa- 
 
 1 Cp. Testamentum Levi, in Grab. brie. Bibl. Grace, lib. iii. cap. 29. 
 
 Spicileg. torn. i. p. 159. Dupin, Can. of the Old Test. p. 89. 
 
 T 2
 
 2J6- Sanctifying Grace CHAP. 
 
 side, which carries so much as the face of a direct argument. I 
 am aware, that they may have something to plead obliquely, while 
 arguing against the existence, or personality, or divinity of the 
 Holy Ghost, or against any ordinary operations from above upon 
 the minds of men, to enlighten or sanctify them : and whatever 
 they may have to plead in respect to those previous points, will 
 remotely affect the present question. But it is not my business 
 here, to run out into those preliminary inquiries, almost foreign 
 to the particular subject I am upon, and fitter to make distinct 
 and separate treatises, than to be brought in here. As to direct 
 arguments, I can think of few or none y at present, unless we 
 may reckon that for one, which charges our doctrine in this 
 particular, as making the Sacraments charms and spells; an 
 objection built upon manifest calumny or misconception, and 
 looking more like buffoonery than serious argument, especially as 
 worded by some of that side. One of them Nvrites thus : ' When 
 St. Austin defined a sacrament to be the outward visible sign of 
 an inward invisible grace or energy, the good Father should have 
 considered, that this is a definition of a charm, not of a Gospel 
 Sacrament : for a charm is a bare outward visible sign, that 
 
 which has no natural or real agreement with the effect 
 
 They have turned the Gospel Sacraments into charms and 
 spells z .' The same trifling impei'tinence might as justly be 
 urged against Naaman's being healed of his leprosy by washing 
 in Jordan a ; or against Hezekiah's being cured by a lump of 
 figs b ; or against the blind man's receiving sight by the means 
 of clay and spittle and washing in the pool of Siloam c . We 
 place no more virtue in the naked symbols, than in the meanest 
 instruments whatever, which God may at any time please to make 
 use of, and sanctify to high and holy purposes. Those instru- 
 ments in themselves do nothing : it is God that does all, in and 
 
 y The "argument drawn against easily may, though near at hand all 
 
 present benefits from the word re- the time. Vid. Nourrii Apparat. 
 
 membrance has been obviated above, torn. i. p. 41 r. 
 
 ch. iv. p. 70. I shitll only hint. ' Trinitarian Scheme of Religion, 
 
 further, that remembering, in this pp. 24,25, printed in the year 1692. 
 
 case, is not opposed to a tlrng's be- a 2 Kings v. 14. 
 
 ing present, but to its being forgot, b 2 Kinjjs xx. 7. Isa. xxxviii. 21. 
 
 as spiritual and invisible benefits c John ix. 7.
 
 X. conferred in the Eucharist. 277 
 
 through the appointed use of them. He that blasphemes or de- 
 rides the certain workings of God, or of the Spirit of God, upon 
 the souls or bodies of men, under the names of charms, spells, 
 enchantments, or the like, (as the Jews derided our Lord's 
 miracles.) seems to forget the reverence due to Divine Majesty, 
 and the respect which we owe to high and holy things. But to 
 put the kindest and most favourable construction we can upon 
 the objection as here worded, it is charging St. Austin and all 
 the primitive churches, and their followers, with what they are 
 notoriously known, not only never to have taught, but constantly 
 to have disclaimed. They never do attribute to the bare elements 
 the works of grace, but constantly ascribe them to the powerful 
 hand of God, working in or with the elements. If that be 
 working by charms or spells, let any man tell us, what super- 
 natural or preternatural works of God are not as justly liable to 
 the same imputation. 
 
 If the purport of the objection be to reject all such Divine 
 operations as we here suppose upon moral agents, as not con- 
 sistent with human liberty ; that is a more general question, 
 previous to what we are now upon, and therefore in a great 
 measure foreign to the point in hand. It is sufficient to say, 
 that the general doctrine of grace is so fully established in the 
 New Testament, that no Christian can consistently reject it. As 
 to the manner of it, it is not for us to presume to explain it: 
 but we are certain it is wrought in a moral way, in a way con- 
 sistent with moral agency and human liberty. We know the 
 fact : we need no more. If any man will undertake to demon- 
 strate a priori, that there can be no medium between irresistible 
 impressions and none at all, or that God cannot sanctify, or 
 purify, or enlighten the soul of man, in any degree, without 
 making him a machine, he may perhaps deserve to be heard ; 
 but in the meanwhile Scripture, express Scripture, will deserve 
 our attention, and will command the faith of every true disciple 
 of Christ. 
 
 Some perhaps may think it an objection to what has been here 
 pleaded, that grace is also promised, sometimes to prayer, some- 
 times to faith, and sometimes to hearing, and therefore is not
 
 278 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 peculiar to the Sacraments : for it has been suggested, that ' the 
 spiritual eating of Christ is common to all places, as well as to the 
 Lord's table d .' This I have touched upon before e , and shall only 
 add here, that we do not confine God's grace to the Sacraments; 
 neither do we assert any peculiar grace, as appropriate to them 
 only : but what we assert is, some peculiar degree of the same 
 graces, or some peculiar certainty, or constancy, as to the effect, in 
 the due use of those means f . And if the Divine graces, more or 
 less, go along with all the Divine ordinances, well may they be 
 supposed to go along with those, which are the most solemn and 
 most exalted of any, and have also more of a federal nature in 
 them ; as has been hinted above , and will be proved at large 
 in the chapter here following. 
 
 CHAP. XL 
 
 Of tJie federal or covenanting Nature of the Holy EUCHARIST. 
 
 IT is the prevailing docti'ine of Divines, that the Service of 
 the holy Communion carries in it something of a federal nature, 
 is a kind of covenanting or stipulating act ; not making a new 
 covenant, but covenanting anew, confirming or renewing the 
 stipulation before entered into at our Baptism. For the clearing 
 of this important point, it will be proper, i. To premise some- 
 thing of covenants in general between God and man. 2. To 
 specify the ancient forms or methods of contracting under the 
 Old Testament. 3. To descend to the latter forms of doing the 
 same thing under the New Testament, by the Sacraments there- 
 unto belonging, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 i. The Divine goodness and condescension is such, in all his 
 dealings with mankind, that he considers always what is best 
 for them, and may most help their infirmities. With these 
 
 d Hales's Tracts, p. 57. peculiar! ter adscribi videtur, id inde 
 
 e See above, p. 189, &c. est, quod fides, in Sacramentis, hanc 
 
 f 'Verbum et Sacramenta in eo gratiam videat clarius, apprehendat 
 
 conveniunt, quod ambo gratiam re- fortius, teneat certius.' Voss. de Sa- 
 
 generationis offerant et exhibeant : cram. p. 251. 
 
 sed quod ncnnunquam Sacramentis See above, p. 191.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rile. 
 
 gracious views (while he is absolute Lord over them, and might 
 issue out his sovereign commands to all, without admitting any 
 mortal to contract for rewards, or to strike any league with 
 him) he is pleased to enter into covenants with men, giving and 
 taking assurances, and, as it were, binding both himself and 
 them, in order to draw them the more strongly to him, and to 
 engage them to look after their own everlasting happiness. Not 
 that God thereby divests himself of his right over them, or that 
 men have a right to refuse the covenant proposed to them, or 
 would not be justly punishable for such refusal h : for indeed they 
 are under a previous indispensable obligation to comply ; and 
 the refusing it would deserve very severe punishment '. But the 
 entering into covenant produces a closer relation and a stronger 
 tie, and is much more engaging and attractive many ways, than 
 naked precepts could be ^ ; as will be evident of itself to any 
 man that reflects, and I need not enlarge upon it. 
 
 In covenants between God and man, there is not, as in com- 
 mon covenants, an equal and mutual meeting of each other, or a 
 joint concurrence : but God is the first mover to invite and pro- 
 pound ; and man comes in after, sooner or later, to accept and 
 conclude. ' We love God, because he first loved us : ' * Herein is 
 love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us V And our 
 Lord says to his Disciples, ' Ye have not [first] chosen me, but I 
 have [first] chosen you,' &c. m Another thing observable is, that 
 there are not here, as in covenants between man and man, 
 mutual advantages, or benefits reciprocal ; but all the advantage 
 or benefit, properly so called, accrues to one party only, because 
 the other is too pei-feet to receive any. Nevertheless, there is 
 something analogous to benefits, or what may be considered as 
 such, accruing to the Divine Majesty ; namely, external honour 
 and glory, and such delight as he is conceived constantly to enjoy 
 in the exercise of his goodness, wisdom, power, and other his 
 
 h See Puflfendorf, Jus feciale Divi- k Vid. Hoornbeeck de Foedere 
 
 num, sect. xx. p. 92, &c. Lat. edit. Ecclesiastico, Exercit. Theolosf. torn. 
 
 p. 87. Engl. edit. Abp. Potter on iii. p. 640. 
 
 Ch. Gov. p. 12, &c. i I John iv. 19, 10. 
 
 1 Matt. x. 14, 15 ; xxii. 7- Luke m John xv. 16. 
 xiv. 21 24.
 
 280 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 attributes or perfections. Neither does this circumstantial differ- 
 ence, arising from the infinite disparity of the parties contracting, 
 at all affect the essence of the covenant supposed to be made be- 
 tween them. For a covenant is, in its general nature, (as Baron 
 Puffendorf defines it n ,) an union, consent, and agreement of two 
 wills about the same thing : and if God proposes such and such 
 terms, and man accepts them, there is then a formal covenant 
 struck between them. God conditionally offers advantages on 
 his side ; and man covenants to pay a suitable homage, adora- 
 tion, and service, as required. 
 
 That God has transacted, and does yet daily transact, covenants 
 with mankind in succession, shall be shewn presently. Only I 
 may here hint by the way, that many considerable Divines have 
 supposed also a previous covenant between God the Father and 
 God the Son, in the affair of man's salvation. There are several 
 things hinted in holy Scripture, which look like an agreement, or 
 covenant, that upon our Lord's undertaking to be Mediator, and 
 performing what belongs to it, a reconciliation should ensue 
 between God the Father and mankind. The texts, which chiefly 
 seem to countenance that notion, are collected into one view by 
 the excellent Puffendorf, to whom, for brevity sake, I choose to 
 refer the reader P. 
 
 2. I proceed to observe, that God has, time after time, trans- 
 acted covenants with men, and under various formalities. There 
 was a covenant of life made with man in Paradise, in his state of 
 innocency l i ; which commonly goes under the name of the first 
 covenant, or old covenant, and which continued for a very short 
 space. To that immediately succeeded the second covenant, or 
 new covenant, called also the covenant of grace, and made with 
 lapsed man, in and through Christ Jesus. It commenced from 
 
 " Puffendorf, Jus fecial. sect. xx. be seen references to a multitude of 
 
 Cp. Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. writers, who have considered that 
 
 torn. i. pp. 328, 329. Zornius, Opusc. article. 
 
 Sacr. torn. ii. p. 240. 1 See this proved and explained by 
 
 P Puffendorf, Jus fecial. sect. Bishop Bull, Appendix ad Animad. 
 
 xxxvii. p. 144. Lat. p. 129. Engl. xvii , and Discourse concerning the 
 
 edit. Cp. Dodwell, Diss. Cyprian, first Covenant, Opp. Posth. vol. iii. 
 
 p. 448. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn. p. 1065. &c. Compare Puffendorf, 
 
 ii. pp. 240, 241, 242. In Zornius may Jus fecial. sect. xxiv.
 
 XI. as a Covenanting Rile. 281 
 
 old time, in the world's infancy, as St. Paul testifies r ; though 
 not clearly revealed nor fully executed till the days of the 
 Gospel, but considered as executed from the beginning, so far 
 forth as to be available for the remission of sin, in all ages, to 
 men fitly qualified according to the terms of it. Besides these 
 two eminent and general covenants, God entered into other 
 inferior or more special covenants, (together with renewals also 
 of this,) as with Noah s , with Abraham *, with Isaac u , with 
 Jacob x , with Moses and Aaron v , and with Phinehas z , and their 
 families after them. The legal covenant, or Sinai covenant, was 
 made between God and the Israelites, by the hand of Moses . 
 It was in itself a temporal covenant, containing only temporal 
 promises : but in its retired, mystical meaning, it figured out 
 the spiritual covenant before made, and was a shadow of good 
 things to come* 3 . That external covenant (representing as 
 through a glass darkly the internal) was often renewed with the 
 people of the Hebrews : as in the time of Joshua at Sichem c , 
 and in the reigns of Asa d and of Ahab e , and of Joash f , Heze- 
 kiah g, and Josiah h . This I note to obviate a common mistake, 
 as if, because a covenant has been once granted and fixed on 
 God's part, it may not be properly said to be regranted, or re- 
 newed, with a fleeting body of men, as new generations come up. 
 Indeed it seems highly expedient, that such covenants should be 
 
 T Tit. i. 2. ripb \p6vtav a'avtuv, be- ? Exod. vi. 4 7 ; iv. 28. Ecclus. 
 
 fore ancient times. Vid. Bull, Opp. xlv. 7, 15. 
 
 Posth. vol. ii. p. 591. Cp. Horn. xvi. z Numb. xxv. 12, 13. Here the 
 
 25. Coloss. i. 26. i Pet. i. 20. covenant was conditional, (as appears 
 
 8 Gen. vi. 18 ; ix. 9-18. In the by the forfeiture of the priesthood 
 first instance, there was express en- afterwards,) and accepting the priest- 
 gagement on one side, tacit on the hood was accepting the conditions : 
 other. See Le Clerc in loc. In the therefore, in this instance, the en- 
 second, there appears to have been gagement was reciprocal, amounting 
 no more than simple engagement on to a formal covenant, 
 one side. But in the instances fol- a Exod. xix. 3 ; xxiv. 8. Deut. v. 
 lowing, there were mutual or reci- 5. Gal. iii. 19. 
 procal engagements, tacit or ex- b Heb. viii. 5 ; x. i. 
 press. c Joshua xxiv. 14 25. 
 
 * Gen. xii. 2, 3 ; xv. 18 ; xvii. 2 d 2 Chron. xv. 12, &c. 
 22. Ecclus. xliv. 20. e I Kings xviii. 39. 
 
 u Gen. xvii. 19; xxi. 2; xxvi. 2, 3. f 2 Chron. xxiii. 16, &c. . 
 
 Ecclus. xliv. 22. Psalm cv. 9. * i Chron. xxix. 10. 
 
 * Gen. xxviii. 13, 14, 20, 21, 22 ; k i Chron. xxxiv. 31, 32. 2 Kings 
 xxxv. 9, &c. Ecclus. xliv. 23. xxiii. 3.
 
 282 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 renewed frequently, because the men coming up in succession are 
 new, though God is always the same ; and it is proper that the 
 contracting parties should make it their own act and deed. The 
 stipulations, which I have now been speaking of, were between 
 God and his people collectively considered. But besides these, 
 there were also standing forms of covenanting between God and 
 particular persons. Such were sacrifices in general, and such 
 also were the Sacraments of the old Law, and more especially 
 Circumcision and the Passover, to which respectively the Chris- 
 tian Sacraments succeeded. 
 
 That sacrifices were federal rites, is a point generally allowed 
 by the learned, and which I need not here be at the pains to 
 prove 1 . What I shall more particularly insist on shall be the 
 Jewish Sacraments previous to ours, the two most eminent, just 
 before named. 
 
 I begin with Circumcision ; which was manifestly a federal 
 rite, a formal stipulation between God and man ; carrying in it 
 mutual engagements of blessings on one hand, and service on 
 the othei*. It is said of Circumcision, ' This is my covenant,' 
 &c., and 'it shall be a token of the covenant;' and a little 
 after, ' my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting 
 covenant;' and the ' uncircumcised shall be cut off,' as having 
 'broken my covenant k .' All which imply that it was a cove- 
 nanting rite, a contract, or stipulation, passed between two 
 parties, namely, between God and man. But for the clearer 
 apprehending of this matter, we may consider in Circumcision, 
 as in every other sacrament, a sign, and a thing signified, or both 
 together, as one transaction. If the name be applied to the bare 
 sign, then Circumcision is not a stipulation, but the token of it ; 
 and if it be applied to the thing signified, it means the terms of 
 agreement: but if it be applied to the whole transaction between 
 both parties, then it is formally the contract or stipulation entered 
 into here and there. So that according to different views, the 
 word circumcision may either stand for the sign, token, seal of 
 
 1 See Mede, Opp. p. 370. Dodwell, Government, p. 266. Spencer de Leg. 
 One Altar, &c. c. vii. pp. 145, &c. Hebr. torn. ii. p. 766. edit. Cant. 
 136, c. Archbishop Potter on Church k Gen. xvii. 9 14.
 
 xi. as a covenanting Rite. 283 
 
 the contract, or for the contract itself, passing under those forms. 
 This observation will be of use hereafter, for the clearer appre- 
 hension of the two Christian Sacraments ; which in like manner 
 are either signs and seals of a covenant, or the very acts of cove- 
 nanting, according as you understand the word sacrament in a 
 stricter or larger sense. But I pass on. That Circumcision 
 carried in it a bond of obligation on man's part, is very plain, 
 since it made a man a 'debtor to the whole law 1 .' And that 
 it likewise carried in it a correspondent engagement on God's 
 part, is as plain from God's promises made at the institution of 
 it m , and from its being styled a 'seal of the righteousness of 
 faith n : ' that is to say, a kind of instrument, by which God 
 sealed or assured to the parties his acceptance of such righteous- 
 ness, as Abraham was accepted in ; and such as was signified 
 under that outward rite, styled in Scripture the 'circumcision 
 of the heart .' But it would be tedious to dwell longer upon a 
 by-point, and one so often discussed by knowing and judicious 
 Divines P. 
 
 The other ordinary Sacrament of the Jewish church was the 
 Passover. That it was a federal rite, may be strongly argued 
 from several topics, which I shall barely touch upon in passing. 
 I. From its being a proper sacrifice; a point now concluded 
 among the learned 9, and scarce admitting of any further dis- 
 pute. 2. From its typical and mysterious nature, pointing to 
 Christ and his sufferings, and the fruits thereof, in many obserr- 
 able circumstances r , too long to mention in this place. 3. From 
 
 1 Gal. v. 3. Timothy's case was 1 Cudworth on the Lord's Supper, 
 
 singular, founded on particular cir- ch. ii. Bochart. Hierozoic. torn. ii. 
 
 cumstances, and can be no impeach- p. 573. Hottinger in Notis ad Tho. 
 
 ment of the general maxim. Goodwin, p. 535. Outram de Sacri- 
 
 m Gen. xvii. 7. ficiis, lib. i. c. 13. pp. 146, 147. Re- 
 
 n Bom. iv. ii. land, Antiq. Vet. Heb. par. iii. p. 
 
 Rom. ii. 29. Compare Deut. x. 378. Bishop Patrick in Exod. xii. 
 
 1 6 ; xxx. 6. Jerem. iv. 4. 27. Clericus in Num. ix. 7. Vit- 
 
 P Bucer, Script. Anglican, p. 608, ringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. i. p. 295. 
 
 &c. Buddaeus, Miscell. Sacr. torn. Deylingius, Obs. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 
 
 iii. p. 8, &c. Witsius, Oecon. Foed. 332 ; torn. L p. 287. Moshemius, 
 
 p. 700, &c. Towerson on the Sacra- Not. ad Cudworth. pp. 18, 19. 
 merits, part iv. p. 47, &c. Hoom- r Witsius, Oecon. Foederum, pp. 
 
 beeck, Socin. Cp. torn. iii. lib. 3. 722 730. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. 
 
 p. 231, &c. torn. i. lib. 3. cap. 9. p. 415, &c.
 
 284 The Eucharist, considered CHAP. 
 
 the case of the other Jewish Sacraments extraordinary, such as 
 the manna, and the rock, &c., which remitted men to Christ, 
 and were a kind of spiritual food s to as many as were worthy ; 
 importing a federal relation to Almighty God, and a communion 
 with him. 4. From express texts, intimating that the Passover 
 was intended as a sign, and a token, and a memorial, to keep up 
 a constant sense of. and regard for, 'the law of the Lord 1 , 1 
 and for that deliverance, by which God confirmed unto himself 
 that people to be his 'people for ever u .' So that in that 
 service were implied the people's engaging to 'keep the law of 
 God,' and God's engaging to be their God, while they did so ; 
 which two things taken together make up the formal notion of 
 a contract, or covenant. 
 
 From the Jewish Sacraments we may pass on to the Christian 
 Sacraments, analogous to them, but exceeding them in several 
 respects, as being less burdensome, and of clearer signification 
 and application, and made essential parts of an higher and more 
 excellent institution. Method requires that I should first say 
 something of Baptism, the initiating Sacrament, by which a 
 man ordinarily first enters into covenant with God, becoming a 
 Christian x . That Baptism is a federal rite, a formal stipulation 
 between God and the party baptized, might be probably argued 
 many ways v . But for brevity sake, I shall confine myself to the 
 consideration of one express text ; which I render thus : ' The 
 
 s I Cor. x. i 4. See above, p. necessary as the rest : or, not to 
 
 1 29. dispute about words, it is at least 
 
 * Exod. xiii. 9, 16. See Felling on part of the terms of acceptance, 
 the Lord's Supper, pp. 63, 91, 112, and of true Christian obedience, and 
 253. so of evangelical repentance ; which, 
 
 u 2 Sam. vii. 24. according to its full notion, is but 
 
 * Some have been willing to sup- another name for evangelical obedi- 
 pose, that if a man embraces Chris- ence. So that it is in vain to speak 
 tianity, and fulfils the terms, viz. of Christian repentance or obedience 
 faith and repentance, he is ipso as entire, without taking in coufor- 
 facto entered into covenant, with- mity to the Sacraments, which is 
 out any formal stipulation. But implied in the other, as a part is 
 Scripture is plain : ' He that believ- included in the whole. Compare 
 eth and is baptized shall be saved.' Archbishop Potter on Church Go- 
 Mark xvi. 16. And, ' Except one vernment, pp. 16, 17. 
 
 be born of water, &c. he cannot y Vid. Dodwell, Cyprian. Dissertat. 
 enter into the kingdom of God.' xiii. sect. 42. p. 442, &c. Vossius de 
 John iii. 5. The stipulation is as Baptism. Disp. iv. Thes. iii. p. 269.
 
 xi. 'as a Covenanting Rite. 285 
 
 like figure whereunto Baptism doth now save us ; not the 
 putting away the filth of the flesh, but the stipulation [r*p&>- 
 rr](j.d\ of a good conscience to Godward, by the resurrection 
 of Christ 2 .' Here we have the very doctrine which I am 
 pleading for, that Baptism is a federal rite, a stipulation with 
 God. So Beza and Grotius, and other critics of best note*, 
 interpret the place, and gave very substantial reasons for it, 
 which I need not here recite. I shall only add, that the ancients 
 constantly taught, that Baptism was a covenanting rite, a solemn 
 form of stipulating with God k, the seal of the Lord c ; and that 
 it succeeded in the room of Circumcision, being therefore called 
 the Christian circumcision, ' made without hands d ,' or the spiri- 
 tual cii-cumcision e , as a figure and instrument of it. 
 
 Having thus far cleared the way, we may now proceed to the 
 Sacrament of the Eucharist, the last of the four. And since it 
 appears that the three former Sacraments were federal rites, 
 that single consideration affords us a presumptive argument that 
 this is so likewise. But there are several other considerations, 
 that more directly prove it ; and these are what I am going to 
 lay down in their order : 
 
 i. That the eucharistical service is a federal service, follows 
 directly from what has been before proved, that it imports and 
 implies a real and vital communion between God and every 
 worthy receiver. For what can communion, in this case, import 
 less than covenanting ? The least that it implies is a reciprocal 
 intercourse of blessings on one hand, and homage on the other ; 
 which, in effect, is the same thing with mutual stipulations f . If 
 
 * I Pet. iii. 21. 641. Pseudo-Dionys. Areop. cap. iii. 
 
 a They are most of them num- Facund. lib. iv. p. 62. Compare 
 
 bered by Wolfius upon the text, Bingham, xi. 6. 7. 
 
 who closes in with them. c See Bingham, xi. I. 6. 
 
 b Tertullian styles it ' obsignatio d Coloss. ii. n, 12. Basil. Homil. 
 
 fidei.' De Poenitent. cap. vi. ' Tes- in Baptism, p. 115. torn. ii. Chry- 
 
 tatio fidei, sponsio salutis.' De sost. in Gen. Horn. xl. Cyrill. Alex- 
 
 Bapt. cap. vi. ' Anima non lava- andr. in Joan. lib. iv. cap. 7. p. 
 
 tione, sed responsione sancitur.' 432. 
 
 De Kesur. Cam. cap. xlviii. ' Fidei e Vid. Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 222. 
 
 pactio.' De Pudio. cap. ix. Cp. Cyprian. Epist. Ixiv. p. 161. 
 
 Basil, de Spir. Sancto, cap. xii. p. f See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- 
 
 24. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. fice, part ii. pp. 27, 103, 104, 105.
 
 a 86 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 it be said, that it is only performing, or executing, on both 
 sides, what was before stipulated in Baptism, it is obvious to 
 reply, that such performances, on both sides, carry in them the 
 strongest assurances of a continuation of the same, and so 
 amount, in just construction, to a repetition, or renewal, of the 
 reciprocal engagements. 
 
 2. The federal nature of the Eucharist may be further argued 
 from what learned men have shewn of the customs of divers 
 nations, in drinking either blood, or wine instead of blood, for the 
 ratifying of covenants . Such kind of drinking was a noted 
 federal rite long before the institution of the Eucharist : a con- 
 sideration which, taken alone, affords a strong presumptive 
 argument of the federal nature of this Sacrament, but if taken 
 together with our Lord's own comment upon it, in the words, 
 ' Drink ye all of this, for this is the new covenant,' &c., can leave 
 but little room for any reasonable dispute about it. 
 
 3. But we may argue, still more directly, from our Lord's own 
 words, ' This cup, or wine, is my blood of the new covenant h ,' 
 and ' This is the new covenant in my blood 1 .' I render diadr/icrj, 
 ' covenant,' rather than ' testament,' because such appears to be 
 the constant sense of it in the Septuagint k , as also in the New 
 Testament, excepting perhaps one place of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews J . Indeed, either the name testament, or the name of 
 covenant, is applicable to the same thing, considered under 
 different views ; as the new covenant is of a mixed or middle 
 kind, in some respects federal, and in some testamentary, and, 
 as it were, a compound of both : for which reason it has been 
 indifferently and pi-omiscuously called either a federal testament, 
 
 Grotius in Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. mentum non voluntatem defuncto- 
 
 Spencer. de Leg. Hebr. p. 614. edit, rum sonare, sed pactum viventium." 
 
 Cant. Zornius, Bibliothec. Antiqua- Hieron. in Mai. c. ii. 1816. Cp. 
 
 ria Exeg. p. 615. Salmas. de Transubstant. p. 541. 
 
 11 Matt. xxvi. 28. Mxvk xiv. 24. l Heb. ix. 16, 17. Vid. Wolfius, 
 
 1 Luke xxii. 19. I Cor. xi. 25. Grit. Cur. in loc. Towerson on the 
 
 k ' Notandum quod brith, verbum Sacraments, part i. p. 14, &c. 
 
 Hebraicum, Aquila avvQj\nt\v, id est, ' Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotio 
 
 pactum, interpretatur : LXX semper passim ffvfO-fiKi), pactum, foedus. 
 
 biaB-fiKfiv, id est, testamentum. Et in LXX saepius Sta&iiKij, testamentum." 
 
 plejisque scripturarum locis testa- Montfauc. Lexic. ad Hexapl.
 
 XI. as a Covenanting Rite. 287 
 
 or a testamentary covenant, to intimate its compound nature m . 
 But I take the federal notion of it to be the primary or principal 
 part of the idea, and to suit best with the then prevailing sense 
 
 of the word SiadrjKrj n . 
 
 Our Lord's expressions in the institution are plainly federal 
 expressions ; as will appear by comparing them with other the 
 like expressions made use of in the Old Testament in federal 
 solemnities . When God instituted the federal rite of Circum- 
 cision, he said; 'This is my covenant, which ye shall keepP,' 
 &c. Therefore, as sure as Circumcision was a federal rite of the 
 Jewish Church, so sure is it that the Eucharist is a federal 
 solemnity among Christians. When God struck up a covenant 
 with the people of the Hebrews, by the sprinkling of blood, the 
 form ran, ' Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord 
 hath madeV &c. As much as to say, 'Look upon yourselves 
 as obliged by these federal solemnities to observe all the com- 
 mands which I have here delivered.' Accordingly, it is observ- 
 able, that the people there instantly promised and engaged ' to do 
 all that the Lord had said, and to be obedient r :' which was 
 expressing their formal consent, and executing, as it were, their 
 counterpart in the stipulation 8 . Now as our blessed Lord, in 
 the institution of the Eucharist, addressed himself to Jews, who 
 
 m ' Nostrum foedus cum Deo non See Nature and Obligation of the 
 
 purum aut simplex quoddam foedus Christian Sacraments, vol. v. pp. 91, 
 
 est, sed habens quidlam mistum ex 102, &c. 
 
 foedere et testamento. Cbristus in P AU'TTJ i] 5ia6riKTi, *t\v 
 
 maiiu habet id, de quo pactus est Gen. xvii. 10. 
 
 cum hominibus Deus, aeternam ni- 1 'iSov rb of/ua TTJJ 
 
 mirum haereditatem : quoniam au- SifBero Kvpios, &c. Exod. xxiv. 8. 
 
 tern hie non nisi moriendo nobis illud Vid. Patrick in loc. et Bucherus, 
 
 jus acquirit, idciroo quod ad Chris- Ant. Evang. ad Matth. xxvi. 28. 
 
 turn ipsum attinet, pactum istud pp. 386, 389. 
 
 inter Deum et homines initum, spe- * Exod. xxiv. 3, 7- Compare Deut. 
 
 ciem quandam testamenti refert, v. 27. 
 
 quasi ipse moriens aeterni regni nos Other like instances of express 
 
 fecerit haeredes.' Zornius, Opusc. consent on man's part may be seen 
 
 Sacr. torn. ii. p. 239. See Twells's in Gen. xxviii. 20, &c. Exod. xix. 
 
 Examination of New Text and Ver- 8. Josh. xxiv. 21, 24, 25. 2 Chron. 
 
 sion, part ii. p. 64. xv. 14, 15: xxiii. 16 ; xxix. 10 ; 
 
 n Vid. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn, xxxiv. 31. Ezr. x. 3. Nehem. ix. 
 
 ii- P- 238. 38 ; x. 28, 29, 39. 
 
 Exod. xxiv. 8. Gen. xvii. 10.
 
 288 The Eucharist considered CHAP.' 
 
 had been accustomed to such federal phrases, it is highly reason- 
 able to believe, that he intended the phrases in such a sense as 
 they would be apt to take them in, namely, in a federal sense. 
 
 Socinus, to elude this argument, pretends l , that our Lord's 
 words in that case may mean only, that this sacramental cup, or 
 wine, is a memorial or commemoration of the blood once shed, and 
 of the covenant therein founded, or thereby executed. But if we 
 have hitherto gone upon sure grounds, it will be easy to throw 
 off those laboured subtilties. For since it is manifest, from the 
 express doctrine of the Apostle, that the Eucharist is not barely 
 a memorial, but a communion also of the blood, and of what goes 
 along with it ; it will undeniably follow, that the same Eucharist 
 is not merely a memorial of the covenant, going along with the 
 blood, but a communion also, or participation of it, on man's 
 side : and if there be a participation on one side, there must be 
 also a communication on the other side ; and so both parts are 
 complete. God re-admits us into covenant, and we re-accept, 
 under this appointed form, under this holy solemnity ; and thus 
 the mutual league of amity is re-established, the compact re- 
 newed and confirmed. Every worthy receiver, as often as he 
 symbolically receives the blood, revives and recruits his interest 
 in our Lord's passion, and in the covenant thereupon founded ; 
 he takes new hold of it, and binds himself over to it by more and 
 stronger ties ; which is what we mean by renewing the baptismal 
 covenant in this other Sacrament of the holy Eucharist. How 
 
 4 ' Hinc apparet, cum ipsum pocu- p. 239. Slichting. in i Cor. xi. 
 
 lum novum testamentum esse in suo 25. 
 
 sanguine Chri.stus dixisse legitur, Crellius's account is not much 
 aliud nihil intelligendum esse, quam different, in making it to be a kind 
 vini ex illo poculo potu, novi testa- of declaration or testification of our 
 menti quod nobiscum suo sanguine partaking of, or pertaining to the 
 interveniente pepigit (seu potius sui new covenant. ['Testamentum vero, 
 sanguinis, qui ad novum testamen- sive foedus novum ideo appellatur, 
 turn confinnandum fusus fuit) com- quia sit solennis ritus, quo omnes 
 memoration em fieri Ipsi bibentes, Christian! in perpetuum profited 
 novum testamentum praedicant et debeant, se ad novum foedus perti- 
 commemorant : idque secum pactum nere.' Crellii Ethic, p. 352; cp. 
 fuisse, aliis testantur ac significant. 353.] This is just such anoth r 
 . . . Sicque sibi persuasum esse indi- evasion, as the interpreting ' corn- 
 cant.' Socin. de Usu et Fine Coenae munion' by ' a declaration of com- 
 Doniini, p. 36, alias 759. Oj p. torn, munion,' and admits of the like 
 i. Cp. Catech. Racov. sect. vi. c. 4. answer. See above, p. 183, &c.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 289 
 
 insignificant, unedifying, and comfortless, in comparison, is a 
 bare commemoration ! It neither ansAvers the force of our 
 Lord's words, further interpreted by St. Paul, nor the pur- 
 poses of holiness, nor the nature, ends, or uses of the spiritual 
 life, nor God's usual methods of dealing with his Church and 
 people in all former ages. 
 
 4. The federal nature of the Eucharist may be further con- 
 firmed from the very observable analogy, which St. Paul takes 
 notice of and illustrates 11 , between the Sacrament of the holy 
 Communion, and the sacrifices of the Jews and Gentiles. They 
 were of a federal nature, by the Apostle's account of them and 
 so must this be also, if it was in that very view that he formed 
 the comparison, or parallel. I beg leave here to use the words 
 of a very judicious and learned Prelate of our Church, who says ; 
 'In the ancient sacrifices both among Jews and heathens, one 
 part of the victim was offered upon the altar, and another re- 
 served to be eaten of those persons in whose name the sacrifice 
 was made : this was accounted a sort of partaking of God's table, 
 and was a federal rite, whereby he owned his guests to be in his 
 favour, and under his protection, as they by offering sacrifices 
 acknowledged him to be their God v .... The Lord's Supper was 
 
 always believed to succeed in the place of sacrifices x Eating the 
 
 Lord's Supper was the same rite in the Christian Church with 
 eating the things offered in sacrifice among the Jews and heathens. 
 It is an act of communion or fellowship with God, at whose table 
 we are said to be entertained ; and therefore it is declared to be 
 inconsistent with eating the Gentile sacrifices, which is an act 
 of communion with devils, to whom these sacrifices were offered y.' 
 From these plain and undeniable principles it directly follows, 
 that the Eucharist is, at the lowest, a federal rite : I say, at the 
 lowest, because more than that has been proved, as I conceive, 
 in a former chapter, which treats of i Cor. x. 16. 
 
 A late Divine of our Church, in a little piece of his Upon this 
 subject, has a distinction worth the examining, which I shall here 
 give the reader in hi? own words : ' The Lord's Supper is not 
 
 u i Cor. x. 1 6. v Archb. Potter on Church Government, p. 266. 
 
 x Ibid. p. 265. y Ibid. pp. 269, 270. 
 
 U
 
 290 TJie Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 properly the federal rite, or the covenant rite, but the memorial 
 of it : the death of Christ was the federal rite, and the Lord's 
 Supper is the memorial of Christ's death. But though the Lord's 
 Supper is neither a proper sacrifice, nor the great, original, or 
 primitive federal rite, strictly speaking ; yet being a feast upon 
 a sacrifice, (or in commemoration of that great sacrifice of the 
 death of Christ, which was the true and proper federal or cove- 
 nant rite,) it may be styled a federal rite, in the same sense in 
 which the Jews' eating of their sacrifices was or might be 
 esteemed to be such a rite, viz. an open profession of their being 
 in covenant with God, and having devoted themselves to his 
 service as his peculiar people 7 .' I said, this distinction was 
 worth the examining. I judge it not accurate, nor indeed right 
 upon the whole : but it appears to be well aimed ; and it points 
 out to us some difficulties which seem to want a clearer solution. 
 The distinction would have answered better, had it been made 
 to run between covenant and covenant, (than between federal 
 rites, proper and improper,) or between covenant considered at 
 large and particular stipulations. If the death of Christ is 
 properly a federal rite at all, it is with respect to the covenant 
 made between God the Father and Christ Jesus, in behalf of 
 mankind collectively considered, and not with respect to the 
 several stipulations coming after, and made between God and 
 particular men. The Eucharist may as properly be said to be 
 a federal rite with regard to these particular stipulations, as the 
 death of Christ can be supposed to be with regard to the new 
 covenant at large. But I much question, whether the death of 
 Christ ought to be called a federal rite at all ; which appears to 
 be too low and too diminutive a name for it : especially con- 
 sidering the ill use which the Socinians have been apt to make 
 of it. The death of Christ is really the price of our redemption, 
 the valuable consideration, whereupon the covenant was founded, 
 and in which it stands. It was submitted to, once for all, and 
 is never to be repeated ; which sufficiently distinguishes it from 
 whatever has hitherto passed under the name of a federal rite. 
 
 1 Mapletoft's Plain Account of the Lord's Supper, p. 138.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 291 
 
 and shews it to be a tiling of much higher consideration. There- 
 fore, let not the name of federal rite be so improperly applied to 
 what was no rite at all, nor can ever come under the common 
 or proper notion of a religious or federal rite. But the sacrifices 
 and sacraments of the Jewish Church were properly federal 
 rites : and since the Christian Sacraments are allowed to be 
 federal rites in as proper a sense as those were, that is sufficient 
 to our purpose. They were ceremonious observances, made use 
 of in stipulations between God and man ; and so are these : 
 not essential to the stipulation 'necessitate medii,' but 'necessitate 
 praecepti ;' not in themselves, but as required, and made neces- 
 sary to us by free and voluntary appointment. However, they 
 are more than an open profession of our being in covenant with 
 God : they are covenanting rites, or stipulating acts, by which 
 our stipulation with God either commences, (as in Baptism,) or 
 is renewed, as in the other Sacrament, which we are now upon. 
 
 The author last cited allows the Eucharist to be a feast upon 
 a sacrifice, and so of consequence a federal feast. This is a 
 notion which may deserve a more particular consideration in 
 this place ; and the rather because it was very plausibly ad- 
 vanced by an eminent Divine of our Church near a hundred 
 years ago a , and long passed current among divines and critics of 
 the first rank, both here and abroad, but has been lately dis- 
 puted by several learned hands, with great acuteness, though 
 perhaps not with equal solidity. It may be a piece of justice 
 due to a great man, and to an important cause, to examine 
 fairly, but as briefly also as may be, the strength of what has 
 been objected to a prevailing notion, which for some time ap- 
 peared, and still appears, to carry in it the features of truth. 
 The notion, in short, is this ; that the Eucharist, considered in 
 its spiritual and mystical view, is a feast upon a sacrifice, (viz. 
 the sacrifice once offered upon the cross,) bearing some analogy 
 to the Jewish sacrificial feasts, which were figures or shadows 
 of this true spiritual feeding. For as those were banquets upon 
 typical sacrifices, this is a banquet upon the real sacrifice, to 
 
 a Dr. Cud worth, True Notion of the Lord's Supper, A.D. 1642, first edit. 
 
 U 2
 
 292 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 which they pointed : and as those banquets were federal directly, 
 with respect to the legal covenant ; so is this banquet federal 
 with respect to the evangelical covenant, formerly couched under 
 the legal one. This, I think, is the sum and substance of 
 Dr. Cudworth's True Notion of the Lord's Supper. Next let us 
 examine what has been objected to it. 
 
 The first considerable author that appeared against it, was a 
 learned Divine of our own b , who had an hypothesis to serve, of 
 which I shall say nothing here, reserving it for the next chapter, 
 where it shall be examined at large. Most of his objections 
 against Dr. Cudworth's notion belong to that hypothesis of a 
 material sacrifice, and therefore may here be passed over. I 
 shall only take notice of one thing objected, namely, that neither 
 priests nor people ever feasted on any sacrifices, which they had 
 not offered before ; therefore Dr. Cudworth's nation suits not 
 with the ancient sacrificial feasts c . But it is easy to reply, that 
 one disagreeing circumstance, found among many resembling 
 ones, is not sufficient to overturn the analogy : besides, in this 
 very case, the Christian feast, or feastings, upon what was offered 
 by the true High Priest Christ Jesus, very fitly answer, in the 
 analogy, to the Jewish feastings upon what had been offered by 
 their typical priests, or high priest : so that I see no force at all 
 in the objection. 
 
 Another learned wi'iter, some years after, expressed his dislike 
 of Dr. Cudworth's notion, and argued against it as far as either 
 wit or learning could supply : I shall here consider his objections : 
 
 1. He intimates, as if it were absurd that Christians 'should 
 feast upon something that is a sacrifice, and not offered d .' But 
 were not Christ's body and blood offered 1 That is the sacrifice 
 which Christians feast upon in the Eucharist, according to 
 Dr. CudAvorth : they feast upon the passion. 
 
 2. It is further pleaded, that Dr. Cudworth's notion seems 
 ' much of a piece with that conceit of the Calvinists, that we 
 receive the natural body of Christ in the Eucharist, though as 
 
 b Hickes's Christian Priesthood, c HicV.es, ibid. p. 170. 
 p. 165. I use the third edition of d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 I? 11 - part i. p. 338, alias 344.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 293 
 
 far distant from us as heaven is from the earth e .' But that 
 conceit, as it is called, is a very sober truth, if understood of 
 receiving the natural body into closer mystical uuion, as explained 
 in a preceding chapter. However, Dr. Cudworth's notion of a 
 banquet relates not to the body considered as glorified, but to the 
 body considered as crucified, in which respect only it is eaten ; 
 so that this objection may be looked upon as foreign. 
 
 3. It is further objected by the same learned author, that 
 ' upon this supposition our Saviour made a feast upon the sacri- 
 fice, before the sacrifice had been offered f .' And why might he 
 not, especially when the time was so near approaching, and the 
 sacrifice just going to be offered, that it might well be considered 
 as a thing done ? This objection however affects only the first 
 and original Eucharist, not the succeeding ones : and the like 
 objection might be as justly urged against the original passover, 
 as differing in its nature and notion from the passovers that 
 succeeded. It might be pleaded, for instance, that the paschal 
 feast was no memorial, no passover, because the first passover 
 (which was the pattern for the following ones) was previous? 
 to the great transaction commemorated in it, previous to the 
 passing over the dwellings of the Hebrews. But such kind of 
 arguing in that Sacrament would be justly rejected as frivolous 
 or captious, since there was no more difference between the 
 original passover and the later ones, than the necessary difference 
 of circumstances required. Such is the case also with respect to 
 the original Eucharist, and the later Eucharist : the same kind of 
 prolepsis will equally solve the difficulty, whether here or there. 
 
 4. It is objected, that it 'cannot be said that the Eucharist 
 is a feast on a sacrifice,' unless it be allowed either that the bare 
 elements are a sacrifice, or else that they are transubstantiated 
 into the real body h . But a symbolical or spiritual feast upon a 
 sacrifice (which is all that Dr. Cudworth maintains) may very 
 well be supposed without either : the sacrificial feast, which we 
 here plead for, is not a feast of the mouth, but of the mind ; not 
 
 e Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, See Exod. xii. 21, &c. 
 part i. p. 338, alias 344. b Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice. 
 
 1 Ibid, part ii. pref. p. 3. part ii. pref. p. 4.
 
 294 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 a bodily banquet, but a banquet of the soul, upon the fruits of the 
 death of Christ. 
 
 5. It is objected, that Christ's crucified body, and blood shed, 
 are now no more, have no being as such, and therefore there can 
 be no feast upon them; consequently, it is but an airy notion to 
 imagine any such feast or sacrifice . To which we may reply, 
 that though the crucified body, as such, is not, and though the 
 blood shed is not, yet the fruits remain, and ever will remain, as 
 a feast for good men here and hereafter : but as to oral mandu- 
 cation, either of the natural body, or of the 'res sacramenti,' 
 (whatever it is supposed to be,) and as to a material feast, and 
 a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, those indeed have been 
 favourite notions among many, but are not sufficiently supported 
 by Scripture or antiquity. I meet with nothing more, in the last 
 learned writer, against Dr. Cudworth's explication of the Lord's 
 Supper. But I may note, by the way, that whereas it had been 
 before objected, that the notion was entirely new and singular, 
 this learned gentleman is so ingenuous as to own, ' that the 
 ancients did sometimes speak of receiving the Sacrament, as of 
 a banquet upon what had been first offered to God k / and with 
 some allusion also to the feasts upon the peace offerings under 
 the Law \ And I may add, that the ancient testimonies referred 
 to plainly shew, that those ancients spoke of a banquet upon the 
 things signified, (not upon the signs only,) and upon the real 
 sacrifice, not upon the bare memorial : so that Dr. Cudworth's 
 notion accords well with those ancients. 
 
 From our own Divines I may next proceed to some learned 
 foreigners, of the Lutheran way, who have also, now lately, 
 expressed some dissatisfaction with respect to Dr. Cudworth's 
 hypothesis : for though they readily approve of his rejecting any 
 corporeal or material sacrifice in the Eucharist, yet finding that 
 his notion is not favourable to local presence and oral manduca- 
 tion, they also have shewn some inclination to discredit it, or, if 
 it might be, to confute it. 
 
 1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. pref. p. 4. 
 k Ibid, part i. p. 338, alias 344. 
 i Ibid. p. 345.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 295 
 
 The learned Pfaffius, in the year 1715, made some mention of 
 Dr. Cudworth's hypothesis ; first, commending it as very inge- 
 nious, and next labouring to warp it to the Lutheran notion of 
 a real and local presence m . But at the same time, he took 
 notice of some objections made to it, (mostly the same which I 
 have above recited and answered,) and honoured them with his 
 own approbation n . Besides which, he thought also of a new 
 objection, which may here deserve considering. 
 
 The objection is, that Christ was properly a sin offering, 
 answering to the Levitical sacrifices of that kind, which were 
 never feasted upon ; therefore the eucharistical banquet does not 
 aptly correspond to the sacrificial feasts, which were appropriate 
 to peace offerings, and belonged not to sin offerings . But the 
 answer to this is very short and obvious : Christ our Lord was 
 a sin offering and a peace offering, both in one ; as is plainly 
 taught by St. Paul P. And if the sacrifice of Christ be considered 
 in the Eucharist, under its most comfortable, most endearing 
 view, as a peace offering, (not excluding the other views,) have 
 we any reason to object against so wise and so kind an institu- 
 tion ? To represent the sacrifice of Christ merely as a sin offering, 
 would be representing nothing but the melancholy and dismal 
 part of it, which had not the sweet odour, the sweet-smelling 
 savour accompanying it Dr. Cudworth's notion of a sacrificial 
 feast goes upon the more delightful view, as St. Paul's also 
 does in the text before referred to : therefore there is no more 
 room for objecting, in this respect, against our learned author, 
 than there is for objecting against the blessed Apostle, But 
 I pass on. 
 
 The excellent Buddaeus (in a dissertation written in 1715, 
 published in 1727) expresses himself with great caution and 
 
 m Pfaffius, Dissertat.de Obi. Vet. quale Christus fuit, 2 Cor. v. 21, 
 
 Eucharist, p. 199. Hebr. ix. 12) non confici, nee san- 
 
 n Pfiiffius, ibid. pp. 170, 171, et guis unquam bibi potuit. Levit. 
 
 in Addendis. vi. 30. Dent. xii. 27.' Pfaff. p. 171. 
 
 ' Nee negari tamen potest, S. P Epb.es. v. 2. Cp. Wolfius in loe. 
 
 Euchari.stiam in eo ab epulo sacri- Witsii Miscellan. Sacr. lib. ii. diss. 
 
 ficiali diff'erre, quod hoc ex sacrificio 2. pp. 511, 512. Deylingii Obser- 
 
 pro peccato (oujus sanguis in sane- vat. Sacr. torn. L pp. 315, S 1 ^- 
 
 turn sanctorum inferri debuit, et Outram, de Sacrif. pp. 209 214.
 
 296 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 tenderness concerning Dr. Cudworth's notion of the Lord's 
 Supper : and all the fault he has to find with it is, that it appears 
 not favourable to the Lutheran notion of the real presence, 
 resolving the eucharistical supper (as he supposed) into signs 
 only and symbols <J. The objection runs in terms too general and 
 indefinite : for ' real presence' is a phrase of some latitude, and 
 capable of more senses than one. If a real participation of the 
 fruits of Christ's passion, together with a real strengthening of 
 the mystical union of our bodies with Christ's glorified body 
 (however distant) may suffice, Dr. Cudworth's notion will not be 
 found defective so far : but if the design of the objection be to 
 plead for an oral manducation of Christ's natural body, or a local 
 presence of it, (crucified or glorified,) that stands upon no 
 authority of Scripture or antiquity, but was condemned long ago 
 by our Lord himself, in his answer to the Capernaites r . 
 
 Another very learned and ingenious Lutheran has taken par- 
 ticular pains to confute (if it were possible) Dr. Cudworth's True 
 Notion, in his notes upon the Latin version, and in his preface 
 to the same, printed A.D. 1733. His great concern is for the 
 real and local presence : and he represents Dr. Cudworth, not 
 only as making the elements bare symbols and figures, which 
 is true, but as making the Lord's Supper itself nothing more 
 than a memorial B ; which is contrary to truth and fact, and is a 
 manifest injury done to his very learned author. For how could 
 Dr. Cudworth be supposed to make the Eucharist a bare memo- 
 rial, when he professedly contends for a real spiritual banquet, 
 
 i 'Haud obscure eo tendit, ut so- institutum consilio putant, ut me- 
 
 lum pro signo atque symbolo quo- moria magni sacrificii illius repe- 
 
 dam [sacra coena] habeatur, quod tatur et renovetur, quod pro generis 
 
 cum praesentia reali corporis ac human! peccatis Christus in cruce 
 
 sanguinis Christi consistere nequit.' supremo numini intulit.' Moshem. 
 
 Buddaeus, Observ. Sacr. torn. ii. p. in Notis, p. 10 ; confer pp. u, 
 
 69. 12. 
 
 r John vi. 63. ' Sapiunt haec scholam coetus 
 
 8 ' Non obscure hie vir doctissi- illius, qui semetipsum Reformatum 
 
 inus significat, eorum sese favere dici vult ; cui quidem s. coena nihil 
 
 partibus, qui panem et vinum, qui- est, quam adumbratio beneficiorum 
 
 bus frui datur illis qui ad sacrain moi-te et meritis Jesu Christi huma- 
 
 coenam accedunt, symbola tantum no generi partorum. . . . Reformat! 
 
 et imagines corporis et sanguiuis signis tantum et imaginibus sacri- 
 
 Servatoris nostri esse ; ipsum vero ficii potiri suos opinantur in sacra 
 
 hoc convivium ritum-esse eo unice coena.' Moshem. in Praef at.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 297 
 
 a real feasting upon all the benefits of the grand sacrifice ? Is 
 partaking of the sacrifice nothing more than commemorating 1 
 Or is the feast ever the less real, for being spiritual and heavenly, 
 and reaching both to soul and body ; both to this world and the 
 world to come 1 It is plain enough that Dr. Cudworth's notion 
 is no way favourable to the figurists or memorialists, but much 
 otherwise ; yea more so by far than the notion or notions which 
 ai-e set up against it. For the certain truth is, (and why should 
 it be any longer dissembled ?) that none give so great advantage 
 to the figurists, as those that contend for oral manducation, and 
 make the sacramental feast common both to worthy and un- 
 worthy ; and who, in order to bring that about, interpret the 
 words of the institution, as likewise i Cor. x. 16, &c., so as to 
 exclude all intimation of benefits. Which is what the figurists 
 most of all wish for : and if that be once granted them, they 
 desire nothing further to cany their cause. 
 
 But that I may not seem to lay a charge of this nature with- 
 out sufficient grounds, let it but be considered how the last 
 learned objector * to Dr. Cudworth's notion, labours to elude all 
 Scripture proof of benefits, as drawn from i Cor. x. 16, only to 
 make the sacramental feeding common both to good and bad, (as 
 his hypothesis requires,) and so at length to resolve the Apostle's 
 whole sense into this only, that all communicants equally receive 
 what the Apostle there speaks of, and that the text is not to be 
 understood of any spiritual union of good men, but of an external 
 profession, or outward membership u : which, so far, is the very 
 
 4 ' Hie monuisse satis erit, premi aliter quam de spiritual! conjuncti- 
 ab eo vestigia praecipuorum Eefor- one fidelium cum Christo accipiant. 
 mati coetus doctorum, &c. . . . velle Mihi vero expositio haec neque ver- 
 enim eos notum est, ideo coenam bis Pauli, neque proposito ejus vide- 
 a Servatore nostro potissimum esse tur esse cousentaneum . . . generatim 
 institulam, ut sancti homines, qui et universe tradit, sacram coenam 
 ad earn accedunt, cum Christo et communionem esse corporis et san- 
 Servatore suo arctius conjungantur, guinis Christi ; nee Christianorum 
 et beneficiorum hominibus ab eo aliquem ad sacrum hoc epulum 
 partorum reddantur participes : nos venientium, cujuscunque demum sit 
 vero repudiare, quia omnes homines, indolis, ab hac communione exclu- 
 sive probi sint sive improbi, corporis dit.' Moshem. in Notis, p. 30. 
 et sanguinis Domini vere fieri com- u ' Cum in sacra coena Christian! 
 potes in sacra coena statuimus. compotes fiant corporis et sanguinis 
 Quae quidem eorum sententia hand Domini, testenturque, quoties sacrum 
 patitur, ut verba sancti hominis ilium cibum sumunt, sese inter se
 
 298 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 same interpretation that the Socinians and other figurists warmly 
 contend for. It is true, he supposes the Lord's natural body and 
 blood to be really or locally present, as well as really received, 
 (which the figurists deny,) but he supposes no spiritual benefits 
 to be intimated in the text, because he supposes every communi- 
 cant to receive all that is there spoken of, though the unworthy 
 can receive no benefits. Thus the force of St. Paul's doctrine in 
 that place (so far as concerns spiritual benefits) is eluded and 
 frustrated. And when those prime texts are thus explained 
 away, what other Scripture texts are there left sufficient to found 
 the doctrine of spiritual benefits upon ? I know there is a distinc- 
 tion, by the help of which good men may be presumed to receive 
 benefits, and bad men detriment from the same things : but the 
 question now is not whether good men may receive benefits, but 
 whether these or any other texts positively teach that they 
 infallibly do. If the words of institution, and those of St. Paul 
 in i Cor. x., do not teach it, I must frankly profess, that I know 
 not what other texts can be justly thought to do it without them. 
 So that in the last result, for the sake of I know not what cor- 
 poral or local presence, and oral manducation, the most important 
 article of all, which concerns spiritual benefits, is left to shift for 
 itself, divested of Scripture proof, and standing only on tradition, 
 or the courtesy of the common adversaries. The Keformed 
 churches (strictly so called) have been often, and very invidiously 
 charged upon this head. But after all, they are the men who 
 have formerly been, and still are, the true and faithful support- 
 ers of the doctrine of spiritual benefits in the Eucharist x . They 
 maintain it in a rational, consistent way, and, as becomes them, 
 upon a Scripture foot ; grounding that doctrine chiefly on our 
 Lord's words in the institution, and upon the words of St. Paul, 
 i Cor. x. 16. If they who participate of Christ's body and blood, in 
 the sense there intended, are really ingrafted into Christ, and are 
 vital members of him, and one with him, then indeed the doctrine 
 of spiritual graces or benefits rests upon firm ground : but if men 
 
 conjunctos et unius sacrae civitatis de Coena Domini, c. iii. p. 352, 
 membra ease.' Moshem. in Praefat. &c., alias p. 202, &c. ; item 405, 
 * Compare Werenfels. Dissertat. alias 230.
 
 xr. as a Covenanting Rite. 299 
 
 may participate of the same, in the sense there spoken of, how- 
 ever unworthy, and in heart and life" alienated from Christ, and 
 without any spiritual benefits at all ; then it plainly follows, that 
 the communion of Christ's body and blood does not, in itself, 
 imply any benefits at all, neither do those texts, nor perhaps any 
 other, teach any such doctrine ; but the doctrine must be left to 
 stand, as it can, either upon bare presumption, or at most upon 
 the ti'adition of the Church. Let but any man look into the 
 learned writings of Chemnitius, for example, or Gerhard, to see 
 how they prove the beneficial nature of this Sacrament ; and 
 there it will be found, that all, in a manner, resolves into this, 
 that since Christ's body and blood is there given, all spiritual 
 graces are by implication therewith given. Eight, if as many as 
 receive the body and blood, in St. Paul's sense of communion, 
 receive also the graces. But that they deny : for the unworthy 
 communicants are supposed to receive the body, without the 
 graces. Therefore there is no certain connection, in their way, 
 between the body and the graces : therefore the main argument 
 of all, on which the doctrine of such graces depends, is defeated ; 
 and St. Paul's meaning in i Cor. x. amounts only to a com- 
 memoration of Christ's death, or an outward profession of Christ's 
 religion, which indeed is what the learned Mosheim (as before 
 noted) resolves it into. From hence then let the indifferent 
 readers now judge, whether the learned Cudworth, or his learned 
 adversary, most favours the memorialists. One admits of bene- 
 fits, and can prove them by St. Paul's words, justly interpreted ; 
 the other admits them verbally, but in effect destroys them, by 
 desti'oying the prime standing proofs upon which they rest. 
 
 I thought it of some moment thus previously to remove a 
 prejudice, wrongfully thrown upon Dr. Cudworth's notion in 
 particular, and upon the Reformed Divines in general : and 
 now I proceed to examine what his learned antagonist has 
 further advanced in the way of argument. He has not indeed 
 produced any new argument beyond what I have before men- 
 tioned, and answered ; but he has pitched upon two of them, as 
 most considerable, endeavouring to reinforce them in more 
 pompous form.
 
 300 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 1. The first is, that Christ had not yet offered himself a sacrifice, 
 when he instituted the Eucharist : therefore the original Eucha- 
 rist was not a feast consequent upon a sacrifice : therefore the 
 subsequent Eucharists, being undoubtedly of the same kind with 
 the first, ai*e not feasts upon a sacrifice y. I desire the reader to 
 look back to the answer before given to the same objection, as 
 proposed by a learned writer of our own z . All I shall here 
 further add is, that many learned writers, ancient and modern, 
 (as I shall have occasion to shew in my next chapter,) have 
 taught, that Christ did really offer himself as a sacrifice, before 
 his passion, and in his passion, and after ; and that those three 
 several acts may be justly looked upon as one continued oblation. 
 If this hypothesis be admitted, the edge of the objection is 
 blunted, or broken at once, without more ado : or if it be 
 rejected, yet the former answer will stand in full force. 
 
 2. The second objection is, that the sacrifice of Christ corre- 
 sponds to the sin offerings of old, (which had no feasts following,) 
 and not to the peace offerings, Avhich had a . This was before 
 objected by Pfaffius, and has been answered above 1 '. But I 
 may here add, that St. Paul himself conceived that the sacrifice 
 of Christ corresponded, some way or other, to the peace offerings, 
 as appears by the parallel which he draws (i Cor. x.) between 
 the peace offerings of the law and the Eucharist under the 
 Gospel. If St. Paul, notwithstanding that he supposed the 
 Eucharist to be a representation, memorial, and communion of 
 our Lord's passion, yet conceived it analogous to the peace 
 offerings, and to the feasts thereupon ; then certainly Dr. Cud- 
 worth could not be much out of the way, in maintaining the 
 same analogy, or in conceiving that the two notions of Christ's 
 sacrifice, and of a sacrificial banquet, are consistent with each 
 other, and agree well together. So that it is in vain to argue 
 against Dr. Cudworth's notion from such topics as equally affect 
 the Apostle himself. I have before examined this learned 
 gentleman's account of St. Paul's reasoning in that chapter, and 
 have shewn where it is defective : but be that as it will, it 
 
 y Moshem. in Praefat. l See above, p. 293. Moshem. in Praefat. 
 b See above, p. 295. c Above, pp. 202 207.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 301 
 
 cannot be denied that the Apostle is there speaking of the sacri- 
 ficial feasts among the Jews, and that he judged the Eucharist 
 to be a feast of like kind, bearing such resemblance to them, as 
 was sufficient to support his argument, and to make good his 
 parallel. So much in answer to the learned Mosheim, in behalf 
 of our learned countryman. 
 
 There is another very eminent Lutheran, who, as late as the 
 year 1736, has given his judgment of Dr. Cud worth's notion, in 
 terms of respect, and with his own approbation d , as to the main 
 of the notion ; referring also to St. Paul, as affording sufficient 
 warrant for it. 
 
 My readers will, I hope, candidly excuse the excursion here 
 made, in order to do justice to a very great man in the first 
 place, and next, to the Reformed Divines in general, and at the 
 same time to a very important article of religion, which concerns 
 the spiritual benefits conferred in the Eucharist. Upon the whole, 
 I take leave to say, that the objections raised against the 
 notion espoused by Dr. Cudworth appear to be rather ingenious 
 than solid, rather industriously sought, upon foreign considera- 
 tions, than naturally arising from the subject-matter, and proving 
 at length, not that there is anything faulty in his notion, but 
 that there are faults in those other schemes, which stand in op- 
 position to it, or comport not with it. The favourable reception 
 which the notion had met with amongst our own Divines all 
 along, till very lately, and also among very considerable Divines 
 abroad, (both Lutheran and Reformed 6 ,) is a great commen- 
 dation of it. Dr. Felling, in his treatise on the Sacramentj has 
 
 d ' A sacrificio distingui solet epu- crificium, aut epulum de sacrificio 
 
 lum sacrificiale, quale de oblatis olim dicere vellent. Nam Servator par- 
 
 et Pagani et Israelitae instituere tern quasi victimae pro nobis ob- 
 
 solebant. . . . Et hoc ipsum epulum latae, videlicet corpus et sanguinem 
 
 sacrificium interdum appellatur, &c. suum, in hoc epulo nobis comeden- 
 
 . . . Cum ejusmodi epu!o sacrificial! dam et bibendum exhibet, cum in- 
 
 S. Eucharistia non incommode com- quit : Edite, hoc est corpus meum ; 
 
 paraii potest. Praeivit Apostolus Bibite, hie est sanguis meus. Sed 
 
 1 Cor. x. 14, et fusius id demon- pontificii non epulum de sacrificio, 
 
 stravit Cudworthus in libro de Vera sed sacrificium verum, et proprie 
 
 Notione Coenae Dominicae, Lond. dictum, esse contendunt.' Deyling. 
 
 1642 et 1676. . . . Nos igitur inter- Observ. Miscellan. p. 294. 
 cedere nollemus, si adversarii [viz. e See several of them numbered 
 
 pontificii] hoc sensu s. coenam aa- up by Mosheim in Praefat.
 
 302 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 made frequent use of it, and has enlarged upon it ; and may 
 properly be consulted for those parts, wherein Cudworth him- 
 self may seem to have been rather too concise and sparing of 
 words. 
 
 The notion then being sufficiently fixed and established, we 
 have nothing now remaining, but to pursue it in its just conse- 
 quences or inferences, for the supporting the point in hand. If 
 the Eucharist be indeed a sacrificial feast, in such a sense as hath 
 been mentioned, it will inevitably follow, that it is also a federal 
 banquet, carrying in it the force of a compact or stipulation 
 between God and man. This conclusion or corollary is drawn 
 out at large by Dr. Cudworth in a distinct chapter f , and still 
 more largely by other learned and judicious writers S and I 
 need not repeat. Only because some exceptions are made to 
 the evidence brought to prove that covenants were anciently 
 struck and ratified by feasting together, I may briefly consider 
 those exceptions. To the instance of Isaac so covenanting with 
 Abimelech h , it is objected, that the covenant was subsequent to 
 the feast', and therefore there was not a feast upon or after a 
 covenant, as Dr. Cudworth's notion supposes. But then it must 
 be observed, that Isaac and Abimelech met together in order to 
 treat, and they settled the terms either at the feast or before it ; 
 and what was done after, was no more than executing in form 
 the things before concluded : besides that the whole may be 
 considered as but one continued act of covenanting along with a 
 feast. The next instance is that of Laban's covenanting with 
 Jacob by a feast k : which is permitted to pass without any 
 objection. A third is that of the Israelites victualling, and 
 thereby covenanting with the Gibeonites ! : to which it is ob- 
 jected, as in the first instance, that the covenant was subsequent m . 
 But the truth is, the feast and the covenant were one entire 
 
 * Cudworth, chap. vi. Bp. Patrick's Christian Sacrifice, p. 
 
 R Felling on the Sacrament, chap. 31, &c. 
 iii. iv. Compare Abp. Potter on h Gen. xxvi. 28 31. 
 Church Government, p. 266. Vit- > Moshem. in Notis, p. 34. 
 ringa, Observ. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 113. k Gen. xxxi. 43 55. 
 Dodwell, One Altar, cap. vii. p. 165. J Josh. ix. 14, 15. 
 Mede's Christian Sacrifice, p. 370. m Moshem. ibid. p. 34.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 303 
 
 transaction, one federal feasting, or festial covenanting. There 
 are other the like slight exceptions made to other evidences n ; 
 which might be as easily replied to, were it needful : but I for- 
 bear, lest I should be tedious to the reader. 
 
 The Socinians, in general, are adversaries to this federal doc- 
 trine, as not consistent with their principles. Yet some of them 
 unawares (such is the force of truth) have been observed to come 
 into it, or to drop such expressions as appear tantamount. 
 Crellius in particular (who was a great refiner of the Socinian 
 system) scruples not to allow, that as in Circumcision formerly, 
 so likewise in Baptism and in the Eucharist now, men bind 
 themselves to the observance of the Divine law, as by a pledge 
 of their obedience . Which, if admitted, does of course imply a 
 reciprocal engagement, on God's part, to confer spiritual bless- 
 ings and privileges : so that this concession does in plain con- 
 sequence amount to declaring both Sacraments to be federal 
 rites P. 
 
 Socinus, being aware that the ancient sacrifices were federal 
 rites, and that they were as seals and pledges of a covenant 
 between God and the people ; and being aware also, that our 
 Lord, in the institution of the Eucharist, had called the wine the 
 blood of the covenant ; was distressed for a reason, why the 
 Eucharist should not be esteemed a federal rite, as well as those 
 
 n Moshem. p. 35, &c. catur nostrum illud votum maxi- 
 
 ' Adde quod Circumcisio sit sig- mum, quo nos vovimus in Christo 
 
 num quoddam et tessera totius re- esse mansuros, utique in compage 
 
 ligionis Judaicae in lege praescrip- corporis Christi : cujus rei sacra- 
 
 tae, ita ut ea suscepta, veluti pignore mentum est, quod unus panis, 
 
 se homines legi obstringant, non unum corpus multi sumus.' Aug. 
 
 aliter quam Baptismus in Christi Epist. cxlix. p. 509. edit. Bened. 
 
 nomine susceptus, vel etiam coenae It was binding themselves by so- 
 
 Dominicae usus tessera quaedam est lemn vow or oath to abstain from 
 
 et symbolum Christianismi.' Orel- all iniquity, and to adhere to godly 
 
 lius in Gal. v. 3. living. Which amounted to a re- 
 
 P The sense of the primitive newal of their Baptismal covenant. 
 
 Church, with regard to the Eucha- Such a way of covenanting with 
 
 rist as a covenanting rite, may be God by solemn vow, or oath, is 
 
 learned from the famous passage of not without precedent under the 
 
 Pliny quoted above, chap. i. p. 26. Old Testament. Deut. xxix. 12. 
 
 To which agrees that passage of 2 Chron. xv. 14. Ezra x. 5. Kehem. 
 
 St. Austin : ' Voventur omnia quae x. 29. And so God also covenanted 
 
 offeruntur Deo, maxime sancti alta- by oath with men. Isaiah Ixii. 8. 
 ris oblatio, quo sacrainento praedi-
 
 304 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 sacrifices. At length he thought to account for it by saying, 
 that to the blood of the sacrifices answers the real blood of Christ 
 shed upon the cross, and not the wine in the Lord's Supper Q. 
 The force of his reasoning stands only in the equivocal meaning 
 of the word ' answers :' for, if he meant it of the antitype answer- 
 ing to the type, it is true what he says, that our Lord's real blood 
 answers, in that sense, to the blood of the sacrifices ; and it an- 
 swers also to the wine, the symbol of it ; but if he meant it (as 
 he ought to have meant it) of symbol answering to symbol, or of 
 one typical service answering to another typical service, by way 
 of analogy ; then it is plain, that the wine in the Eucharist so 
 answers to the blood of the sacrifices, being that they are repre- 
 sentations of the same thing, and are federal by the same virtue, 
 and under the like views, and therefore fitly answer to each 
 other, as analogous rites. 
 
 Dr. Felling refutes the same objection thus : ' Though we 
 grant what Socinus affirms, that it is not the wine, but the 
 blood of Christ, which answers to the ancient sacrifices ; yet 
 since the wine is the representation and communication of 
 Christ's blood, we must conclude that it communicates those 
 benefits for which that blood was shed ; and consequently that 
 it seals that covenant to every faithful communicant in particu- 
 lar, which the blood of Christ sealed to all mankind in general. 
 And as it is true that our Saviour's passion did answer those 
 sacrifices which were offered up of old ; so it is true also, that 
 this holy banquet doth answer those sacrificial feasts which were 
 used of old r .' The sum of all is this : the legal sacrifices were 
 federal rites, binding legal stipulations directly, and indirectly 
 evangelical stipulations also, shadowed out by the other : the 
 Gospel Sacraments, which by St. Paul's account (in i Cor. x.) 
 bear an analogy to those legal sacrifices, do likewise bind in a 
 way proper to them, and as suits with the Gospel state : there- 
 fore they do directly fix and ratify evangelical stipulations. 
 These are properly federal rites of the Gospel state, as the other 
 were properly federal rites of the legal economy. 
 
 i Socin. deUsu et Fine Coenae, p. 46, alias 761. 
 r Felling on the Lord's Supper, p. 106.
 
 xi. as a Covenanting Rite. 305 
 
 It may be asked, why verbal professions, or repeated acknow- 
 ledgments, may not amount to a renewal of a covenant, as much 
 as a Sacrament 1 The reason is plain : verbal professions are not 
 the federal form prescribed ; and besides, at the most, they 
 amount only to verbal engagements, and that but on one side, 
 and therefore express no mutual contract. They amount not to 
 a communion of Christ's body, or a participation of his sacrifice : 
 they are not the new covenant in Christ's blood : they are not 
 drinking into one spirit nor pledges of our union in one body, like 
 as the partaking of one loaf and of one cup is. In short, Sacra- 
 ments are transactions of two parties, wherein God bears a share 
 as well as man, and where the visible signs have an insepar- 
 able conjunction with the invisible graces signified, when duly 
 administered to persons worthy. Verbal professions, singly 
 considered, come far short of what has been mentioned, and 
 therefore cannot be presumed to amount to a renewal of a cove- 
 nant, like the other. 
 
 It may be pleaded perhaps, that repentance is the best renewal 
 of our covenant, and is more properly so than any Sacrament 
 can be. But, on the other hand, it is certain, that repentance 
 is rather a qualification, on our part, for renewing, than a form 
 or rite of renewal ; and it expresses only what man does, not 
 what God does at the same time ; and therefore it amounts not 
 to mutual contract. The terms of a covenant ought to be dis- 
 tinguished from acts of covenanting, and the things stipulated 
 from the stipulation itself, or from the federal forms. To be 
 shoi't, repentance is properly the renewal of the man ; but the 
 renewal of a covenant is quite another thing, and must include 
 the reciprocal acts of both parties. It is very wrong to argue, 
 that any act or performance of one party only can be federal, 
 like a Sacrament which takes in both, and includes both part 
 and counterpart. But the aim seems to be, to throw God's part 
 out of the Sacraments, and then indeed they would not be federal 
 rites, no, nor Sacraments, in any just sense. 
 
 I know of no material objection further, so far as concerns 
 the present article, and so I proceed to a new chapter.
 
 306 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 The Service of the EUCHARIST considered in a Sacrificial View. 
 
 THAT the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in whole or in part, 
 in a sense proper or improper, is a sacrifice of the Christian 
 Church, is a point agreed upon among all knowing and sober 
 divines, Popish, Lutheran, or Reformed. But the Romanists 
 have so often and so grievously abused the once innocent names 
 of oblation, sacrifice, propitiation, &c., perverting them to an ill 
 sense, and grafting false doctrine and false worship upon them, 
 that the Protestants have been justly jealous of admitting those 
 names, or scrupulously wary and reserved in the use of them. 
 
 The general way, among both Lutheran and Reformed, has 
 been to reject any proper propitiation, or proper sacrifice in 
 the Eucharist ; admitting however of some kind of propitiation 
 in a qualified sense, and of sacrifice also, but of a spiritual kind, 
 and therefore styled improper, or metaphorical. Nevertheless 
 Mr. Mede, a very learned and judicious Divine and Protestant, 
 scrupled not to assert a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist, (as he 
 termed it,) a material sacrifice, the sacrifice of bread and wine, 
 analogous to the mincha of the old Law 8 . This doctrine he 
 delivered in the college chapel, A.D. 1635, which was afterwards 
 published with improvements, under the title of The Christian 
 Sacrifice. In the year 1642, the no less learned Dr. Cudworth 
 printed his well-known treatise on the same subject ; wherein 
 he as plainly denies any proper or any material sacrifice in the 
 Eucharist * ; but admits of a symbolical feast upon a sacrifice u , 
 that is to say, upon the grand sacrifice itself commemorated 
 under certain symbols. This appears to have been the prevailing 
 doctrine of our Divines, both before and since. There can be no 
 doubt of the current doctrine down to Mr. Mede : and as to 
 what has most prevailed since, I need only refer to three very 
 eminent Divines, who wrote in the years 1685, 1686, 1688 x . 
 
 8 See Mede's Works, p. 355. ed. 3. Cudworth, ibid. pp. 21, 78. 
 
 A.D. 1672. * Dr. Felling on the Sacrament, 
 
 * Cudworth's True Notion of the pp. 41 47. Dr. Shar^ e, (afterwards 
 
 Lord's Supper, chap. v. p. 77. Archbishop,) vol. vii. Serm. 2. Dr.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 307 
 
 In the year 1702, the very pious and learned Dr. Grabe pub- 
 lished his Irenaeus, and in his notes upon the author fell in 
 with the sentiments of Mr, Mede, so far as concerns a proper 
 and material sacrifice in the Eucharist Y : and after him, our 
 incomparably learned and judicious Bishop Bull, in an English 
 treatise, gave great countenance to the same z . 
 
 Dr. Grabe's declaring for a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist, 
 and at the same time censuring both Luther and Calvin, by 
 name, for rejecting it, gave great alarm to the learned Pro- 
 testants abroad, and excited several of them to re-examine the 
 question about the eucharistical sacrifice. 
 
 The first who appeared was the excellent Buddaeus a , (A. D. 
 1705,) a Lutheran Divine of established character for learning, 
 temper, and judgment ; though he happened to betray some 
 precipitancy in this matter : he appeared much concerned at 
 what Dr. Grabe had written on this argument, but misappre- 
 hended him all the time, as was natural for him to do : for, 
 imagining that Dr. Grabe had maintained a real presence in the 
 Lutheran sense, and a proper sacrifice besides, the consequence 
 was self-evident, that such a presence and sacrifice together could 
 resolve into nothing else but the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore 
 he treats Dr. Grabe all the way, as one that had asserted the 
 popish sacrifice : and what confirmed him in the injui'ious sus- 
 picion was, that some of the Jesuits b (whether ignorantly or 
 artfully) had boasted of Dr. Grabe as a declared man on their 
 side, against both Luther and Calvin. However, Buddaeus's 
 dissertation on the subject is a well-penned performance, and 
 may be of good service to every careful reader, for the light it 
 gives into the main question. 
 
 In the year 1706, a very learned Calvinist occasionally en- 
 gaged in the same question about the sacrifice : not with any 
 
 Payne's Disc, of the Sacrifice of the Pontificiae, Miscell. Sacr. torn. i. 
 
 Mass^ pp. 4254- pp. 363- 
 
 >' Grabe in Iren. lib. iv. cap. 32. b Meruoires pour 1'Histoire des 
 
 p. 323. edit. Oxon. Sciences, &c. A.D. 1703. 
 
 * Bishop Bull's Answer to the c Sam. Basnage, Annal. torn. i. 
 
 Bishop of Meaux, pp. 18, 19. pp. 370 374. 
 
 a Buddaeua de Origine Missae 
 
 X 2
 
 308 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 view to Dr. Grabe, (so far as appears,) but in opposition only to 
 the Romanists. However, I thought it proper just to make 
 mention of him here, as falling within the same time, and being 
 a great master of ecclesiastical antiquity. 
 
 Some time after, (A.D. 1709,) Ittigius, a learned Lutheran, 
 took occasion to pass some strictures upon Dr. Grabe in that 
 article d : then Deylingius e and Zornius f , learned Lutherans, 
 and all still pursuing the same mistake which Buddaeus had 
 fallen into. 
 
 But in the year 1715, the acute and candid Pfaffius (a Lu- 
 theran also) took care to do justice to Dr. Grabe's sentiments, 
 (though not altogether approving them,) being so fair as to own, 
 that Dr. Grabe's notion of the eucharistical sacrifice was nothing 
 akin to the sacrifice of the mass?. Nevertheless others still 
 went on in the first mistake : and among the rest, the celebrated 
 Le Clerc h , and a greater man than he, Campegius Vitringa ' ; 
 and another fine writer \ later than both ; all of them condemn- 
 ing the doctrine, wrongfully, as popish. But it may be proper 
 here to take notice, that the learned Deylingius, who had for- 
 merly charged Dr. Grabe too hastily, has, upon better informa- 
 tion, retracted that censure, in a book lately published ! : and 
 the complaint now is, not that Dr. Grabe asserted the sacrifice 
 of the mass, (which he heartily abhorred,) but that he rejected 
 the real, local, or corporal presence 111 , such as the Papists or 
 Lutherans contend for : in which most certainly he judged 
 right. 
 
 But before I close this brief historical view of that contro- 
 versy, it may not be improper to observe how far the leafned 
 Pfaffius was inclinable to concur with Dr. Grabe in this article. 
 He allows that the ancients, by oblation and sacrifice, meant 
 more than prayer, and that it is even ludicrous to pretend the 
 
 d Ittigius, Histor. Eccles. primi h Clerici Histor. Eccl. p. 772. 
 
 Saec. p. 204. * "Vitringa in Isa. torn. ii. p. 951. 
 
 e Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. torn. k Moshem. A.D. 1733. in Praefat. 
 
 i. n. 54. p. 262. ad Cudworth de Coena. 
 
 f Zornius, Opuscul. Sacr. torn. i. ' Deylingius, Observat. Miscell. 
 
 p. 732. p. 103. A.D. 1736. 
 
 e Pfa'fius, Irenaei Fragm. Anec- m Vid. Deylingius, ibid. p. 77. 
 dot. p. 106 &c., 499.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 309 
 
 contrary". He acknowledges that they speak of an oblation of 
 bread and wine , and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise P, 
 and propitiatory also in a qualified sober sense <i. In short, he 
 seems almost to yield up everything that Dr. Grabe had con- 
 tended for, excepting only the point of a proper or material sacri- 
 fice : and he looked upon that as resolving at length into a kind 
 of logomachy, a difference in words or names, arising chiefly from 
 the difficulty of determining what a sacrifice properly means, and 
 from the almost insuperable perplexities among learned men, 
 about the ascertaining any precise definition of it r . I am per- 
 suaded there is a good deal of truth in what that learned gentle- 
 man has said, and that a great part of the debate, so warmly 
 carried on a few years ago, was more about names than things. 
 
 As the question arises chiefly out of what was taught by the 
 ancient Fathers, it will be proper to inquire what they really 
 meant by the word sacrifice, and in Avhat sense they applied 
 that name to the Eucharist, in whole or in part. St. Austin, 
 who well understood both what the Scripture and the Christian 
 writers before him had taught, defines or describes a true sacri- 
 fice, in the general, as follows : ' A true sacrifice is any work 
 done to keep up our league of amity with God, referred to him 
 as our sovereign good, in whom we may enjoy true felicity 8 .' 
 I follow his sense, rather than the strict letter, to make it the 
 clearer to an English reader. St. Austin here judged it neces- 
 sary for every such good work to be performed with a view to 
 God, to be referred to his glory ; otherwise it could not with 
 any propriety be called a sacrifice to him : therefore even works 
 of mercy done to man, out of compassion, tenderness, or 
 humanity, though true sacrifices if considered as done with a 
 view to God, would be no sacrifice at all, if they wanted that 
 circumstance to recommend them *. From hence we may see 
 
 n Pfaffius, Ii-enaei Fragm. Anec- opus quad agitur ut sancta socie- 
 
 dot. p. 50. tate inhaereamus Deo, relatum sci- 
 
 Ibid. pp. 254 274, 314, 344. licet ad ilium finem boni, quo vera- 
 P Ibid. pp. 330, 338. citer beati esse possimus.' Augustin. 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 211, 229. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242. 
 r Ibid, in Praefat. et pp. 344, 4 ' Misericordia verum sacrificium 
 
 345. est. . . . Ipsa misericordia qua hornini 
 
 8 ' Verum sacrificium est omne subvenitur, si propter Deum non fit,
 
 310 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 what that Father's general notion of a true sacrifice was. He 
 takes notice further, that what had been commonly called sacri- 
 fice, is really nothing more than an outward sign, token, or 
 symbol of true sacrifice u . The distinction here made may afford 
 great light as to the meaning of the ancients, where they denomi- 
 nate the Eucharist a sacrifice, or a true and perfect sacrifice. 
 They meant, for the most part, that it was true and evangelical 
 service, as opposed to legal : in that sense, the eucharistical 
 service was itself true sacrifice, and properly our sacrifice. And 
 if, over and above, the elements themselves, unconsecrated, were 
 ever called a sacrifice, or sacrifices, the meaning still was, that 
 the service was the sacrifice : but when the consecrated elements 
 had that name, it was only a metonymy of the sign for the thing 
 signified, as they represent, and in effect exhibit, the grand 
 sacrifice of the cross. 
 
 It is worth observing, that in Scripture style, whatever ex- 
 hibits any advantage or blessing in larger measure, or in a more 
 eminent degree, is denominated true, in opposition to other 
 things which only appear to do the like, or do it but defectively x . 
 In such a sense as that, the Gospel services are the true sacri- 
 fices, called also under the Law sacrifices of righteousness y. 
 I know not how it comes to pass, that moderns generally have 
 reckoned all the spiritual sacrifices among the nominal, im- 
 proper, metaphorical sacrifices ; whereas the ancients judged 
 them to be the truest sacrifices of any, yea, and infinitely more 
 excellent than the other. If it be said, that external, material, 
 
 non est saerificium. . . . Sacrificium signum est.* Ibid. cap. 5. 
 
 res divina est,' &c. Augustin. ibid. * See John i. 4, 9, 17; iv. 23, 
 
 u ' Illud quod ab omnibus appel- 24 ; vi. 32; xv. I. Luke xvi. n. 
 
 latur sacrificium, siguum est veri Heb. viii. 2; ix. n, 24. 
 
 sacrificii.' Augustin. ibid. ' Nee > ' Vera sacrificia sunt ejusmodi 
 
 quod ab antiquis patribus talia sacri- sacrificia, quae vere id habent quod 
 
 ficia facta suut in victim's pecorum caetera habere videntur. Dicuntur 
 
 (quod nunc Dei populus legit, non ilia, eodem loquendi modo, sacrificia 
 
 facit) aliud intelligendum est, nisi justitiae, id est Ovatm a.\i)9iva\, sacri- 
 
 rebus illis eas res fuisae sigmfieatas ficia vera. Intelligitur autem hac 
 
 quae aguntur in nubis, in hoc ut phrasi totus cultus Novi Testa- 
 
 adhaereamus Deo, et ad eundem menti.' Vitringa de vet. Synag. 
 
 finem proximo consulamus. Sacri- p. 65. Cp. ejusd. Observat. Sacr. 
 
 ficium ergo visibile, invisibilis sacri- torn. ii. p. 499, et in Isa. t-jm. ii. 
 
 ficii sacramentum, id eat, sacrum pp. 56, 733 829.
 
 xii. in a Sacrifcial View. 3 11 
 
 symbolical sacrifices had all along engrossed the name of sacri- 
 fices, and therefore were the only sacrifices properly so called, as 
 the custom of language is the rule of propriety ; it may be 
 replied, on the other hand, that spiritual sacrifices really carry 
 in them all that the other signify or point to, and so, upon the 
 general reason of all sacrifice, have a just, or a more eminent 
 title to that name : and this may be thought as good a rule of 
 propriety, as the custom of language can be. Suppose, for 
 instance, that sacrifice, in its general nature, means the making 
 a present to the Divine Majesty, as Plato defines it z ; is not the 
 presenting him with our prayers, praises, and good works, as 
 properly making him a present, as the other 1 Therefore if the 
 general reason or definition of sacrifice suits as properly (yea, 
 and eminently) with spiritual sacrifices as with any other, I see 
 not why they should not be esteemed proper sacrifices, as well 
 as the other. However, since this would amount only to a strife 
 about words, it is of no great moment, whether spiritual sacrifices 
 be called proper or improper sacrifices, so long as they are 
 allowed to be true and excellent, and as much to be preferred 
 before the other, as substance before shadow, and truth before 
 sign or figure. The ancients, I think, looked upon the spiritual 
 sacrifices as true and proper sacrifices, and are so to be under- 
 stood, whenever they apply the name of sacrifice to the service of 
 the Eucharist. But to make it a material sacrifice would, in 
 their account, have been degrading and vilifying it, reducing it 
 to a legal ceremony, instead of a Gospel service. 
 
 The service therefore of the Eucharist, on the foot of ancient 
 Church language, is both a true and a proper sacrifice, (as I 
 shall shew presently,) and the noblest that we are capable of 
 offering, when considered as comprehending under it many true 
 aiid evangelical sacrifices : i . The sacrifice of alms to the poor, 
 and oblations to the Church ; which when religiously intended, 
 and offered through Christ, is a Gospel sacrifice a . Not that the 
 material offering is a sacrifice to God, for it goes entirely to the 
 
 z OvKovf rb Bvfiv, ScaptiffQai tan a Philippians iv. 18. Hebrews xiii. 
 rots <?<ny. Plato, Euthyphron. p. 16. Compare Acts x. 4. Ecclus. 
 
 10. XXXV. 2.
 
 312 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 use of man ; but the service is what God accepts. 2. The 
 sacrifice of prayer, from a pure heart, is evangelical incensed 
 3. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God the Father, 
 through Christ Jesus our Lord, is another Gospel sacrifice c . 4. The 
 sacrifice of a penitent and contrite heart, even under the Law, 
 (and now much more under the Gospel, when explicitly offered 
 through Christ,) was a sacrifice of the new covenant d : for the 
 new covenant commenced from the time of the fall, and obtained 
 under the Law, but couched under shadows and figures. 5. The 
 sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, is another Gospel 
 sacrifice 6 . 6. The offering up the mystical body of Christ, that 
 is, his Church, is another Gospel sacrifice f : or rather, it is 
 coincident with the former ; excepting that there persons are 
 considered in their single capacity, and here collectively in a 
 body. I take the thought from St. Austin S, who grounds it 
 chiefly on i Cor. x. 17, and the texts belonging to the former 
 article. 7. The offering up of true converts, or sincere penitents, 
 to God, by their pastors, who have laboured successfully in the 
 blessed work, is another very acceptable Gospel sacrifice h . 
 8. The sacrifice of faith and hope, and self-humiliation, in com- 
 memorating the grand sacrifice, and resting finally upon it, 
 is another Gospel sacrifice \ and eminently proper to the 
 Eucharist. 
 
 These, I think, are all so many true sacrifices, and may all 
 meet together in the one great complicated sacrifice of the Eu- 
 charist. Into some one or more of these may be resolved (as I 
 conceive) all that the ancients have ever taught of Christian 
 sacrifices, or of the Eucharist under the name or notion of a true 
 or proper sacrifice. Let it be supposed however for the present, 
 
 b Revel, v. 8 ; viii* 3, 4. Com- f i Cor. x. 1 7. 
 
 pare Psalm cxli. 2. Malach. i. n; e Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. 
 
 iii. 4, 5. Hos. xiv. 2. Acts x. 4. cap. vi. p. 243 ; cap. xx. p. 256. 
 
 Ecclua. xxxv. 2. Epist. lix. alias cxlix. p. 509. edit. 
 
 c Heb. xiii. 15. i Pet. ii. 5, 9. Bened. 
 
 Compare Psalm 1. 14, 15 ; Ixix. 31 ; h Rom. xv. 16. Phil. ii. 17. Com- 
 
 cxvi. 1 7. pare Isa. Ixvi. 20, curn Notis Vitring. 
 
 d Psalm iv. 5 ; Ii. 17. Isa. i. 16 ; p. 950. 
 
 Ivii. 15. i This is not said in any single 
 
 e Rom. xii. i. Phil. ii. 17. 2 Tim. text, but may be clearly collected 
 
 iv, 6. from many compared.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 313 
 
 in order to give the reader the clearer idea beforehand of what 
 I intend presently to prove. In the meanwhile, supposing this 
 account to be just, from hence may easily be understood how far 
 the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice, or otherwise. If 
 that phrase means a spiritual service of ours, commemorating 
 the sacrifice of the cross, then it is justly styled a sacrifice com- 
 memorative of a sacrifice, and in that sense a commemorative 
 sacrifice : but if that phrase points only to the outward ele- 
 ments representing the sacrifice made by Christ, then it means 
 a sacrifice commemorated, or a representation and commemo- 
 ration of a sacrifice k . 
 
 From hence likewise may we understand in what sense the 
 officiating authorized ministers perform the office of proper 
 evangelical priests in this service. They do it three ways : 
 
 1. As commemorating, in solemn form, the same sacrifice here 
 below, which Christ our High Priest commemorates above. 
 
 2. As handing up (if I may so speak) those prayers and those 
 services of Christians to Christ our Lord, who as High Priest 
 recommends the same in heaven to God the Father 1 . 3. As 
 offering up to God all the faithful who are under their care and 
 ministry, and who are sanctified by the Spirit m . In these three 
 ways the Christian officers are priests, or liturgs, to very excel- 
 lent purposes, far above the legal ones, in a sense worth the con- 
 tending for, and worth the pursuing with the utmost zeal and 
 assiduity. 
 
 Having thus far intimated beforehand what I apprehend to 
 be in the main, or in the general, a just account of the eucha- 
 ristical sacrifice, upon the principles laid down in Scripture, as 
 
 k ' Nonne semel immolatus est nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo, se- 
 
 Christus in seipso ? Et tamen in cunduin quendam modum, sacra- 
 
 sacramento non solum per omnes mentnm corporis Christi corpus 
 
 paschae solennitates, sed omni die Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis 
 
 populis iminolatur ; nee utique men- Christi sanguis Christi est ; ita 
 
 titur qui, interrogatus, eum respon- sacramentum fidei fides est.' Au- 
 
 derit immolari. Si enim sacramenta gustin. Epist. ad Bonifacium, xcviii. 
 
 quandam similitudinem earum re- alias xxiii. p. 267. ed. Bened. 
 
 rum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non ' Revel, viii. 4. Vid. Vitring. in 
 
 haberent, omnino sacramenta non loc. 
 
 essent : ex hac autem similitudine m Rom. xv. 16. 
 plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum
 
 314 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 interpreted by the ancients : I shall next proceed to examine 
 the ancients one by one, in order to see whether this account 
 tallies with what they have said upon this article. 
 
 I shall begin with St. Barnabas, supposed, with some pro- 
 bability, to have been the author of the Epistle bearing his name, 
 penned about A.D. 71. This very early writer, taking notice of 
 the difference between the Law and the Gospel, observes that 
 Christ had abolished the legal sacrifices, to make way for an 
 human oblation : which he explains soon after, by an humble 
 and contrite heart, referring to Psalm li. 17. So by human 
 oblation, he means the free-will offering of the heart, as opposed 
 to the yoke of legal observances ; the offering up the whole inner 
 man, instead of the outward superficial performances of the Law. 
 Therefore the Christian sacrifice, as here described by our author, 
 resolves into the 5th article of the account which I have given 
 above. Mr. Dodwell renders the words of Barnabas thus : 
 ' These things therefore he has evacuated, that the new law of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without any yoke of bondage, 
 might bring in the mystical oblation P.' He conceived the 
 original Greek words (which are lost) might have been XoytKj) 
 Xarpet'a, reasonable service : which however is merely conjecture. 
 But he understood the place of Christians offering themselves, 
 their souls and bodies, instead of sacrificing beasts. Another 
 learned man, who had an hypothesis to serve, understands by 
 human oblation, an offering made with freedom ; and he inter- 
 prets it of the voluntary oblations made by communicants at the 
 altar, viz. the lay oblations <J. The interpretation appears some- 
 what forced, and agrees not well with Barnabas's own explication 
 superadded, concerning an humble and contrite heart ; unless we 
 take in both : however, even upon that supposition, the Christian 
 sacrifice here pointed to will be a spiritual sacrifice, or service, 
 the sacrifice of charitable benevolence, and will fall under article 
 
 ' Haec ergo [sacriftcia] vacua liatum Deus non despicit.' Barnab. 
 
 fecit, ut nova lex Domini nostri Epist. cap. ii. p. 57. 
 
 Jesu Christi, quae sine jugo neces- P Dodwell of Incensing, p. 33 &c. 
 
 sitatis est, humanam habeat obla- 1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 tionem . . . nobis enim dicit, Sacrifi- parti, p 333, alias 338. 
 cium Deo, cor tribulatuin, et humi-
 
 xii. in a Sacrijicial Vieiv. 315 
 
 the first, above mentioned. There have not been wanting some 
 who would wrest the passage so far as to make it favour the 
 sacrifice of the mass : but the learned Pfaffius r has abundantly 
 confuted every pretence that way, and has also well defended the 
 common construction ; which Menardus had before admitted, 
 and which Dodwell also came into, and which I have here 
 recommended. There is nothing more in Barnabas that relates 
 at all to our purpose, and so we may pass on to other Christian 
 writers in order. 
 
 Clemens of Rome has been cited in a chapter above 8 , as 
 speaking of the lay oblations brought to the altar, and of the 
 sacerdotal oblation afterwards made of the same gifts, previously 
 to the consecration. No doubt but such lay offerings amounted 
 to spiritual sacrifice, being acceptable service under the Gospel ; 
 and they fall under article the first, in the enumeration before 
 given. I cannot repeat too often, that in such cases the service, 
 the good work, the duty performed is properly the sacrifice, 
 according to the definition of sacrifice in St. Austin* above cited, 
 and according to plain good sense. When Cornelius's prayers 
 and alms ascended up for a memorial, (a name alluding to the 
 legal incense,) it was not his money, nor any material gifts, that 
 ascended, or made the memorial ; but it was the piety, the mercy, 
 the beneficence, the virtues of the man. Under the Gospel, God 
 receives no material thing at all, to be consumed and spent in 
 his own immediate service, and for his honour only : he receives 
 no blood, no libation, no incense, no burnt offerings, no perfumes, 
 as before. If he receives alms and oblations, (as in the Eucha- 
 ristical service,) he receives them not as gifts to himself, to be 
 consumed in his immediate service, but as gifts to be consecrated 
 for the use of man, to whom they go. All that is material is 
 laid out upon man only ; not upon God, as in the Jewish 
 economy. But God receives, now under the Gospel, our religious 
 
 r Pfaffius de Oblat. vet Eucharist, causto Dominicae passions, quod eo 
 
 sect. xxii. p. 239, &c. tempore offert quisque pro peccatis 
 
 8 See above, chap. i. p. 22. suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide de- 
 
 * Omne opus, &c. every good work, dicatur, et Christianorum fidelium 
 
 And it is observable that, conform- nomine Baptizatus imbuitur.' Au- 
 
 ably to such definition, that Father gustin. ad Roman. Expos, cap. xix. 
 
 makes Baptism a sacrifice : ' Holo- col. 937. torn. iii.
 
 3i 6 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 services, our good works, our virtuous exercises, in the name 
 of Christ, and these are our truly Christian and spiritual sacri- 
 fices. In this view, the lay oblations, which Clemens refers to, 
 were Christian sacrifices. So also were the sacerdotal services, 
 referred to by the same Clemens ; though in a view somewhat 
 different, and falling under a distinct branch of Gospel sacrifice, 
 reducible to article the seventh in the foregoing recital. Those 
 who endeavour to construe Clemens's 7rpo<r<opui and \(irovpyiai 
 (oblations and sacerdotal ministrations) as favouring the sacrifice 
 of the mass, run altogether wide of the truth ; as is plain from 
 one single reason among many u , that all which Clemens speaks 
 of was previous to the consecration. Those also who plead from 
 thence for material oblations, as acceptable under the Gospel, 
 mistake the case: for the material part (as before hinted) goes not 
 to God, is not considered purely as a gift to him, (like the burnt 
 offerings or incense under the Law, consumed in his immediate 
 service,) but as a gift for the use of man ; and so nothing 
 remains for God to accept of, as given to him, but the spiritual 
 service ; and even that he accepts not of, unless it really answers 
 its" name. So that it is plain that the New Testament admits of 
 none but spiritual sacrifices ; because none else are now properly 
 given to God, or accepted by him as so given. 
 
 Justin Martyr, of the second century, is so clear and so express 
 upon the subject of Gospel sacrifice, that one need not desire 
 any fuller light than he will furnish us with. The sum of his 
 doctrine is, that prayers and praises, and universal obedience, 
 are the only Christian sacrifices : from whence it most evidently 
 follows, that whenever he gives the name of oblation, or sacrifice, 
 to the Eucharist, his whole meaning is, that it is a religious 
 service comprehending prayers, praises, &c., and therefore has a 
 just title to the name of Christian oblation and sacrifice. But 
 let us examine the passages. 
 
 He writes thus : 'We have been taught, that God has no need 
 of any material oblation from men ; well knowing, that he is the 
 
 u The reader may see that whole 45 49. Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Euch. 
 question discussed at large in Bud- pp. 254 269. 
 daeus, Miscellan. Sacr. torn. i. pp.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 317 
 
 giver of all things : but we are informed, and persuaded, and 
 do believe, that he accepts those only who copy after his moral 
 perfections, purity, righteousness, philanthropy x ,' &c. Here we 
 may observe, that God accepts not, according to our author, any 
 material oblation at all, considered as a gift to him, nor anything 
 but what is spiritual, as all religious services, and all virtuous 
 exercises really are : those are the Gospel oblations according to 
 Justin, here and everywhere. A few pages after, he takes notice, 
 ' that God has no need of blood, libations, or incense, but that 
 the Christian manner was, to offer him prayers and thanksgivings 
 for all the blessings they enjoy, to the utmost of their power : 
 that the only way of paying him honour suitable, was not to con- 
 sume by fire what he had given for our sustenance, but to spend 
 it upon ourselves, and upon the poor, and to render him the 
 tribute of our grateful hymns and praises y,' &c. 
 
 Here we may note how exactly he points out the difference 
 between other sacrifices (Pagan or Jewish) and the sacrifices of 
 the Gospel. In those there was something spent, as it were, 
 immediately upon God, entirely lost, wasted, consumed, because 
 considered as a gift to God only ; which is the proper notion of 
 a material sacrifice : but in these, nothing is entirely spent, or 
 consumed, but all goes to the use of man ; only the praise, the 
 glory, the tribute of homage and service, that is given to God, 
 and that he accepts, as a proper sacrifice, and as mo^t suitable to 
 his Divine Majesty. Not that he needs even these, or can be 
 benefited by them : but he takes delight in the exercise of his 
 own philanthropy, which has so much the larger field to move 
 in, according as his creatures render themselves fit objects of it 
 by acts of religion and virtue. But I proceed with our author. 
 
 i*i/ 1 w w, ^M.WW, ^w-iju-ui/ju-cfufij vvvyj'fjvu I/CT/J-J KU.I TOti TOvyMFVf* Tipou<ptfJtiy } tKtiyifj 
 
 /cat OLKo,LO(TvvT]v ) Kal <^)iA.ctt'^pciJ7rtcEi' 5 /cal vxttpi(TTovs OVTO.S 8ta Ao*you irou- 
 
 5o-a oie?a 0y eVri. Just. Mart. ?ras /cat vpvovs irtpirew. K.T.\. Just. 
 
 Apol. i. p. 14. edit. Lond. Mart. ibid. p. 19.
 
 31 8 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 In another place he expressly teaches, that 'prayers and 
 thanksgivings, made by them that are worthy, are the only per- 
 fect and acceptable sacrifices;' adding, that 'those only are 
 offered in the eucharistical commemoration 2 .' It is observable, 
 that by the restriction to the worthy, he supposes a good life to 
 go along with prayers and praises to make them acceptable 
 sacrifice, conformably to what he had before taught, as above 
 recited. Indeed, prayers and praises are most directly, imme- 
 diately, emphatically sacrifice, as a tribute offered to God only : 
 which is the reason why Justin and other Fathers speak of 
 them in the first place, as the proper or primary sacrifices of 
 Christians. Obedience is sacrifice also, as it respects God ; but 
 it may have another aspect towards ourselves, or other men, 
 and therefore is not so directly a sacrifice to God alone. This 
 distinction is well illustrated by a judicious Divine of our 
 own a , whose words I may here borrow : ' The sacrifice of 
 obedience is metaphorical : that is, God accepts it as well as if 
 it had been a sacrifice ; that is, something given to himself : 
 but the sacrifice of praise is proper, without a metaphor b . The 
 nature of it accomplished by offering something to God, in 
 acknowledgment of him. . . . The honour which God receives 
 from our obedience, differs from that of a sacrifice ; for that is 
 only of consequence, and by argumentation : that is, it suits 
 with the nature and will of God ; as we say, good servants are 
 an honour to their masters, by reflection. But the honour by 
 sacrifice is of direct and special intendment : it hath no other 
 use, and is a distinct virtue from all other acts of obedience, and 
 of a different obligation Though God hath the honour of 
 
 z "OTI /j.fv ovv Ka\ tii^al KO.} tvx_api- every spiritual sacrifice a metapho- 
 
 ffriatt virb T>V o|ieov yiv6/j.fvat, rt\fiai rical sacrifice : for he admits of 
 
 ft.6vai Koi tvapevToi tlffi r<p f<p 6u- prayers and praises, and the like 
 
 ff'tat, Kal avr6s <p7?/u. Tavra yap nfoa religious services, as true and pro- 
 
 Ko.1 Xpiffnavol irapt\a./3ov iroteiv, KOI per sacrifices. I conceive further, 
 
 fir' ava/jLv-fiffet 8e rrjs rpo^fjr avrtav that even obedience, formally con- 
 
 i;/)os Tf Kol vpyas. Justin. Dial, sidered as respecting God, and as 
 
 p. 387. a tribute offered to him, (though it 
 
 a Bishop Lany's Sermon on Heb. has other views besides, in which it 
 
 xiii. 15. pp. 30 32. is no sacrifice at all,) is as properly 
 
 b Note, this very acute and know- sacrifice as the other : and so judged 
 
 ing Divine had not learned to call St. Austin above cited.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 319 
 
 obedience and a virtuous life; if we deny him the honour of a 
 sacrifice besides, we rob him of his due, and a greater sacrilege 
 we cannot commit. . . . This is robbing God of the service itself, 
 to which the other, dedicated for his service, are but accessary.' 
 Thus far Bishop Lany to the point in hand. I return to Justin 
 Martyr. 
 
 We have seen how uniform and constant this early Christian 
 writer was, with respect to the general doctrine concerning 
 Gospel sacrifices, as being spiritual sacrifices, and no other. 
 Nothing more remains, but to consider how to reconcile that 
 general doctrine with the particular doctrine taught by the same 
 writer concerning the Eucharist, as a sacrifice. He makes 
 mention of the legal offering of fine flour, or meal offering, as a 
 type of the bread of the Eucharist c : and a little after, citing 
 a noted place of the Prophet Malachi, he interprets the pure 
 offering, the mincha, or bread-offering there predicted, of the 
 bread eucharistical, and likewise of wine d , denominating them, as 
 it seems, the sacrifices offered by us Gentile Christians. Does not 
 all this look very like the admitting of material sacrifices under 
 the Gospel 1 And how then could he consistently elsewhere 
 exclude all material oblations, and admit none but spiritual 
 sacrifices as belonging to the Christian state 1 Mr. Pfaffius, being 
 aware of the appearing difficulty, cuts the knot, instead of un- 
 tying it, and charges the author with saying and unsaying e : 
 which perhaps was not respectful enough towards his author, nor 
 prudent for his own cause, unless the case had been desperate, 
 which he had no reason to suspect, so far as I apprehend. He 
 undertakes afterwards to sum up Justin's sentiments on this 
 head, and does it in a manner somewhat perplexed, to this 
 effect : ' That the New Testament admits of no sacrifices but 
 prayers, praises, and thanksgivings : but however, if it does 
 admit of anything corresponding, or similar to the legal obla- 
 tions, it is that of the oblation of bread and wine in the 
 
 c Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 220. tvxapiffrias irpo\fyti r6re. Justin. 
 
 d Tltpl 8e rS>v iv itav-rl r6Trcf v<p' ibid. 
 
 iifjilav T<av tQvSiv Trpoff<f>fpofj.fviav a.vT(f e Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist. 
 
 SvaiSiv, TowrtffTi TOV &prov rrjs tvxcipi- pp. 270, 272. 
 ffrictt, Kal rov Trorijplou o/joiut TTJJ
 
 320 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 Eucharist f .' This is leaving the readers much in the dark, and 
 his author to shift for sense and consistency. At the best, it is 
 dismissing the evidence as doubtful, not determinate enough to 
 give reasonable satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. Dodwell's account of Justin in this article is no clearer 
 than the former. He takes notice, that his Father ' allows no 
 other sacrifice but that of prayer and Eucharist ;' he should 
 have said, thanksgiving : and soon after he adds in the same 
 page ; ' elsewhere he owns no acceptable sacrifice under the 
 Gospel, but the Eucharist; in opposition to the Jewish sacrifices, 
 which were consumed by fire, and which were confined to 
 Jerusalem .' Still, here is no account given how Justin could 
 reject all material sacrifice, and yet consistently admit of the 
 Eucharist as a sacrifice, if that be a material and not a spiritual 
 oblation. The most that Mr. Dodwell's solution can amount to is, 
 that Justin did not absolutely reject material sacrifices, provided 
 they were not to be consumed by fire, or provided (as he hints in 
 another work ) that they are but purely eucharistical. But this 
 solution will never account for Justin's so expressly and fully ex- 
 cluding all material oblations, and so particularly restraining the 
 notion of Gospel sacrifices to prayers, praises, and good works. 
 
 Some learned men think that a material sacrifice may yet be 
 called a rational and spiritual sacrifice J : and therefore, though 
 the Fathers do expressly reject material sacrifices, they mean 
 only sacrifices of a certain kind; and though they admit none 
 but spiritual sacrifices, they might yet tacitly except such 
 material sacrifices as are spiritual also. But this appears to be 
 a very harsh solution, and such as would go near to confound 
 all language. However, most certainly, it ought never to be 
 admitted, if any clearer or juster solution can be thought on, 
 as I am persuaded there may. 
 
 1 ' Ita nempe secum statuit vir posita, precibusque juxta rnandatum 
 
 sanctus, nulla esse in Novo Testa- Christ! Deo oblata, in Sacramentum 
 
 mento sacrificia, quam laudes, gra- corporis sanguinisque Dominici con- 
 
 tiarum actiones, et. preces ; si quid secrentur.' Pfaffius, ibid. p. 274. 
 tamen sit quod cum oblationibus s Dodwell of Incensing, p. 46. 
 Veteris Testament! conferri queat, h Dodwell's Oue Altar, pp. 203,204. 
 esse panem vinumque Euchanstiae, ' Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part 
 
 quae altari, seu mensae sacrae im- i. p. 18, &c.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 321 
 
 Justin's principles, if rightly considered, hang well together, 
 and are all of a piece. He rejects all material sacrifices abso- 
 lutely : and though the Eucharist be a sacrifice, according to 
 him, yet it is not the matter of it, viz. the bread and wine, that 
 is properly the sacrifice, but it is the service only, and that is a 
 spiritual sacrifice. Alms are a Gospel sacrifice, according to 
 St. Paul : not the material alms, but the exercise of charity, that 
 is the sacrifice. In like manner, the Eucharist is a Gospel 
 saci-ifice. Not the material symbols, but the service, consisting 
 of a prayer, praise, contrite hearts, self-humiliation, &c. Well, 
 but may not the like be said of all the legal sacrifices, that there 
 also the service was distinct from the matter, and so those also 
 were spiritual sacrifices 1 No : the circumstances were widely 
 different. In the legal sacrifices, either the whole or some part 
 of the offering was directly given to God k, and either consumed 
 by fire, or poured forth, never returaing to the use of man : and 
 thereupon was founded the gross notion, of which God by his 
 Prophets more than once complains 1, as if the Deity had need 
 of such things, or took delight in them. But now, under the 
 Gospel, nothing is so given to God, nothing consumed in his 
 immediate service : we present his gifts and his creatures before 
 him, and we take them back again for the use of ourselves and 
 of our brethren. All that we really give up to God as his 
 tribute, are our thanks, our praises, our acknowledgments, our 
 homage, our selves, our souls and bodies ; which is all spiritual 
 sacrifice, purely spiritual : and herein lies the main difference 
 between the Law and the Gospel m . We have no material 
 sacrifices at all. The matter of the Eucharist is sacramental, and 
 the bread and wine are signs : yea, signs of a sacrifice, that is of 
 
 k Some have thought the paschal think that the inwards, or fat, was 
 sacrifice to make an exception, be- to be burnt upon the altar. See 
 cause it was all to be eaten. But Reland, Antiq. Hebr. p. 383. Dey- 
 it is certain that one part, viz. the lingius, Observ. Sacr. torn. iii. p. 
 blood, was to be poured forth, and 332. Cudworth on the Lord's Sup- 
 sprinkled, 2 Chron. xxx. 16 ; xxxv. per, p. 3. fol. ed. 
 n, yea and offered unto God, Exod. ' Psalm 1. 12, 13. Isaiah i. n. 
 xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 25, as belonging Mic. vi. 6, 7. 
 
 of right to him t and those who are m See Mr. Lewis's Answer to 
 
 best skilled in Jewish antiquities, Unbloody Sacrifice, pp. 2, 5, n. 
 
 Y
 
 322 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 the sacrifice of the cross : but as to any sacrifice of ours, it lies 
 entirely in the service we perform, and in the qualifications or 
 dispositions which we bring, which are all so much spiritual 
 oblation, or spiritual sacrifice, and nothing else. 
 
 From hence may be perceived how consistent and uniform 
 this early Father was in his whole doctrine on that head. He 
 expressed himself very accurately, when, speaking of spiritual 
 and perfect sacrifices, he said, that they were what Christians 
 offered over, or upon the eucharistical commemoration n : that is, 
 they spiritually sacrificed in the service of the Eucharist. They 
 did not make the material elements their sacrifice, but the signs 
 only of a greater. Their service they offered up to God as his 
 tribute ; but the elements they took entirely to themselves. When 
 he speaks of the sacrifices of bread and wine , he may reasonably 
 be understood to mean, the spiritual sacrifices of lauds, or of 
 charity, which went along with the solemn feasting upon the 
 bread and wine ; and not that the elements themselves were sa- 
 crifices P. Upon the whole therefore, I take this blessed martyr 
 to have been consistent throughout in his doctrine of spiritual 
 sacrifices, as being the only sacrifices prescribed, or allowed by 
 the Gospel. And if he judged the Eucharist to be (as indeed 
 he did) a most acceptable sacrifice, it was because he supposed 
 it to comprise many sacrifices in one ; a right faith, and clean 
 heart, and devout affections, breaking forth in fervent prayers, 
 praises, and thanksgivings unto God, and charitable contributions 
 to the brethren. 
 
 n Tavra -yap fj.6va Kal XpiffTtavol xxiv. 7, a type of the Eucharist. 
 
 irape\afiov itoiflv Kal fir' ava/j.vfiffft But it is observable, that the show- 
 
 8 rrjs rpotyris avriav i)pas re Ka\ bread was not the memorial; but 
 
 vypas. Dial. p. 387. the incense burnt upon it, that was 
 
 Qvo-ias . . . eVl rfj fvx.apiffTta TOV the memorial, as the text expressly 
 
 &PTOV Kal TOV iroTTjplov . . . yivo/jifvas. says. Now it is well known, that 
 
 Dial. p. 386. prayers, lauds, &c. are the evan- 
 
 npoff^fpof^fvuv avT<f 6v<n>i>, rov- gelical incense, succeeding in the 
 
 TfffTi rov &prov TTJS evxapiffTtas Kal room of the legal : therefore, to 
 
 TOV iroTypiov. Dial. p. 22O. make everything correspond, the 
 
 P It may be suggested (see John- spiritual services of the Eucharist 
 
 son, part i. p. 271) that the word are properly our memorial, our in- 
 
 avdfivriffis, memorial, was used in cense, and not the material ele- 
 
 relation to the show-bread, Levit. ments.
 
 XII. in a Sacrificial View. 323 
 
 Athenagoras may come next, who has not much to our pur- 
 pose : but yet something lie has. He observes, that ' God needs 
 no blood, nor fat, nor sweet scents of flowers, nor incense, being 
 himself the most delightful perfume : but the noblest sacrifice 
 in his sight, is to understand his works and ways, and to lift 
 up holy hands to him q.' A little after he adds, ' What should 
 I do Avith burnt offerings, which God has no need of 1 ? But it is 
 meet to offer him an unbloody sacrifice, and to bring him a 
 rational service 1 ".' Here we see what the proper Christian sacri- 
 fices are, namely, the spiritual sacrifices of devout prayers, and 
 obedience of heart and life. The service is, with this writer, the 
 sacrifice. He takes notice of God's not needing burnt offerings, 
 and the like. All material sacrifices considered as gifts to God, 
 were apt to insinuate some such idea to weak minds : but the 
 spiritual services do not. In our eucharistical solemnity we 
 consider not the elements, when presented before God, as pro- 
 perly our gifts to him, but as his gifts to us s ; which, we pray, 
 may be consecrated to our spiritual uses. We pay our acknow- 
 ledgments for them at the same time : and that makes one part, 
 the smallest part, of our spiritual sacrifice, or service, in that 
 solemnity. It may be worth noting, that here in Athenagoras 
 we find the first mention of unbloody sacrifice, which he makes 
 equivalent to reasonable service : and he applies it not particu- 
 larly to the Eucharist, but to spiritual sacrifices at large. An 
 argument, that when it came afterwards to be applied to the 
 Eucharist, it still carried the same meaning, and was chosen with 
 a view to the spiritual services contained in it, and not to the 
 material oblation, or oblations, considered as such. 
 
 Irenaeus, of the same time, will afford us still greater light, 
 with regard to the point in hand. He is very large and diffuse 
 
 i iicrio av-rw fj.fyia"rt], &r yivdiffKca- 8 Hence came the usual phrase, 
 
 p.fv rls ftTftvf, K. T. \., Kal frra'pwutv so frequent in liturgic Offices, ra 
 
 otriovs x f ?P as avTy. Athenag. pp. era K Ttav <rS>v Sdpwv crot irpoff<pfpo- 
 
 48, 49. ed. Oxon. ptv, We present unto thee the 
 
 r T 8* /uoj 6\oKavTu>ffav, 5>v ^ things that are thine out of thy 
 
 Sfirai 6 &t6s ; Kal roi vpoa<f>fpfiv own gifts : that is. by way of 
 
 Sfov avai^aK-rov Bvcriav, Ka\ TTJV \oyi- acknowledgment. See the testi- 
 
 K.TIV irpoffdyftv \a.rptiav. Athenag. monies collected in Deylingius, Ob- 
 
 p. 49. servat. Miscellan. pp. 201, 312. 
 
 T 2
 
 334 The Eucharist considered CIJAP. 
 
 upon the distinction between the typical sacrifices of the Law *, 
 and the true sacrifices of the Gospel". He seems to mean by 
 typical there the same that St. Austin, before cited, meant by 
 signs. Those external sacrifices were symbols, tokens, pledges of 
 the true homage, or true sacrifice ; which Irenaeus interprets of 
 a contrite heart, faith, obedience, righteousness x , &c. referring to 
 several texts y of the Old Testament and New, which recommend 
 true goodness as the acceptable sacrifice. He understands the 
 Gospel incense, spoken of in Malachi 2 , of the prayers of the 
 saints a , according to Rev. v. 8. He makes mention also of an 
 altar in heaven, to which the prayers and oblations of the Church 
 are supposed to ascend, and on which they are conceived to be 
 offered by our great High Priest to God the Father b . The 
 thought, very probably, was taken from the golden altar men- 
 tioned in the Apocalypse c , and represented as bearing the mys- 
 tical incense. The notion of a mystical altar in heaven became 
 very frequent in the Christian writers aTter Irenaeus d , and 
 was in process of time taken into most of the old Liturgies, 
 Greek, Latin, and Oriental; as is well known to as many as are 
 at all conversant in them. The notion was not new : for the 
 Old Testament speaks of prayers, as ' coming up to God's holy 
 
 * ' Per sAcrificia autem et reliquas a ' In omni loco incensum offertur 
 typicaa observantias, putantes propi- nomini meo, et saerificium purum. 
 tiari Deum, dicebat eis Samuel/ &c. Incensa autem Joannes in Apo- 
 Iren. lib. iv. cap. 17. p. 247. edit, calypsi orationes esse ait sancto- 
 Bened. rjun.' Iren. 1. iv. c. 17. p. 249. 
 
 u ' Verum saerificium insinuans, b ' Est ergo altare in caelis (illic 
 
 quodofferentespropitiabunturDeum, enim preces nostrae et oblationes 
 
 ut ab eo vitam percipiant : quemad- diriguntur) et templum ; quemad- 
 
 modum alibi ait ; Sacriticium Deo modum Joannes in Apocalypsi ait, 
 
 cor tribulatum, odor suavitatis Deo, Et apertum est tenjpium Dei.' Iren. 
 
 cor clarificans cum qui plasma vit.' ibid. 
 
 Ibid. p. 248. c Rev. viii. 3, 5. Vid. Vitringa 
 
 * ' Non sacrificia et bolocausto- in loc. Dodwell on Incensing, pp. 
 mata quaerebat ab eis Deus, sed 39 44. 
 
 fidem, et obedientiarn, et justitiam, d Clemens Alex. p. 209. Origen. 
 
 propter illorum salutem.' Ibid. p. Horn, in Joan. xvii. p. 438. Gregor. 
 
 249. Nazianz. vol. i. pp. 31, 484, 692. 
 
 y i Sam. xv. 22. Psalm 1. 14; Chrysostom. in Heb. Horn. xi. p. 
 
 li. 17. Isa. i. 16, 17. Jerem. 807. Cyrill. Alex, de Adorat. lib. 
 
 vii. 22, 23. Hos. vi. 6. Philip, iv. ix. p. 310. Apostol. Constitut. lib. 
 
 18. viii. cap. 13. Augustin. Serm. 351. 
 
 * Malach. i. II. de Poeiiit. p. 1357. torn. v.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 325 
 
 dwelling-place, even to heaven 6 :' and the New Testament fol- 
 lows the same figure of speech, applying it both to prayers and 
 alms-deeds, in the case of Cornelius f . 
 
 Irenaeus, as I have observed, understood the incense, mentioned 
 in the Prophet, of the evangelical sacrifice of prayer : but then 
 it is to be further noted, that he distinguished between the in- 
 cense and the pure offering, and so understood the latter of 
 something else. He understood it of the alms or oblations that 
 went along with the prayers ; referring to St. Paul's doctrine, in 
 Phil. iv. 1 8, which recommends charitable contributions, as 'an 
 odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to 
 God;' as also to Proverbs xix. 17, 'He that hath pity upon 
 the poor lendeth unto the Lord e.' Such were the pure offerings 
 of the Church, in Irenaeus's account ; and they were spiritual 
 sacrifices : for it is the service, not the material offering, which 
 God accepts in such cases, as Irenaeus himself has plainly inti- 
 mated n . It must be owned that Irenaeus does speak of the 
 eucharistical oblations under the notion of presents brought to 
 the altar, offered up to God, for the agnizing him as Creator of 
 the world, and as the giver of all good things, and for a testimony 
 of our love and gratitude towards him on that score i. This he 
 calls a pure sacrifice k , present, offering, and the like : and since 
 the bread and wine so offered were certainly material, how shall 
 
 e 2 Chron. xxx. 27. Compare primitias suorum munerum in Novo 
 
 Tobit iii. 16 ; xii. 12. Wisd. ix. 8. Testamento,' &c. Irenaeus, lib. iv. 
 
 f Acts x. 4. cap. 17. p. 249. 
 
 e Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251. k ' Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Do- 
 
 u ' Qui enim nullius indigens est minus docuit offerri in universo 
 
 Deus, in se assumit bonas opera- mundo, purum sacrificium reputa- 
 
 tiones nostras, ad hoc ut praestet turn est apud Deum, et acceptum 
 
 nobis retributionem bonorum &uo- est ei : non quod iridigeat a nobis 
 
 rum.' Iren. ibid. p. 251. sacrificium, sed quoniam is qui of- 
 
 ' ' Suis discipulis dans eonsilium, fert, glorificatur ipse in eo quod 
 
 primitias Deo offerre ex suis crea- offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. 
 
 turis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut Per munus enim erga regem et 
 
 ipsi ncc infructuosi nee ingrati sint, honos et affectio ostenditur : quod 
 
 eum qui ex creatura panis est ac- in omni simplicitate et innocentia 
 
 cepit, et gratias egit, &c. . . . Novi Dominus volens nos ofFerre, praedi- 
 
 Testamenti novam docuit oblatio- cavit, dicens, Cum igitur offers mu- 
 
 iiem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis nus tuum ad altare,' &c. Irenaeus, 
 
 accipiens, in universo mundo offert lib. iv. cap. 1 8. p. 250. 
 Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat,
 
 326 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 we distinguish the sacrifice he speaks of from a material sacrifice, 
 or how can we call it a spiritual sacrifice \ A learned foreigner, 
 being aware of the seeming repugnancy, has endeavoured to re- 
 concile the author to himself, by saying, that the eucharistical 
 oblation may still be reckoned a spiritual sacrifice, on account of 
 the prayers, lauds, and offerings going along with it, which are 
 spiritual services 1 . Another learned gentleman observes, that 
 according to Irenaeus, the very life and soul .of the new oblation 
 rests in the prayers by which it is offered up, and which finish or 
 perfect the spiritual oblation m . The solution appears to be just, 
 so far as it goes : but I would take leave to add to it, that the 
 material offering, in this case, is not properly a present made to 
 God, though brought before him : for it is not consumed (like a 
 burnt offering) in God's immediate service, nor any part of it, 
 but it goes entire to the use of man, not so much as any particle 
 of it separated for God's portion, as in the legal sacrifices 11 . 
 Therefore the material offering is not the sacrifice ; but the com- 
 municant's agnizing the Creator by it ; that is properly sacrifice, 
 and spiritual sacrifice, of the same nature with lauds. I may 
 add further, that those eucharistical oblations were, in Irenaeus'e 
 account, contributions to the Church and to the poor, as is plain 
 by his referring to Prov. xix. 17, and Phil. iv. 18, which I noted 
 before : and therefore he looked upon them as evangelical and 
 spiritual sacrifices, falling under article the first of the recital 
 given above. For it is not the matter of the contributions which 
 constitutes the sacrifice, but it is the exercise of benevolence, and 
 that is spiritual, and what God accepts. Under the Law, God 
 
 1 ' Non satis sibi constare videtur merer!.' Buddaeus, Miscellan. Sacr. 
 
 Irenaeus, qui de sacrifices spiritu- torn. i. pp. 59, 60. 
 alibus antea locutus erat, deque m ' Ex quibus patet animam ob- 
 
 iis acceperat vaticinium Malachiae, lationis novae, quae in Nov. Test, 
 
 quod nunc contra ad oblationes istas juxta Irenaeum fit, et a Christo in- 
 
 eucharisticas trahere videtur. At stituta est, esse preces queis dona 
 
 bene cuncta se habent, si observe- offeruntur. . . . Accedentibus preci- 
 
 mus et ipsam Eucharistiam ratione bus, quibus nomen Dei glorificatur, 
 
 precum et gratiarum actionis, quae ipsi gratiae redduntur, donorumque 
 
 earn comitari solet, et oblationes sauctificatio expetitur, perficitur uti- 
 
 quoque istas, quas cum Eucharistia que spiritualis ilia atque eucharistica 
 
 conjungere moris erat, suum itidem oblatio.' Pfaffius in Irenaei Fragm. 
 
 locum inter sacrificia spiritualia pro- p. 57. " See above, p. 136.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 32 7 
 
 accepted the external sacrifice, the material offering, as to legal 
 effect : but under the Gospel, he accepts of nothing as to any 
 salutary effect at all, but the spiritual service. This is the new 
 oblation, the only one that is any way acceptable under the 
 Gospel, being made ' in spirit and in truth.' 
 
 Some perhaps may object, that such spiritual oblation cannot 
 justly be called new, since it was mentioned by the Prophets, and 
 is as old as David at least, who speaks of the sacrifice of a con- 
 trite heai-t, and the like . All which is very certain, but foreign 
 to the point in hand. For let it be considered, i. That the new 
 covenant is really as old as Adam, and yet is justly called new. 
 2. That though spiritual sacrifices were always the most accept- 
 able sacrifices, yet God did accept even of material sacrifices, 
 under the Mosaical economy, as to legal effect ; and so it was a 
 new thing to put an end to such legal ordinances. 3. That when 
 spiritual sacrifices obtained (as they all along did) under the 
 Law, yet they obtained under veils, covers, or symbols ; and so it 
 was a new thing to accept of them, under the Gospel, stripped of 
 all their covers and external signatures. 4. The Gospel sacrifices 
 are offei-ed in, by, and through Christ, expressly and explicitly ; 
 and so the spiritual sacrifices of the Gospel are offered in a new 
 way, and under a new form P. These considerations appear 
 sufficient to justify Irenaeus's calling the Christian oblation a 
 new oblation : or it may be added, that new light, new force 
 and new degrees of perfection have been brought in by the 
 Gospel to every part or branch both of speculative and practical 
 religion, 
 
 I pass on to Clemens of Alexandria. He maintains constantly, 
 
 See Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- by him, in Christ's name. Hitherto 
 
 fice, part i. p. 264, alias 268. ye have asked nothing in my name 
 
 P ' By him we are to offer : it is says our Saviour ; but hereafter his 
 
 bin merit and mediation that crowns name will give virtue and efficacy to 
 
 the sacrifice. .. .This by him gives all our services: and therefore, to 
 
 the characteristical difference of the gain so gracious an advocate with 
 
 Christian sacrifice from all others : the Father, our prayers and suppli- 
 
 for, otherwise, the sacrifice of praise cations are in the Liturgy offered 
 
 was common to all times before and up in his name, concluding always, 
 
 under the Law. You find in many by the merits of our Lord Jesus 
 
 Psalms a sacrifice of praise and Christ.' Bishop Lany's Sermon on 
 
 thanksgiving, but in none of them Heb. xiii. 15. pp. 13, 14.
 
 328 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 under some variety of expression, that spiritual sacrifices are 
 the only Christian sacrifices. To the question, what sacrifice 
 is most acceptable to Godl he makes answer, in the words 
 of the Psalmist, ' a contrite heart.' He goes on to say : ' How 
 then shall I crown, or anoint, or what incense shall I offer unto 
 the Lord? A heart that glorifies its Maker is a sacrifice of 
 sweet odour unto God : these are the garlands, and sacrifices, 
 and spices and flowers for God 1.' In another place, condemn- 
 ing the luxury of perfumes, he starts an objection, viz. that 
 Christ our High Priest may be thought perhaps to offer incense, 
 or perfumes, above : an objection grounded probably, either upon 
 what the typical high priest did under the Law r , or upon what 
 is intimated of Christ himself under the Gospel 3 : to which 
 Clemens replies, that our Lord offers no such perfume there, but 
 what he does offer above is the spiritual perfume of charity *. 
 He alluded, as it seems, to our Lord's philanthropy, in giving 
 himself a sacrifice for mankind ; unless we choose to understand 
 it of our Lord's recommending the charity of his saints and ser- 
 vants at the high altar in heaven. Clemens elsewhere reckons 
 up meekness, philanthropy, exalted piety, humility, sound know- 
 ledge, among the acceptable sacrifices u , as they amount to sacri- 
 ficing the old man, with the lusts and passions : to which he adds 
 also the offering up our own selves ; thereby glorifying him who 
 was sacrificed for us. Such were this author's sentiments of the 
 Christian sacrifices : he looked upon the Church itself as the 
 altar here below, the collective body of Christians, sending up 
 the sacrifice of prayer to heaven, with united voices : the best and 
 holiest sacrifice of all, if sent up in righteousness *. He speaks 
 slightly of the legal sacrifices, as being symbols only of evan- 
 gelical righteousness y. He makes the just soul to be a holy 
 
 <i Clemens Alex. Paedag. lib. iii. s rb Ovtriaar-fipiov, &c. Clem. Alex. 
 
 c. 12. p. 306. Cp. Strom, lib. ii. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. 8. p. 209. 
 
 pp. 369, 370. u Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. p. 836. 
 
 ' Exod. xxx. 7. * Ibid. p. 848. 
 
 B Rev. v. 8 ; viii. 3. Cp. Vitring. J At fi.fi> yap Kara rbv v6faov Ovcrlai, 
 
 in loc. T^l" Tfpl i>f*as tvo-f&fiav a\\rryopovffi. 
 
 TJ TTJS o-xamjj Sf/trbi/ avaQepftv Ibid. p. 849. 
 TOV Kvpiov, T}}V Trvtvuariti
 
 xn. in a Sacrificial View. 329 
 
 altar z : and as to the sacrifice of the Church, it is ' speech ex- 
 haled from holy souls, while the whole mind is laid open before 
 God, together with the sacrifice a .' Elsewhere, the sacrifices of 
 the Christian Gnostic he makes to be prayers, and lauds, and 
 reading of Scripture, and psalms, and anthems b . Such were 
 Clemens's general principles, in relation to Gospel sacrifices. He 
 has not directly applied them to the particular instance of the 
 Eucharist ; though we may reasonably do it for him, upon probable 
 presumption. It is manifest that he could not consistently own 
 it for a sacrifice of ours, in any other view but as a service carry- 
 ing in it such spiritual sacrifices as he has mentioned : in that 
 view, it might be upon his principles a noble sacrifice, yea, a 
 combination of sacrifices. 
 
 Tertullian may come next, a very considerable writer, who has 
 a great deal to our purpose : I shall select what may suffice to 
 shew his sentiments of the Christian sacrifices. Giving some ac- 
 count of them to the Pagans, in his famous Apology, he expresses 
 himself thus : ' I offer unto God a fatter and nobler sacrifice, 
 which himself hath commanded ; viz. prayer sent out from a 
 chaste body, an innocent soul, and a sanctified spirit : not 
 worthless grains of frankincense, the tears of an Arabian tree c ,' 
 &c. I shall only observe, that if Tertullian had understood the 
 material elements of the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, how easy 
 might it have been to retort upon him the worthless grains of 
 wheat, and the like. But he had no such thought. Prayer and 
 a good life were his sacrifice : and a noble one they are. In an- 
 other place of his works, he says ; ' We sacrifice indeed, but it 
 is with pure prayer, as God has commanded ; for God, the 
 Creator of the universe, hath no need of any incense, or blood d .' 
 
 z Bccubj/ 8t a\r)d}s aytov, T^V 81- Strom, vii. pp. 860, 861. 
 
 Kaiav tyvxiiv. p. 848. Cp. Augustin. c ' Offero ei opimam et majorem 
 
 de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 4. hostiam, quam ipse mandavit ; ora- 
 
 a 'H 0vffia TTjs fKK\7]ffias, \6yos tionem de carne pudica, de anima 
 
 oTrb TUV ayldiv tyvx&v avaOv/j.Ka/j.tvot, innocenti, de spiritu sancto profec- 
 
 fKKa\vTTTo/j.evris a/j.a rrjs 6v<rias, Kal tarn : non grana thuris unius assifi, 
 
 TTJS Siavoias airacrTjs ry Qty. Clem. Arabicae arboris lacrymae,' &c. Ter- 
 
 Alex. p. 848. lull. Apol. cap. xxx. p. 277. edit. 
 
 b Qvcriat nfv aim?, ei>xai Tt Kal Havercamp. 
 
 alvoi, KO.\ irpb TTJJ fffnavfias fvrtv^fis A ' Sacrificamus . . . sed quomodo 
 
 5f Kal v^voi, &o. Deus praecepit, pura prece : non
 
 
 33 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 How obvious might it have been to retort, that God has no need 
 of bread or wine, had that been the Christian sacrifice : but 
 Tertullian knew better ; and still he rests it upon pui-e prayer, 
 that is, prayer together with a good mind. Let us hear him 
 again : ' That we ought not to offer unto God earthly, but 
 spiritual sacrifices, we may learn from what is written, The 
 sacrifice of God is an humble and contrite spirit : and else- 
 where, Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay 
 thy vows unto the Most High. So then, the spiritual sacrifices 
 of praise are here pointed to, and a troubled spirit is declared 
 to be the acceptable sacrifice unto God e .' What Justin Martyr 
 rejected as material sacrifice, our author here rejects under the 
 name of earthly, or terrene. Are not bread and wine both of 
 them terrene ? Therefore he thought not of them, but of some- 
 thing spiritual : and he has named what ; viz. lauds and thanks- 
 givings, and discharge of sacred vows, all from an humble and 
 contrite heart : these were the acceptable sacrifices, in his ac- 
 count. He goes on, in the same place, to quote Isaiah against 
 carnal sacrifices, and Malachi also, to shew that spiritual 
 sacrifices are established f . In his treatise against Marcion, he 
 again refers to the Prophet Malachi, interpreting the pure offer- 
 ing there mentioned, not of any material oblation, but of hearty 
 prayer from a pure conscience s ; and elsewhere, of giving glory, 
 and blessing, and lauds, and hymns h . Which, by the way, may 
 serve for a comment upon Justin and Irenaeus, as to their ap- 
 plying that passage of Malachi to the Eucharist : they might do 
 it, because the spiritual sacrifices here mentioned by Tertullian 
 make a great part of the service. It would have been very 
 
 enim egit Deus, conditur universi- cor contribulatum acceptabile sacri- 
 
 tatis, odoris, aut sanguinis alicujus.' ficium Deo demonstratur.' Tertull. 
 
 Tertull. ad Scap. cap. ii. p. 69. adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 188. 
 Eigalt. f Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 188. 
 
 e ' Namque, quod non terrenis * ' Sacrificium munduin : scilicet 
 
 sacrifices, sed spiritalibus, Deo li- simplex oratio de conscientia pura.' 
 
 tandura sit, ita legimus ut scriptum Tertull. contr. Marc. lib. iv. cap. i. 
 
 est, Cor contribulatum et humilia- p. 414. 
 
 turn hostia Deo est. Et alibi, Sacri- h ' Sacrificium mundum : gloriae 
 
 fica Deo sacrificiurn laudis, et redde scilicet relatio, et benedictio, et laus, 
 
 Altissimo vota tua. Sic igitur sacri- et hymni.' Adv. Marc. lib. Ui. cap. 
 
 ticia spiritalia laudis designantur, et 22. p. 410.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 331 
 
 improper to interpret one part of spiritual service, viz. of prayer, 
 and the other of a material loaf. In another treatise, Tertullian 
 numbers up among the acceptable sacrifices, conflicts of soul, 
 fastings, watchings, and abstemiousness, with their mortifying 
 appurtenances >. But besides all this, there is, if I mistake not, in 
 the latter part of his Book of Prayer (published by Muratorius, 
 A. D. 1713) a large and full description of the eucharistical 
 sacrifice, which will be worth the transcribing at length. After 
 recommending the use of psalmody along with prayers, and the 
 making responses in the public service, he then declares that such 
 kind of prayer, so saturated with psalmody, is like a well fed 
 sacrifice : but it is of the spiritual kind, such as succeeded in the 
 room of all the legal sacrifices. Then referring to Isaiah i. 
 n, to shew the comparative meanness of the Jewish sacrifices, 
 and to John iv. 23, for the right understanding the evangelical, 
 he proceeds thus : ' We are the true worshippers and the 
 true priests, who worshipping in spirit, do in spirit saci'ifice 
 prayer, suitable to God and acceptable ; such as he has re- 
 quired, and such as he has provided for himself. This is what 
 we ought to bring to God's altar [by way of sacrifice] devoted 
 from the whole heart, fed with faith, decked with truth, by 
 innocence made entire, and clean by chastity, crowned with a 
 feast of charity, attended with a train of good works, amidst 
 the acclamations of psalms and anthems V The reader will 
 
 1 ' Sacrificia Deo grata : conflic- Evangelium docet : Veniet hora, in- 
 
 tationes dico animae, jejunia, seras quit, cum veri adoratores adorabunt 
 
 et aridas escas, et appendices hujus Patreni in spiritu et veritate ; Deus 
 
 officii sordes.' De Resurrect. Carn. enim Spiritus est, et adoratores ita- 
 
 cap. viii. p. 330. que tales requirit. Nos sumus veri 
 
 k ' Diligentiores in orando subjun- adoratores, et veri sacerdotes, qui 
 
 gere in orationibus Alleluia solent, Spiritu orantes, Spiritu sacrificamus 
 
 et hoc genus Psalmos, quorum clau- orationem Dei propriam et accepta- 
 
 sulis respondeant, qui simul sunt : bilein, quam scilicet requisivit, quam 
 
 et est optimum utique institutum sibi prospexit. Hanc de toto corde 
 
 omne, quod proponendo et hono- devotain, fide pastam, veritate cura- 
 
 rando Deo competit, saturatam ora- tain, innocentia integram, castitate 
 
 tionera, velut optimam [opimam] mundam, agape coronatam, cum 
 
 hostiam admovere. Haec est enim pompa bonorum operum inter psal- 
 
 Lostia spiritalis, quae pristina sa- mos et hymnos deducere ad Dei 
 
 crificia delevit. Quo mihi, inquit, altare debemus.' Tertull. de Orat. 
 
 multitudinem sacrificiorum vestro- cap. xxvii., xxviii. pp. 52, 53. edit, 
 
 rum ? . . . Quae ergo quaesierit Deus, Murator.
 
 332 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 here observe, how the author most elegantly describes the Chris- 
 tian and spiritual sacrifice of prayer, in phrases borrowed from 
 material sacrifices ; with an heifer, or bullock in his mind, led up 
 to the altar to be sacrificed : and his epithets are all chosen, as 
 the editor has justly observed, so as to answer that figure \ But 
 what I am principally to note is, that this was really intended 
 for a description of the eucharistical sacrifice : which is plain 
 from the circumstances : i. From his speaking of the public 
 psalmody, as going along with it m , and the responses made 
 by the assembly. 2. From the mention made of God's altar. 
 3. And principally, from what he says of the feast of charity, 
 which is known to have been connected with the service of the 
 Eucharist, or to have been an appendage to it n , at that time ; 
 for which reason, that service may very properly be said to have 
 been crowned with it. These circumstances sufficiently shew, 
 that Tertullian had the Communion Service in his mind, and 
 that was the sacrifice which he there chose to describe ; a com- 
 plicated sacrifice, consisting of many articles, and all of them 
 spiritual, but all summed up in a right faith, pure worship, and 
 good life. Such is the Christian sacrifice ; and such we ought 
 to bring constantly to the Lord's table, to the holy and mystical 
 altar. 
 
 To the same purpose speaks Minucius Felix, not long after 
 Tertullian. The only gifts proper to be offered to God by Chris- 
 tians, are Christian services, Christian virtues, according to his 
 account . To offer him anything else, is throwing him back his 
 own gifts, not presenting him with anything of ours. What 
 could Minucius therefore have thought of offering him bread and 
 
 1 ' Orationi, quam hostiam spiri- offeram, quas in usum mei protulit, 
 
 talem appellat, singula tribmit, quae ut rejiciam ei suum munus ? Ingra- 
 
 victimis carneis conveniebant, nimi- turn est : cum sit litabilis hostia 
 
 rum ut de toto corde voveatur Deo, bonus animus, et pura mens, et 
 
 ut sit pasta, curata, Integra, munda, sincera conscientia. Igitrur, qui in- 
 
 corouata.' Muratorius in Notis, p. 53. nocentiam colit, Domino supplicat ; 
 
 m ' Quorum clausulis respondeant, qui justitiam, Deo libat ; qui fraudi- 
 
 qui Minul sunt.' bus abstinet, propitiat Deum ; qui 
 
 n See Bingham, book xv. chap. 7. hominem periculo subripit, opiraam 
 
 sect. 7, 8. Suicer. Thesaur. torn. i. victimam caedit. Haec nostra sacri- 
 
 p. 26. ficia, haec Dei sacra sunt.' Minuc. 
 
 ' Hostias et victimas Domino Fel. sect, xxxii. p. 183.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 333 
 
 wine, if considered as gifts or sacrifices to God ] It is manifest, 
 that he must have understood the service, not the elements, to 
 be the Christian gift, and Christian sacrifice. 
 
 Origen falls in with the sentiments of the earlier Fathers, as 
 to spiritual sacrifices, and their being the only Gospel sacrifices. 
 Fqr when Celsus had objected to Christians their want of altars, 
 he replies : ' The objector does not consider, that, with us, 
 every good man's mind is his altar, from whence truly and 
 spiritually the incense of perfume is sent up : viz. prayers from 
 a pure conscience P.' Then he refers to Rev. v. 8, and to 
 Psalm cxli. 2. A little higher up in the same treatise, he speaks 
 of Christians presenting their petitions, sacrifices, and supplica- 
 tions; beseeching Christ, since ( he is the propitiation for our 
 sins,' to recommend the same, in quality of High Priest, to 
 the acceptance of God the Father <i. We may here observe, 
 that the altar which he speaks of is spiritual, as well as the 
 sacrifice. Had he known of any material altar, or material 
 sacrifice, (properly so called,) among Christians, this was the 
 place for him to have named it. It is true, the Lord's table is 
 often called altar in the ancient monuments, and it is a material 
 table : and the alms also and oblations made at the same table, 
 for the use of church and poor, are material, as well as the table. 
 But the service is spiritual, and that is the sacrifice, there 
 offei-ed : and therefore the table, considered as an altar, an altar 
 for spiritual sacrifice, is a mystical, spiritual altar. So if a man 
 offers his own body as a sacrifice for the name of Christ upon a 
 scaffold, his body is material, and so is the scaffold also : but 
 nevertheless, the sacrifice is spiritual, and the scaffold, considered 
 as an altar, must be a spiritual altar, to make it answer to the 
 sacrifice, as they are correlates. This I hint by the way, in order 
 to obviate some wrong constructions, which have been made r of 
 
 P OvX opiav, on 0cajj.ol p.4v elffiv a|iowTs ourbi', fAao^tbc ovra. wepl 
 
 i}H<.v Tb eicdcrTov rSiv SiKaituv r)yffj.ov- rSiv a/Aa.pricai> fifiiai', irpoffayayfiv $ 
 
 IKUV, a(f>' ov draTTfjUTrerai a\i]6ws Kal 'A.px<- f p*& T * s fvx&St K d Taj 0u<n'ar, 
 
 voTjris ewiSrj dvfj.tdjj.ar a, 01 irpiMTfvxa-l KO.I fas evrfv^fis rj/j.Sii' rf eVl Tram 
 
 airb ffuffi^fftcas Kadopas. Origen. 0<p. p. 751. 
 contra Ce!s. p. 755. r gee Johnson's Unbloody Sacrt- 
 
 i 'fit KpiuTov npoff<pfpofj.iv ulna*, fice, part i. p. 30, alias 31.
 
 334 T&e Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 a material table and material elements. It is true, the table is 
 material, and the elements also material : but so far as one is 
 considered or called an altar, it is spiritual and mystical ; and so 
 far as the other are called a sacrifice, they also are spiritual and 
 mystical. The holy table is called an altar, with regard to the 
 spiritual services, that is, sacrifices sent up from it, and so it is a 
 spiritual altar: then as it bears the symbols of the grand sacrifice 
 applied in this service, and herein feasted upon by every worthy 
 communicant, it is a symbolical or mystical table, answering to 
 the symbolical and mystical banquet. But I pass on. 
 
 Cyprian, of that age, speaks as highly of spiritual sacrifices as 
 any one before or after him. For in an epistle written to the 
 confessors in prison, and not permitted to communicate there, he 
 comforts them up in the manner here following : ' Neither your 
 religion nor faith can suffer by the hard circumstances you are 
 under, that the priests of God have not the liberty to offer and 
 celebrate the holy sacrifices. You do celebrate, and you do 
 offer unto God a sacrifice both precious and glorious, and 
 which will much avail you towards your obtaining heavenly 
 reAvards. The holy Scripture says, The sacrifice of God is a 
 broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart God doth not despise, 
 Psalm li. 17. This sacrifice you offer to God, this you celebrate 
 without intermission, day and night, being made victims to 
 God, and presenting yourselves as such, holy and unblemished, 
 pursuant to the Apostle's exhortation, where he says, I beseech 
 you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present 
 your bodies, &c. Rom. xii. i. For this is what pleases God : 
 and it is this by which our other services are rendered more 
 worthy, for the engaging the Divine acceptance. This is the 
 only thing that our devout and dutiful affections can offer under 
 the name of a return for all his great and salutary blessings : 
 for so by the Psalmist says the Spirit of God, What shall I 
 render, &c. Psalm cxvi. 12, 13, 15. Who would not readily 
 and cheerfully take this cup 8 ?' The remarks here proper 
 are as follow : i. That the author looked upon the Eucharist as 
 
 8 Cyprian, Epist. Ixxvi. p. 232. ed. Oxon., alias Epist. Ixxvii. p. 159. 
 ed. Bened.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 335 
 
 an oblation, or sacrifice, or complication of sacrifices. 2. That 
 in case of injurious exclusion from it, he conceived that spiritual 
 sacrifices alone were equivalent to it, or more than equivalent to 
 the ordinary sacrifices therein offered.- 3. That therefore be 
 could not suppose any sacrifice offered in the Eucharist to be the 
 archetypal sacrifice itself, or to be tantamount to it : which I note 
 chiefly in opposition to Mr. Dodwell, who imagined that the 
 ancients ' reckoned the Christian Eucharist for the archetypal 
 sacrifice of Christ upon the cross f :' an assertion, which must 
 be very much qualified and softened, to make it tolerable. The 
 Eucharist, considered as a Sacrament, is indeed representative 
 and exhibitive of the archetypal sacrifice ; not as offered, but as 
 feasted upon by us, given and applied by God and Christ to every 
 worthy receiver. Therefore that excellently learned man inad- 
 vertently here confounded the sacrificial view of the Eucharist 
 with the sacramental one, and man's part in it with what is 
 properly God's. What we give to God is our own service, and 
 ourselves, which is our sacrifice : but the archetypal sacrifice 
 itself is what no one but Christ himself could offer, whether 
 really or symbolically. We represent it, we do not offer it in the 
 Eucharist; but it is there sacrameatally or symbolically to us 
 exhibited, or applied. 4. It may be noted of Cyprian, that he 
 judged the devoting our whole selves to God's service and to 
 God's glory, to be the most acceptable sacrifice which we are 
 capable of offering : and his preferring the sacrifice of martyrdom 
 (other circumstances supposed equal) to the ordinary sacrifice of 
 the Eucharist, was conformable to the standing principles of the 
 Church, in preferring the baptism of blood to the baptism of 
 water u . 
 
 It remains to be inquired, in how many senses, or upon what 
 accounts, St. Cyprian styled the Eucharist a sacrifice, i. He 
 might so style it on account of the lay-offerings therein made, 
 which were a spiritual sacrificed 2. Next, on account of the 
 sacerdotal recommendation of the same offerings to the Divine 
 
 1 Dodwell of Incense, p. 55. 
 
 u Yid. Dodwell. Cyprian. Dissert, xiii. p. 420, &c. 
 
 v See above, chap. i. p. 26.
 
 336 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 acceptance x : which was another spiritual sacrifice. 3. On 
 account of the prayers, lauds, hymns, &c. which went along with 
 both the former, and were emphatically spiritual sacrifice. 4. On 
 account of the Christian charity and brotherly love signified by 
 and exemplified in the service of the Eucharist : for that Cyprian 
 looked upon as a prime sacrifice of it y. 5. On account of the 
 grand sacrifice applied by Christ, commemorated and feasted on 
 by us (not properly offered) in the Eucharist z . Such commemo- 
 ration is itself a spiritual service, of the same nature with lauds, 
 and so makes a part of the spiritual sacrifice of the Eucharist. 
 In these several views, Cyprian might, or probably did, look upon 
 the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and accordingly so named it. 
 
 There is one particular passage in Cyprian, which has been 
 often pleaded by Romanists in favour of a real sacrificing of 
 Christ in the Eucharist, and sometimes by Protestants, amongst 
 ourselves, in favour of a material sacrifice at least, or of a 
 symbolical offering up of Christ's body and blood to God the 
 Father. The words of Cyprian run thus : ' If Jesus Christ, our 
 Lord and God, be the High Priest of God the Father, and 
 first offered himself a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded 
 this to be done in commemoration of himself; then that 
 Priest truly acts in Christ's stead, who imitates what Christ 
 did, and then offers a true and complete sacrifice in the Church 
 to God the Father, if he begins so to offer, as he sees Christ to 
 have offered before a .' From hence it has been pleaded, that 
 
 * See above, p. 26. Pope Innocent de Orat. p. 211. edit. Bened., p. 150. 
 
 I. clearly expresses both, in these Oxon. 
 
 words : 'De nominibus vero recitan- * See above, chap. i. pp. 25, 31. 
 diw, antequam preces sacerdos faciat, ' Si Jesus Christus, Dominus et 
 atque eorum oblationes, quorum no- Deus noster, ipse est summus sacer- 
 inina recitanda sunt, sua oratione dos Dei Patris, et sacrificium Patri 
 commendet, quam superfluum sit, et seipsum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri 
 ipse pro tua prudentia recognoscis : in sui commemorationem praecepit ; 
 ut cujus hostiam nee dum Deo of- utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere 
 feras, ejus ante nomen insinues,'&c. fungitur, qui id, quod Christus fecit, 
 Harduin. Concil. torn. i. p. 997. imitatur, et sacrificium verum et pie- 
 s' ' Sic nee sacrificium Deus recipit num tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Pa- 
 
 dissidentis Sacrificium Deo majus tri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum 
 
 est pax nostra et fraterna concordift, quod ipsum Christum videat obtu- 
 
 et de imitate Patris et Filii et Spiri- lisse.' Cyprian. Ep. Ixiii. p. 109. 
 
 tus Sancti plebs adunata.' Cyprian. And see above, ch. i. p. 25.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 337 
 
 Christ offered himself in the Eucharist, and that the Christian 
 Priests ought to do the same that he did ; that is, to offer, or 
 sacrifice, Christ himself in this Sacrament. But it is not certain 
 that Cyprian did mean (as he has not plainly said) that Christ 
 offered himself in the Eucharist : he might mean only, that 
 Christ offered himself upon the cross, and that he instituted this 
 Sacrament as a commemoration of it. As to the words true and 
 complete sacrifice, he certainly meant no more, than that Christ 
 offered both bread and wine, and had left it us in charge to do 
 the same : and this he observed in opposition to some of that 
 time, who affected to mutilate the Sacrament by leaving out the 
 wine, and using water instead of it, which was not doing the 
 same that Christ did. 
 
 However, I think it not material to dispute whether Cyprian 
 ideally intended to teach, that our Lord offered himself in the 
 Eucharist, since it is certain, that some Fathers of eminent note 
 in the Church, after his days, did plainly and in terms affirm 
 it b : and other Fathers admitted of our Lord's offering, or de- 
 voting himself previously to the passion c . And they are therein 
 followed by several learned moderns, even among Protestants d ; 
 who ground the doctrine chiefly on John xvii. 19. A sufficient 
 answer to the objection (so far as concerns the Komish plea 
 built thereupon) is given by our incomparable Bishop Jewel, in 
 these words : 'We deny not but it may well be said, Christ at his 
 last supper offered up himself unto his Father : albeit, not really 
 and indeed, but in a figure, or in a mystery ; in such sort as we 
 say, Christ was offered in the sacrifices of the old Law, and, as 
 
 b Hilarius, in Matt. c. xxxi. p. Sacrif. pp. 307, 370. Witsius, Mis- 
 
 743. ed. Bened. Arnbrosius, de Mys- cellan. Sacr. torn. i. dissert. 2. not. 
 
 ter. Paschae, c. i. Gregor. Nyssen. 87. In Symb. Apost. Exercit. x. p. 
 
 de Kesurr. Christi, seu Pasch. i. 147. Whitby on John xvii. 19. Zor- 
 
 Hesychius in Levit. pp. 55, 56; cp. nius, Opusc. Sacr. torn. ii. p. 251. 
 
 J 69, 376, 540. Cp. Steph. Gobar. Deylingius, Observat. Miscel. p, 
 
 apud Phot. Cod. 232. p. 902. Missal. 560. Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 Gotho-Gallican. p. 297. et Mabillon. part i. pp. 6 1 96. part ii. pp. 4 10. 
 
 in Praefat. et alibi. N.B. These authors suppose that our 
 
 c Chrysostom. in Joan. Horn. Lord devoted himself beforehand, 
 
 Ixxxii. 484. Cyril. Alex, de Adorat. gave himself on the cross, presented 
 
 lib. x, p. 350. In Joan. lib. iv. c. 2, himself in heaven : one continued 
 
 p. 354. oblation in all, but distinguished into 
 
 d Mede, Opp. p. 14. Outram de three several parts, views, or stages. 
 
 Z
 
 338 The Eucharist considered CHAP, 
 
 St. John says, The lamb was slain from the beginning of the 
 world, as Christ was slain at the table, so was he sacrificed at 
 the table ; but he was not slain at the table verily and indeed, 
 but only in a mystery e .' This is a just and full answer to the 
 Romanists, with whom the good Bishop held the debate. But it 
 may still be pleaded by those who maintain a material sacrifice, 
 that this answer affects not them, since they contend only, that 
 Christ offered the symbols in the Eucharist, and himself under 
 those symbols, that is, in a mystery ; just as a man offers to 
 God houses or lands, by presenting a sword, or piece of money, 
 or pair of gloves, upon the altar of a church, or transfers an 
 estate by delivery of parchments, and the like : and if Christ 
 thus symbolically offered himself a sacrifice in the Eucharist, 
 why may he not be, in like manner, symbolically offered in the 
 Eucharist at this day f 1 This, I think, is the sum and substance 
 of what is pleaded by some Protestants in favour of a symboli- 
 cal sacrifice, as offered in the Eucharist. To which I answer : 
 i. That no one has any authority or right to offer Christ as a 
 sacrifice (whether really or symbolically) but Christ himself. 
 Such a sacrifice is his sacrifice, not ours; offered for us, and not 
 by us, to God the Father. If Christ in the institution offered 
 himself under those symbols, (which however does not appear ?,) 
 he might have a right to do it : we have none, and so can only 
 commemorate what he did, and by the same symbols. 2. If we 
 symbolically sacrifice anything in the Eucharist, it is only in 
 such a sense as St. Austin (hereafter to be quoted) speaks of ; 
 where he considers the bread and wine as symbols of the united 
 body of the Church. We may so symbolically offer up, or sacri- 
 fice ourselves, and that is all : more than that cannot comport 
 with Scripture, or with the principle of the ancients, that all our 
 sacrifices are made in and by Christ. He is not the matter or 
 subject of our sacrifices, but the Mediator of them : we offer not 
 him, but we offer what we do offer, by him h . 3. If the thing 
 
 e Jewel, Answer to Harding, p. S Vid. Sam. Basnag. Annal. torn. 
 
 417 ; compare pp. 426, 427. i. pp. 371, 372. 
 
 f See Johnson's Collection of Sax on h Heb. xiii. 15. 'Per Jesum Chris- 
 Laws, &c. praef. p. 57, &c. turn offert Ecclesia. . . . Non recepe-
 
 xn. in a Sacrificial View. 
 
 symbolically offered in the Eucharist were Christ himself, then 
 the offerer or offerers must stand in the place of Christ, and be 
 as truly the symbols of Christ in their offering capacity, as the 
 elements are supposed to be in their sacrificial capacity. Then 
 not only the Priests, but the whole Church, celebrating the 
 Eucharist, must symbolically represent the person of Christ, and 
 stand in his stead : a notion which has no countenance in Scrip- 
 ture or antiquity, but is plainly contradicted by the whole tura 
 and tenor of all the ancient Liturgies, as well as by the plain 
 nature and reason of the thing. 4. I may add, lastly, that all 
 the confusion, in this article, seems to arise from the want of 
 distinguishing the sacrificial part of the Eucharist from the 
 sacramental one, as before noted : we do not offer Christ to God 
 in the Eucharist, but God offers Christ to us, in return for our 
 offering ourselves. We commemorate the grand sacrifice, but do 
 not reiterate it ; no not so much as under symbols. But God 
 applies it by those symbols or pledges : and so, though there is 
 no symbolical sacrifice of that kind, neither can be, yet there is 
 a symbolical grant, and a symbolical banquet, which is far better, 
 and which most effectually answers all purposes. In short, there 
 is, as the Apostle assures us, a communion of Christ's body and 
 blood, in the Eucharist, to every worthy receiver. The real and 
 natural body is, as it were, under symbols and pledges, conveyed 
 to us here, where the verity is not : but to talk of our sending 
 the same up thither, under the like pledges, where the verity 
 itself is, carries no appearance of truth or consistency ; neither 
 hath it any countenance either in Scripture or antiquity. 
 
 I now go on to Lactantius, Avho is supposed to have nourished 
 about A. D. 318. The Christian sacrifices which he speaks of, 
 are meekheartedness, innocent life, and good works. He allows 
 of no sacrifices but of the incorporeal invisible kind, being that 
 such only are fit for God, who is incorporeal and invisible, to 
 receive, under the last and most perfect dispensation of the 
 
 runt verbum per quod offertur Deo.' Evang. lib. i. c. 10. p. 39. Cp. Au- 
 
 Iren. lib. iv. c. 17, 18. pp. 249, 251. gustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. c. 20. 
 
 ed. Bened. ?$ M irdvTwv irpoa-fyfpeiv Apo.stol. Const, lib. ii. c. 25. pp. 
 
 0e<, 5ict rov ira.vT<av a.v<ind.Tov ap^ie- 240, 241. 
 pe'ais aiiroD StSiSiry/xefla. Euseb. Dem. 
 
 Z 2
 
 34-O The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 Gospel. He distinguishes between gifts and sacrifices, because 
 the Pagans had so distinguished : but in the last result, he lays 
 no stress upon that distinction, indifferently reckoning a good 
 life, either as a gift or a sacrifice. However, where he seems at 
 all to distinguish, he chooses to make integrity the gift, and such 
 an one as shall continue for ever ; while he appropriates the name 
 of sacrifice, emphatically so used, to lauds, hymns, and the like, 
 which he supposes are appointed for a time only*. 
 
 We may now come down to Eusebius, of the same century, a 
 man of infinite reading, and particularly conversant in Christian 
 antiquities. He speaks of ' the venerable sacrifices of Christ's 
 table, by which officiating, we are taught to offer up to God 
 supreme, during our whole lives, the unbloody, spiritual, and to 
 him most acceptable sacrifices, through the High Priest of his, 
 who is above all k .' For the clearer understanding of what 
 he meant by ' the unbloody, spiritual sacrifices,' let him explain 
 himself in the same page, where he says : ' The prophetic oracles 
 make mention of these incorporeal and spiritual sacrifices : Offer 
 unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the 
 Most High.' And again, ' The sacrifice of God is a contrite 
 spirit V &c. Hence it is manifest, that Eusebius did not mean 
 by sacrifices the sacred symbols, which are corporeal, but the 
 spiritual services of prayers, praises, and a contrite heart, as he 
 expressly mentions. Which will appear still the plainer, by his 
 quoting, soon after, the noted place of Malachi, and expounding 
 
 * Quisquis igitur his omnibus prae- vi. c. 24, 25. 
 
 ceptia caelestibus obtemperaverit, hie k To fff/j.va TT}S Xpiffrov rpa.-ir4Qr,s 
 
 cultor est veri Dei, cujus sacrificia Ovuara, Si' wv Ka\\ifpovvrfs, TO.S avat- 
 
 sunt mansuetudo aniini. et vita in- povs Kal \oyiKas avry T irpo<nr)vf'is 
 
 nocens, et actus boni. . . . Duo sunt Ovirlas, Sia navr^s /Si'ou, ry M irdv- 
 
 quae offerri debeant, donum et sa- r<av irpocr<peptii' 0% Sia rov Trdv-rtav 
 
 crificium : donum in perpetuum, aa- avwdrov apx.itpf<as avrov SeSiSdy- 
 
 crificium ad tempus. . . . Deo utrum- /xeflo. Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. i. 
 
 que incorporate offerendum est, quo c. 10. p. 39. 
 
 utitur. Donum est integritas animi, ' Tavras 5e ird\iv rciy aff<a/j.drovs 
 
 Bacrificium Jaus et hymnus. Si enim Kal vofpcis Bva-'ias TO. vpo<py\TiKa xrjpvr- 
 
 Deus non videtur, ergo his rebus coli ret \6yta . . , Bvffov T<? t$ 6vffia.v 
 
 debet, quae non videntur. . . . Summus aiVe rrews, Kal aw68os rf in^iffrca TOCJ 
 
 igitur colendi Dei ritus est, ex ore tvxds <rov . . . KOI iraA.iv, 6va(a TW &ecf> 
 
 justi hominis ad Deum directa lau- irvtv/jLa a\)VTtTpip\i.<vov. Euseb. ibid, 
 
 datio.' Lactant. de vero Cultu, lib. p. 39.
 
 xii, in a Sacrificial Yiew. 341 
 
 both the incense and pure offering, of prayers and praises. His 
 comment is worth the reciting : ' We offer therefore to God 
 supreme the sacrifice of praise : we offer the holy, the venerable 
 sacrifice, which hath a decorous sanctity : we offer after a new 
 way, according to the New Testament, the pure sacrifice : for 
 the sacrifice to God is said to be a contrite spirit 111 .' He goes 
 on to sum up all in very strong and remarkable words, as here 
 follows : ' Therefore we offer both sacrifice and incense : first, 
 celebrating the memorial of the grand sacrifice by those mys- 
 teries which he has ordained, and presenting our thanksgivings 
 for our salvation, by devout hymns and prayers. Next, we offer 
 up ourselves to him, and to the Logos, his High Priest, resting 
 upon him both with body and soul. Whereupon we endeavour 
 to preserve to him our bodies pure and untainted from all filthi- 
 ness, and to bring him minds free from all evil affection and 
 stain of maliciousness, and take care to honour him by purity of 
 thought, sincerity of affection, and soundness of principles ; for 
 these, we are taught, are more acceptable to him than a multitude 
 of sacrifices, streaming with blood, and smoke, and nidor n .' 
 
 This is an admirable description of the eucharistical solemnity, 
 of the sacrifices contained in it, and of the ends and uses of it, 
 and likewise of the preparation proper for it. But my present 
 concern is only with the sacrificial view of it. Eusebius here 
 takes notice, in the first place, of the grand sacrifice : which is 
 no sacrifice of ours, but we make a memorial of it ; and that 
 very memorial is indeed an article of spiritual service, and so of 
 course makes a part of our own spiritual sacrifice in the Eu- 
 charist . The rest is made up of such other sacrifices as the 
 author has there handsomely enumerated. I shall only observe 
 further of Eusebius, for the cutting off all possible cavils about 
 
 vo/j.fv SJjTa roiyapovf T$ eVl I observed above, p. 322, note p, 
 
 irav-rtav fif 0v<riav alvffftias' 6vofj.fi' that the legal incense was a memorial, 
 
 rb tvQeov Ka\ at/jLvkv Ka.1 tfpoirpeirfs and it was burnt over the show-bread, 
 
 ODjua' 6vofj.ev Katvces Kara TTJV Kaiv^v Lev. xxiv. 7- I 11 'ike manner, our 
 
 5ia0rj7)i' "rfyv KaOap'av Qvalav Ovffia 8e commemorative service is offered up 
 
 Ttf Qtp irvev/Aa ffWTerptfjLutvov (Ipy- to God over the elements, and is 
 
 rat. Euseb. ibid. p. 40 ; cp. c. vi. part of our Gospel incense, consist- 
 
 pp. 19, 20, 21, et in Psalm, p. 212. ing of prayers, lauds, self-hunrilia- 
 
 Euseb. ibid. c. x. p. 40. tion, &c.
 
 342 The Eucharist, considered CHAP. 
 
 his meaning, that in another work of his he expressly teaches, 
 that the unbloody sacrifices will be offered to God, not only in 
 this life present, but also in the life to come P. Certainly, he 
 could not intend it of the eucharistic symbols, but of some- 
 thing else. Cyril of Alexandria has followed him in the same 
 thought, where he supposes the angels to offer the unbloody 
 sacrifices 1. 
 
 Were I now to go on to other Fathers, down to the sixth 
 century, or further, it might be tedious to the reader : but they 
 will all be found constant and uniform in one tenor of doctrine, 
 rejecting all material, corporeal, terrene, sensible sacrifices, and 
 admitting none but spiritual, such as I have mentioned. Neither 
 is there any difference concerning that point between Justin of 
 the second, and Cyril of the fifth century, but that the latter is 
 more full and express for the same thing. However, I shall go 
 on a little further, making choice of a few testimonies, appearing 
 most considerable either for their weight or their accuracy. I pass 
 over Hilary and Basil, with bare references to the pages r : but 
 Gregory Nazianzen may deserve our more especial notice. He 
 was eminently called the Divine, for his exactness of judgment, 
 and his consummate knowledge in theology ; and he has some 
 remarkable passages, very apposite to our present purpose. 
 About the year 379, putting the case, that possibly, through 
 the iniquity of the times, he might be driven from the altar, and 
 debarred the benefit of the Eucharist, he comforts himself thus : 
 ' Will they drive me from the altars 1 But I know, there is 
 another altar, whereof these visible ones are but the figures, 
 
 P Kol 7&p 4v T< irapSvTi fiitf, Kal have added Greg. Nyssen. de Poenit. 
 
 ev r<p fj,f\\ovn Be aleavi, TO. \oyiKa p. 1 70. As to this place of Cyril, he 
 
 S-l'pa Kal rets ai'oujuaKTas r &f<f Ov- supposes it meant of offering Christ's 
 
 alas avairf^iraiv ov Sia\ifj.-n-dvfi 6 5?jAa>- body in heaven. Addend, to part i. 
 
 Ofls \a6s. Euseb. in Hesai. xviii. in part ii. p. 266. A strange thought! 
 
 p. 427. especially considering that angels are 
 
 i Cyrill. Alexandr. de Eecta Fide, supposed by Cyril to be the offerers, 
 p. 160. N. B. The learned author Compare what Lactantius says above 
 of Unbloody Sacrifice once thought, of gifts, as continuing for ever, mean- 
 that mere spiritual sacrifices were ing the tribute of homage, &c., and 
 never called unbloody : but he found so all is clear. 
 
 afterwards that prayers had that epi- r Hilarius, pp. 154, 228, 534, 535. 
 
 thet given them by Constantine. edit. Bened. Basil, torn. iii. pp. 52, 
 
 Apud Sozom. lib. ii. c. 15. He might 207. edit. Bened.
 
 xix. in a Sacrificial View. 343 
 
 &c To that will I present myself, there will I offer the 
 
 acceptable services, sacrifice, oblation, and holocausts, preferable 
 to those now offered, as much as truth is preferable to shadow. 
 
 From this altar no one, who has ever so much a mind to 
 
 it, shall be able to debar me 8 .' Here we may observe, how 
 Nazianzen prefers the spiritual sacrifices even before the sacrifice 
 of the altar, externally considered. A plain argument, that he 
 did not look upon it as the archetypal sacrifice: for, if he had, 
 he could never have been so presumptuous or profane, as to 
 prefer any sacrifice of his own to the sacrifice of Christ. He 
 looked upon the eucharistical sacrifice, externally considered, and 
 in its representative, commemorative view, to be no more than 
 the figure of the archetypal, and a sign of the spiritual sacrifices : 
 therefore he justly preferred the substance before shadows, and 
 the real sacrifice of the heart, before the outward symbols * ; the 
 offering of which was not sacrificing at all, but representing a 
 sacrifice, or sacrifices. 
 
 There is another passage of Nazianzen, worth the reciting ; 
 and so I shall throw it in here, with some proper remarks upon 
 it. He had been setting forth the dignity and danger of the 
 sacerdotal function, which for some time he had studiously 
 declined ; and among other considerations, he urges one, drawn 
 from the weighty concern of well-administering the holy Com- 
 munion, as here follows : ' Knowing that no man is worthy of 
 the great God, and Sacrifice, and High Priest, who has not first 
 presented himself a living holy sacrifice unto God, and exhibited 
 the rational acceptable service, and offered to God the sacrifice 
 of praise, and the contrite spirit, (which is the only sacrifice that 
 God, who giveth all things, demands from us back again,) how 
 
 8 vffia.ffTt]pi<iiv ttp^ovffiv ; ccAA* oT5a the eucharistical sacrifice began to be 
 
 Kal &\\o BvtTta.ffT'fiptoy, ov n'rwoi TCI vvv more and more confined to one par- 
 
 &pca/j.eva.' rovrcf.. .Trapaffrriffo/aai, TOV- ticular meaning, and to be under- 
 
 rci) 6vo-<a SSKTO., Bvffiav Kal Trpoff<popav stood in a narrow sense, as denoting 
 
 Kal 6\oKavTia/j.ara, Kpeirrova rSiis vvv the representation of a sacrifice : 
 
 Trpoffa.yofj.evwv, '6cr<a Kptlrrov <TKIO.S a\-fi- otherwise there would have been 
 
 Qua. . . . TOVTOV fitv OUK aira(i /j.t TOV no room for Nazianzen's preferring 
 
 9v<rtaffT7]piov Tras 6 &ov\6fj.evos. Greg, one to another ; for it would have 
 
 Nazianz. Orat. xxviii. p. 484. Cp. been opposing spiritual sacrifice to 
 
 Albertinus, p. 474. spiritual, and would not have an- 
 
 ' -Hence it may be observed, that swered.
 
 344 'Me Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 shall I dare to offer him the external sacrifice, the antitype of 
 the great mysteries ? or how shall I take upon me the character 
 or title of a priest, before I have purified my hands with holy 
 works u ?' Here it maybe noted, i. That the author distinguishes 
 very carefully between the external sacrifice in the Eucharist, 
 and the internal, between the symbolical and the real. 2. That 
 he did not judge the external sacrifice to be really a sacrifice, 
 or to be more than nominal, since he opposes it to the real, in- 
 ternal sacrifices, judging them to be the only sacrifices required. 
 3. That he judged the external sacrifice to be the sign, symbol, or 
 figure x of a true sacrifice, (viz. of the grand sacrifice,) improperly 
 or figuratively called a sacrifice, by a metonymy of the sign for 
 the thing signified y. 4. That such external, nominal sacrifice 
 has also the name of oblation z , in the same figurative, metony- 
 mical way, as it was presenting to God the signs and symbols of 
 the body broken, and blood shed, and pleading the merits of the 
 passion there represented. 5. That the name of rational or 
 spiritual service, borrowed from St. Paul a , is not a name for the 
 external sacrifice, in our author, but for the internal of prayers, 
 praises, contrite heart, &c. 6. That the external sacrifice, (being 
 
 n Tavra ovv et'Sais ya>, Kal Sri ' Christ is, in some sense, offered 
 /u.7j5els &ios rov fj.fyd\ov Kal fov, Kal up to God by every communicant in 
 Oiiparos, Kal 'Apxnpf(os, 3<rm fify irp6- the Sacrament, when he does men- 
 rtpov f ambit TrapfffTTjffe Tip &ef Ov- tally and internally offer him to God, 
 ffiav u<rai>, aylav, juqSe edvcre rf e<5 and present, as it were, his bleeding 
 Gvfflav alvffffois Kal irvtvp.0. owrtTpiju- Saviour to his Father, and desire 
 Htvov ($v fj.6vov 6 irdvTa Souy airairfi him for his sake to be merciful to 
 irap' rjfjuav Ovff(av) iruis e/j.f\\ov Bappri- him, and forgive him his sins. This 
 ffai irpoff<pepftv avry r^v efaOtv, rijv internal oblation of Christ and his 
 Tcaif (j.tyd\ti>i> nvffrrjpicav avrirvwov ; t) passion is made by every faithful 
 ircas Upfws a\rifia Kal ovopa viroSve- Christian, &c. . . . The Minister also 
 a~0ai, irplv otrlots ilpyots Te\fiuirai rets .... does offer, as it were, Jesus 
 X? "ipas ; Greg. Nazianz. Orat. i. p. Christ and his sacrifice for the people,' 
 38. &c. Dr. Payne's Discourse on the 
 * This is intimated by the word Sacrifice of the Mass, A.D. 1688, pp. 
 avrirvirov. Cp. Orat. xi. p. 187. 52,53. Compare Abp. Sharpe, vol. 
 Orat. xvii. p. 273. Of which word vii. serm. xi. p. 251, and Deylingius, 
 see Albertinus, pp. 273 283. Pfaf- Observat. Miscellan. p. 315, and 
 fius, pp. 131 145. Pfaffius, who says, This no Pro- 
 s' ~V*id. Suicer. Thesaur. torn. 3. testants deny, pp. 106, 314, 344. 
 pp. 1423, 1424. The oblation, in this view, is but 
 z Intimated in the word irpoffQfpfiv. another name for commemoration; 
 Cp. Cyrill. Hierosol. Myst. v. c. 9. as I have often noted before, 
 p. 328. * Rom. xii. i. AoyiK^ \arpda,
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 345 
 
 the same with the memorial,) if considered as more than vocal, 
 and making a part of the thanksgiving service, may be justly 
 reputed a sacrifice of the spiritual kind, falling under the head 
 of sacrifice of praise. 7. That the spiritual sacrifices, whether 
 considered as previous qualifications, or present services of priests 
 and people, were thought to be the only true and proper sacrifices 
 performed b in the Eucharist : and therefore so far as it is itself 
 a sacrifice, and not barely a sign of a former sacrifice, it is a 
 spiritual sacrifice. 8. Those spiritual sacrifices were believed 
 essential to the Eucharist, considered either as a sacrifice or a 
 salutary sacrament: for, without such spiritual sacrifices, there 
 was no sacrifice performed at all, but a representation of a 
 sacrifice c ; and not of ours, but of our Lord's. And though the 
 Eucharist would still be a sacrament, (not a sacrifice,) yet it 
 could not be salutary either to administrator or receiver, for 
 want of the spiritual sacrifices, to give it life and efficacy ; as is 
 here sufficiently intimated by Nazianzen. 
 
 There is a commentary upon Isaiah, which has been ascribed 
 to St. Basil by critics of the first rate, but yet is probably 
 rejected, as none of his, by the last learned editor of Basil's 
 works; who allows it however to be an useful piece, and as 
 early as the fourth century, or thereabout. What I mention him 
 for is, that, instead of all the legal sacrifices, he admits of two 
 only, under the Gospel ; our Lord's upon the cross, and ours, 
 which consists in every man's offering his own self d . There is 
 another author, who has commonly gone under the name of 
 St. Chrysostom, but is now rejected as spurious, who divides the 
 sacrifices of the Gospel after the same way : only the latter of 
 the two he subdivides into nine, and so makes ten in all e , and 
 all of the spiritual kind. Cyril of Alexandria has a great many 
 
 b I say, performed ; there is an- per sacramentum memoriae celebra- 
 
 other sacrifice represented, commemo- tur.' Augustin. contr. Faust, lib. sx. 
 
 rated, which was performed 1700 c. 21. p. 348. torn. viii. edit. Bened. 
 years ago upon the cross. d Pseudo-Basil, in Isa. p. 398, &c. 
 
 ' Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis, torn. i. edit. Bened. 
 ante adventum Christi per victimas e Pseudo-Chrysostom.inPsal. xcv. 
 
 similitudinum promittebatur : in pas- p. 631. inter spuria, edit. Bened. 
 
 sione Christi per ipsam veritatem torn. v. 
 reddebatur : post ascensum Christi
 
 346 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 things very clear and express to our present purpose* : but there 
 is one particular passage in his tenth book against Julian, which 
 is so plain, and so full for spiritual sacrifices, in opposition to all 
 material or corporeal sacrifices whatsoever, that nothing can be 
 more so. Comparing the sacrifices of Christians with those of 
 the Jews, he writes thus : ' We sacrifice now much better than 
 they of old did : for here descendeth from heaven, not any 
 sensible fire for a symbol of the ineffable nature but, the Holy 
 Spirit himself, from the Father by the Son, enlightening the 
 Church, and receiving our sacrifices, namely, the spiritual and 
 mental ones. The Israelites offered up to God bullocks and 
 sheep, turtles and pigeons ; yea, and first fruits of the earth, 
 fine flour with oil poured upon it, cakes, and frankincense : but 
 we, discarding all such gross service, are commanded to perform 
 one that is fine and abstracted, intellectual and spiritual. For 
 we offer up to God, for a sweetsmelling savour, all kinds of 
 virtues, faith, hope, charity, righteousness, temperances,' &c. 
 Here it is to be noted, that Cyril rejects adsolutely all corporeal 
 sacrifices, and not only the bloody ones of bulls and goats, and the 
 like. He opposes the Christian mental sacrifices to the sacrifices 
 of fine flour and cakes, and other such gross and sensible sacrifices. 
 How could he do this, if he thought the elements of the Eucha- 
 rist were a sacrifice or sacrifices 1 Are bread and wine at all less 
 gross, or less sensible, than fine flour, cakes, and oil, and other 
 fruits of the earth 1 Or have they any other claim to the name 
 of mental and spiritual sacrifices, than the other also might justly 
 have ? Therefore it is plain, that Cyril never admitted the 
 material elements of the Eucharist, as any part of the Christian 
 sacrifice ; but the spiritual service performed in it, that was the 
 sacrifice. The material elements were signs and symbols of our 
 Lord's sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself, nor any sacrifice at all, in 
 strict propriety of speech : for our own proper sacrifice, as distinct 
 from our Lord's, are our own services of prayer and praise, of faith, 
 and of a good life. Such is the constant doctrine of all antiquity. 
 
 f Cyril. Alex, contr. Julian, lib. 5x. p. 830. 
 
 pp. 307, 308. Comment, in Is. lib. i. Cyrill. Alex, contr. Jul. lib. x. 
 Orat. i. pp. 14, 15. In Malach. i. n. p. 345.
 
 xii. in a Sacrificial View. 347 
 
 I shall close this account with the sentiments of the great 
 St. Austin. His ti'eatise De Civitate Dei may be called his 
 masterpiece, being his most learned, most correct, and most 
 elaborate work ; which lay upon his hands thirteen years, from 
 413 to 426 : he died in 431. Here then we may expect to find 
 his maturest sentiments, laid down with the utmost exactness, 
 relating to the sacrifice of the Eucharist. He comprises all the 
 Gospel sacrifices under two : one of which is our Lord's own 
 sacrifice upon the cross ; and the other is the Church's offering 
 herself. The first of these is represented and participated in the 
 Eucharist, the latter is executed : this is the sum of his doctrine. 
 Of the former he observes h , that it succeeded in the room of the 
 legal sacrifices which prefigured it : of the latter he observes, that 
 the legal sacrifices were signs or symbols of it *. The legal sacri- 
 fices were, in a prophetic and propitiatory view, figures of the 
 former, and in a tropological view, figures of the latter. The 
 body of Christ he considers as twofold, natural and mystical ; 
 one of which is represented by us, and exhibited by Christ in the 
 Eucharist ; the other is offered as a proper spiritual sacrifice k : 
 and the bread and wine in the Eucharist are considered as 
 symbols of both. I say, he considers the sacramental elements 
 not merely as symbols of the natural body, but of the mystical 
 also, viz. the Church *, represented by the one loaf and the one 
 
 h ' Id enim sacrificium successit falsa cesserunt.' Ibid. lib. x. cap. 20. 
 
 omnibus sacrificiis Veteris Testa- p. 256. Cp. lib. xix. cap. 23. p. 227. 
 
 menti, quae immolabatitur in umbra k ' Hoc est sacrificium Christiano- 
 
 futuri.' ' Pro illis omnibus sacrificiia rum, multi unum corpus in Christo : 
 
 et oblationibus corpus ejus offertur, quod etiam sacramento altaris, fide- 
 
 et participantibus ministratur.' Au- libus noto, frequentat Ecclesia, ubi ei 
 
 gust, de Civit Dei, lib. xvii. cap. 21. demonstratur, quod in ea re quam 
 
 p. 484. offert ipsa offeratur.' Ibid. lib. x. c. 
 
 ' ' Per hoc et sacerdos est, et ipse 6. p. 243. 
 
 oblatio : cujus rei sacramentum quo- ' Hujus autem praeclarissimum 
 
 tidianum esse voluit Ecclesia sacri- atque optimum sacrificium nos ipsi 
 
 ficium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sumus, hoc est, civitas ejus : cujus 
 
 sit, seipsam per ipsum discit offerre. rei mysterium celebramus oblationi- 
 
 Hujus veri sacrificii nmltiplicia varia- bus nostris, quae fidelibus notae sunt.' 
 
 que signa erant sacrificia prisca sane- Lib. xix. cap. 23. p. 226. 
 
 torum, cum ob hoc unum per multa * ' Corpus ergo Christi si vis in- 
 
 figuraretur, tanquam verbis multis telligere, Apostolum audi dicentem 
 
 res una diceretur, ut sine fastidio fidelibus, Vos estis corpus Christi 
 
 multum commendaretur. Huic sum- et membra. Si ergo vos estis corpus 
 
 mo veroque sacrificio cuncta sacrificia Christi et membra, mysterium ves-
 
 348 The Eucharist considered CHAP. 
 
 Cup : so that by the same symbols we symbolically consign our- 
 selves over to God, and God consigns Christ, with all the merits 
 of his death and passion, over to us. At length, his notion of 
 the eucharistical sacrifice resolves into one compound idea of a 
 spiritual sacrifice, (wherein the communicants offer up them- 
 selves,) commemorative of another sacrifice, viz. the grand sacri- 
 fice. The offering of the body of Christ is a phrase capable 
 of two meanings ] either to signify the representing the natural 
 body, or the devoting the mystical body : and both are included 
 in the eucharistical service. Such appears to be St. Austin's 
 settled judgment in this article, grounded, as I said, upon 
 St. Paul's. It is a most ridiculous pretence of Father Harduin, 
 (which he pursues through many tedious pages m ,) that, according 
 to St. Austin, Christ's natural body is the sign, and his mystical 
 body the thing signified in the Eucharist : for nothing is plainer 
 from St. Austin, than that the bread and wine are the only signs, 
 and that the things signified by them are both the natural and 
 the mystical body of Christ, both his flesh and his Church. As 
 the word ' offer' is a word of some latitude, he supposes both to 
 be offered in the Eucharist ; one by way of memorial before God, 
 and the other as a real and spiritual sacrifice unto God. 
 
 Having thus traced this matter down through four centuries, 
 and part of the fifth, I cannot think it of moment to descend 
 lower, since the earliest are of principal value, and are alone 
 sufficient. The Fathers were very wise and excellent men, saw 
 very clearly what many learned moderns have had the misfortune 
 to overlook, and agreed perfectly well in many points, about 
 which the moderns have been strangely divided. The Fathers 
 well understood, that to make Christ's natural body the real 
 sacrifice of the Eucharist, would not only be absurd in reason, 
 but highly presumptuous and profane; and that to make the 
 outward symbols a proper sacrifice, a material sacrifice, would be 
 
 trum in mensa Domini positum est, sumus. . . . Recolite enim, quia panis 
 
 mysterium Domini accipitis. . . .Ni- non fit de uno grano, sed de multis.' 
 
 hil hie de nostro adseramus ; ipsum Augiistiu. serm. cexxix. p. 976. Cp. 
 
 Apostolum item audiaraus : cum ergo serm. cclxxii. p. 1103. 
 
 de isto Sacramento loqueretur, ait; m Harduin. de Sacramento Al- 
 
 TJnus panis, unum corpus, multi taris, cap. x.
 
 xn. in a Sacrificial Vieiv, 349 
 
 entirely contrary to Gospel principles, degrading the Christian 
 sacrifice into a Jewish one, yea, and making it much lower and 
 meaner than the Jewish, both in value and dignity n . The right 
 way therefore was, to make the sacrifice spiritual : and it could 
 be no other upon Gospel principles. Thus both extremes were 
 avoided, all perplexities removed, and truth and godliness 
 secured. 
 
 So then here I may take leave of the ancients, as to the pre- 
 sent article. The whole of the matter is well comprised and 
 clearly expressed in a very few words, by as judicious a Divine 
 as any our Church has had : ' We offer up our alms ; we offer 
 up our prayers, our praises, and ourselves : and all these we 
 offer up in the virtue and consideration of Christ's sacrifice, 
 represented before us [I would only add, " and before God"] by 
 way of remembrance or commemoration ; nor can it be proved, 
 that the ancients did more than this : this whole service was 
 their Christian sacrifice, and this is ours .' A learned foreigner 
 has likewise very briefly and justly expressed the nature of the 
 Christian sacrifice ; whose words I have thrown to the bottom 
 of the page P, for the learned reader. 
 
 I shall now shut up this chapter with two or three short 
 corollaries, which naturally offer, and may be of some use. 
 
 i. The first is, that this sacrificial view of the Eucharist 
 squares exactly with the federal view before given. For if it be 
 really a spiritual sacrifice, in or by which every faithful commu- 
 
 " How contemptibly the Romanists P ' Oblatio omnis quae fit a creden- 
 
 speak of a material sacrifice in that tibussubNovoTestamento, est incru- 
 
 view, may be seen in Bishop Morton, enta, et vero castissima, et simplicis- 
 
 (p. 438,) who has collected their sen- sima, quia spiritualis. Sive quis se 
 
 timents upon it. ipsum, sive trui/uo suum, affectum, om- 
 
 Archbishop Sharpe, vol. vii. serm. nesquesuas facilitates et actiones Deo 
 xi. p. 253. If any one is disposed to offerat ut sacrificium ; sive alia a\i- 
 trace this matter down, even to the artt, . ministri verbi, qui in nobis con- 
 dark ages, he will find that most of vertendis laborarunt, nos offerant 
 the Greek and Latin Liturgies con- Deo ; sive preces, (i/xapicrrias, suppli- 
 tain the same notion with the Fathers, cationes nostras feramus ad Deum, 
 of the spiritual sacrifice in the Eucha- ubique eadem ratio : nullus hie fun- 
 rist. See Covel, Acc.of Gr. Church, ditur sanguis, nihil committitur vio- 
 pref. p. 47 ; book, pp. 36, 41, 46, 53, lentum ; actio tota est spiritualis, et 
 67,68, 175. Deyling. Observat. Mis- \oyiicf).' Vitringa in Isa. Ixvi. 21, 
 cellan. p. 310, &c. p. 951.
 
 35 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 nicant devotes himself entirely to God ; and if the sacerdotal 
 offering up our Lord's mystical body be (as St. Austin explains 
 this matter) a sacerdotal devoting all the faithful joining it, to 
 God's service, and to God's glory : then may we again justly 
 conclude, that the sacramental service is a federal, as well as a 
 sacrificial solemnity : because, in this case, the administrator's 
 devoting the communicants, and their devoting themselves to 
 God, is tantamount to a solemn renewing former engagements 
 or covenants made with him, under such symbols as God has 
 appointed, and promised to ratify on his part. 
 
 2. From hence may be understood, how Christians, at large, 
 are priests unto God <i : for every one that sacrificeth, is so far 
 a priest. Therefore Justin Martyr represents Christians in 
 common as so many priests, offering their sacrifices in the Eu- 
 charist 1 ". And Isidorus, so late as the fifth century, does the 
 like 8 , reckoning every man a priest, when he offers up his own 
 body, or himself, a sacrifice unto God, by sacrificing his lusts and 
 passions. Nevertheless, the proper officers, who minister in holy 
 things, and who offer up to God both the sacrifices and sacrificers, 
 are priests in a more eminent and emphatical sense ; as Isidorus 
 observes in the same place, and as the reason of the thing itself 
 sufficiently evidences *. I may further note, that as Christians 
 at large were considered as priests, on account of their offering 
 spiritual sacrifices, so their consecration to such their priesthood 
 was supposed to be performed in or by Baptism : or, in other 
 words, their baptism was their consecration u . 
 
 3. A third corollary is, that the Socinians, or others, who 
 
 i l Pet. ii. 5, 9. Rev. i. 6; v. 10 ; extema Ecclesiae iro\ireia fundato.' 
 
 xx 6. Hunc titulum sibi peculiar! modo 
 
 r Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 386. Cp. vindicant.' Vitringa in Isa. Ixvi. 21. 
 
 Origen. in Levit. horn. is. p. 236. p. 951. Cp. Vitring. in Apocalyps. 
 
 8 Isidorus Pelusiot. lib. iii. ep. 75. p. 335. N.B. This argument is dis- 
 
 p. 284. cussed at large by Mr. Dodwell, De 
 
 * ' Cum omnes credentes N.T. sint Jure Laico Sacerdotali, and by other 
 
 sacerdotes respectu status spiritualis, tracts going along with his. 
 et juris appropinquandi Deo in sum- u Tertullian. de Monogam. cap. 
 
 mo Pontifice Jesu ; ministri verbi, vii. p. 529. Origen. in Levit. horn, 
 
 dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, qua- ix. 238. CyrilL Hierosol. Catech. 
 
 tenus a Deo elect! sunt, ut circa xviii. cap. 33. p. 301. Ambrosiaster. 
 
 sacra publica versentur, respectu de Sacram. lib. iv. cap. i. p. 365. ed. 
 
 quodam oeconomico et externo, in Bened.
 
 xiii. the Holy Communion. 351 
 
 reject both the sacrificial and federal view, do not only causelessly 
 depreciate a venerable sacrament and sacrifice, but at the same 
 time do the greatest disservice imaginable to practical religion. 
 For as the sacrificial notion of the Eucharist, here explained, 
 carries in it the most instructive and compendious lesson of 
 Christian practice, so does the federal notion of the same carry 
 in it the strongest engagements to bind us for ever to it. The 
 removing these awakening hints, and the dissolving these sacred 
 ties, under fair and smooth pretences of supporting practical 
 Christianity, is betraying great want of judgment or want of 
 sincerity; because there cannot be a more dangerous or more 
 fatal way of subverting, by little and little, all true Christian 
 morality. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Of the Preparation proper for the HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 IF we have hitherto gone upon sure grounds, with respect to 
 the nature, ends, and uses of the holy Communion, there can be 
 no doubt made, but that so sacred and so salutary an institution 
 ought to be held in great reverence, and to be observed with all 
 joy and thankfulness, tempered with godly fear. If we consider 
 it either as a Divine ordinance coeval with Christianity, and per- 
 fective of it, or as a solemn memorial of God made man, or as an 
 instrument whereby God vouchsafes to receive us, Christ to dwell 
 in us, and the Holy Ghost to shed his blessed influences upon us ; 
 or if we consider it as the noblest part of Christian worship, the 
 renewing of our covenant with God, the sacrificing of the heart, 
 and the devoting of the affections, and all that we have, to his 
 service, and to his glory; or if we further consider it as a badge 
 of our most ioly profession, and as a band or cement of union? 
 whereby we abide in Christ, and have fellowship with all the 
 family of heaven x ; in which soever of these views we contem- 
 plate this holy ceremony, it must appear to be a matter of 
 infinite concern to us, and highly deserving our most affectionate 
 and devout regards. How we ought to express our esteem of it, 
 
 1 Heb. xii. 22 24.
 
 352 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 is the next thing to be inquired into : and the general rule here 
 is, that we take care to do it in such a way, as may best answer 
 those heavenly and salutary purposes for which this holy 
 Sacrament was ordained. Our esteem or disesteem of it will be 
 seen by our conduct ; by our frequenting or not frequenting it, 
 by our preparing or not preparing for it, as also by our manner 
 of behaviour at the time of receiving, or after. My present con- 
 cern is with the preparatory part. There is something of a 
 preparation of heart, mind, and ways, required for all religious 
 offices y ; much more for this, which is the flower and perfection 
 of all : and now the only remaining question is, what preparation 
 is here requisite, or whereof it consists. The nature and ends of 
 the institution, laid down above, will be our sure marks of 
 direction, and cannot mislead us, if carefully attended to. Let 
 us come to particulars. 
 
 i. Baptism, it is well known, must go before the Eucharist, 
 like as Circumcision was previous to the Passover. A person 
 must be admitted into covenant first, in order to renew ; must be 
 initiated, in order to be perfected ; must be born into the Christian 
 life, before he takes in the additional food proper to support and 
 increase it. Of this there can be no dispute, and so I need not 
 say much of it. There is an instance in antiquity, as high as the 
 third century, of a person who had long been a communicant, and 
 who afterwards found reason to doubt whether he had been 
 validly baptized, and thereupon scrupled the coming again to the 
 Lord's table. His bishop advised him, in that case, (considering 
 how long he had been a communicant, and honestly all the time,) 
 to go on without scruple ; not presuming to give him Baptism, 
 which now seemed to be superseded by the long and frequent use 
 of this other Sacrament 7 . The case was very particular, and 
 the resolution, probably, wise and just : both the scruple on one 
 hand, and the determination on the other, (made with some 
 
 y Eccles. v. i, 2. I Sam. vii. 3. rantly should happen to receive the 
 
 2 Chron. xxxv. 6. Communion, he should forthwith be 
 
 * Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vii cap. 9. baptized, pursuant to such call of God. 
 
 But Timothy, afterwards Bishop of Timoth. Alexandr. Can. I. Hard. p. 
 
 the same see, (about A. D. 380,) de- 1192. torn, i, 
 termined, that if a catechumen igno-
 
 xiii. the Holy Communion. 353 
 
 hesitancy, and scarce satisfactory to the party,) shew how acknow- 
 ledged a principle of the Church it then was, that Baptism is 
 ordinarily a most essential part of the qualification required for 
 receiving the holy Communion. Confirmation besides, is highly 
 expedient a , but Baptism is strictly necessary. 
 
 2. A competent knowledge of what the Communion means is 
 another previous qualification. St. Paul teaches, that a person, 
 coming to the Lord's table, should examine or approve himself, 
 and that he should discern the Lord's body b : both which do 
 suppose a competent knowledge of what the Sacrament means, 
 and of what it requires . And from thence may be drawn a 
 very just and weighty argument against infant communion. But 
 I return to the point in hand. As to the measure of the com- 
 petent knowledge required for receiving the Communion, it must 
 of course vary, according to the various opportunities, abilities, 
 circumstances of the parties concerned ; to be judged of by them- 
 selves, with the assistance of their proper guides. Great care 
 was anciently taken in instructing the adults, called catechumens, 
 in order to Baptism : something of like kind will be always 
 proper, in such circumstances as ours, for the preparing persons 
 for the first time of receiving the holy Communion. 
 
 3. A sound and right faith, as to the main substance of the 
 Christian religion, is another previous qualification for this Sa- 
 crament. For whether we consider it as a renewal of our bap- 
 tismal profession and covenant, which is engaging to observe the 
 Gospel terms; or whether we consider it as an instrument of 
 pardon and grace, and a pledge of the inheritance among the 
 saints in light ; sound faith must undoubtedly be required, to 
 answer such ends and uses of it. Scripture has not directly 
 said so, as there was no occasion for it ; since the very nature of 
 the thing, taking in Scripture principles, very fully and plainly 
 declares it. Accordingly, we find, as early almost as we have 
 any records left, that true and sound faith was very particularly 
 
 a See the Rubric at the end of our p. 331. 
 Order of Confirmation, and the Con- b I Cor. xi. 28, 29 
 stitutions of Archbishop Peckham, c 'OpQbs fiios, apa. naBfofi TJ? KaQri- 
 A.D. 1281. Spelm. Concil. torn. ii. KOWTT?. Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 318. 
 
 A a
 
 354 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 required in those that came to the Lord's table d . Besides a 
 right faith in the general, a particular belief with respect to the 
 graces and benefits of a worthy reception of this Sacrament, was 
 anciently, as well as reasonably, judged to be a previous qualifi- 
 cation for it, requisite to render it salutary to the recipient. It 
 would be tedious to produce authorities for it, and therefore I 
 choose to refer the reader to the collections of that kind already 
 made to our hands e . 
 
 4. Above all things, repentance ought to be looked upon as a 
 most essential qualification for a due reception of the holy Com- 
 munion. All the ends and uses of the Sacrament declare it : the 
 reason of the thing itself loudly proclaims it. For, without that, 
 what is covenanting but playing the hypocrite? What is devoting 
 ourselves to God at his table but lying and dissembling ? How is 
 it possible to hold communion at once with God and Baal, with 
 Christ and Belial ? Or how can the Spirit of God, and the spirit 
 that worketh in the children of disobedience, dwell together 1 It 
 is plain therefore, that repentance, in some degree or other, and 
 a heart turned to God, is essentially necessary to make the 
 Sacrament salutary, yea, and to prevent its proving hurtful to 
 the receiver. 
 
 If we look into the ancients, upon this head, we shall find them 
 with united voice declaring, that repentance is absolutely necessary 
 to make a worthy receiver. Justin Martyr specifies it among 
 the previous qualifications, that the communicant shall be one 
 who 'lives according as Christ has commanded f .' Clemens, of 
 the same century, intimates, that a good lifeS is requisite to a 
 due receiving, and to prevent the receiving unworthily in St. 
 Paul's sense; quoting i Cor. xi. 27, 28. Origen interprets the 
 same words to mean, that the Sacrament must not be taken 
 
 d Kcu Ji rpo<(>)) avrrj KaXftrai trap' Lord's table. Vid. Apostol. Consti- 
 
 fjfiiv vx a P I<rT ^ a > ^ s ovStvl a\\y fj.fra- tut. lib. viii. cap. 12. p. 403. 
 
 crx^f Q6v ("ff-ri, ff r<$ TTtarfvovn a\7]0rj e Bingham, book xv. c. 8. a. 8. 
 
 elvat TO df5i5a.yfj.fva \nr' TI/J.WV. Just. f OVTOIS PIOVVTI us 6 Xpurrbs irap- 
 
 Mart. p. 96. Hitherto belongs the eSwKfi'. Justin. Apol. i. p. 96. 
 
 noted proclamation anciently made B Clemens Alex. 'Op6bs $ioy, a/uo 
 
 by the Deacons, before the Commu- na&fjcrfi TJ? KaOrtKov<rr). Strom, i. p. 
 
 nion began : M^ TJS TUV trfpoSA^tav' 318. 
 Let no misbeliever come to the
 
 xiii. the Holy Communion. 355 
 
 with a 'soul defiled and polluted with sin V St. Cyprian also 
 more than once represents it as receiving unworthily, when a man 
 comes to the Lord's table, before he has expiated his offences, 
 confessed his crimes, purged his conscience, and appeased the anger 
 of God '. All which shews, that he understood the text of St. 
 Paul, not merely of the manner of behaviour at receiving, but of 
 the previous qualifications of the receiver. In the same general 
 way is the Apostle interpreted by the ancient commentators on 
 that chapter K But because some persons had made a distinction 
 between being unworthy to receive, and receiving unworthily ; to 
 cut off all evasion sought for in that nicety, it was replied ; that 
 if the Apostle had restrained even the worthy from receiving 
 unworthily, he had much more restrained every unworthy person 
 from receiving at all ; being that such a one is not capable of 
 receiving worthily, while he continues such, that is, while he goes 
 on in his vices 1 . There is scarce any one principle more univer- 
 sally agreed upon among the ancients, than this, that repentance 
 and newness of life is a necessary preparation or qualification for 
 the holy Communion, and is implied in worthy receiving. 
 
 It has been pleaded, in abatement, that the Apostle, by his 
 caution against receiving unworthily, intended only to censure 
 all irreverent behaviour at the table, and that the censure or 
 
 h 'Ne in anima contaminata et corpori ejus et sanguini,' &c. Cypr. 
 
 peccatis polluta Dominici corporis de Laps. p. 186. Cp. pp. 19, 20, 
 
 Sacramenta percipias. Quicunque 141. edit. Bened. 
 enim manducaverit, inquit, panem, k Chrysostom. in loc. p. 301, et de 
 
 et biberit calicem Domini indigne, Poenit. Horn. vii. p. 326. torn. ii. ed. 
 
 reus erit, &c. . . . Cibus iste sanctus Bened. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Da- 
 
 non estcommunis omnium, nee cujus- mascene, Theophylact, Pelagius in- 
 
 cunque indigiii, sed sanctorum est.' ter Opp. Hieronym , Ambrosiaster, 
 
 Origen. in Lev. Horn. xiii. p. 257. Cassiodorus complex, p. 37. Cp. 
 
 Cp. in Matt. p. 254. ed. Huet. Gregor. Nyssen. de Perfect. Chris- 
 
 1 ' Contumacibus et pervicacibus tian. p. 718. 
 
 comminatur et deuuntiat, dicens : ' ' Quidam sane dicunt, quia non 
 
 Quicunque ederit panem, aut biberit indignum, sed indigne accipientem 
 
 calicem Domini indigne, reus erit revocat a sancto. Si ergo etiam 
 
 corporis et sanguinis Domini. Spretis dignus indigne accedens retrahitur, 
 
 his omnibus atque contemptis, ante quanto magis indignus, qui non po- 
 
 expiata delicta, ante exomologesim test accipere digne ? Unde oportet 
 
 factam criminis, ante purgatam con- otiosum cessare a vitiis, ut sanctum 
 
 scientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdo- Domini corpus sancte percipiat.' Pe- 
 
 tis, ante offensam placatam indignan- lagius in loc. 
 tis Domini et minantis, vis infertur 
 
 A a 2
 
 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 admonition there given concerns rather the manner of receiving, 
 than the previous qualifications of the receiver. But to this 
 pretext sufficient replies have been made by the more judicious ". 
 I may briefly observe, i. That if the Apostle had said nothing 
 at all of unworthy receiving, yet the reason of the thing would 
 shew, that the receiving of the Communion with dispositions 
 repugnant to the end and use of it, is receiving unworthily, and 
 offering an affront to its author. 2. That the Apostle's reproof 
 to the Corinthians, in that chapter, was not levelled barely 
 against an irreverent manner of receiving, but against the ill spirit 
 and the unchristian temper, with which they came to the Lord's 
 table : they were contentious, and full of animosities, split into 
 factions and parties ; and from thence arose all their other dis- 
 orders. Therefore the Apostle both began and concluded his 
 admonition P with particular cautions against the spirit of division 
 then reigning amongst them ; a temper very improper for a feast 
 of love and amity. 3. There is no reason for restraining the 
 Apostle's general rules, laid down upon a special occasion, to that 
 particular case only, especially when the reason of them extends 
 equally to more. The Apostle says, Whosoever shall receive 
 unworthily, &c., not confining what he says of it to this way or 
 that. If it be receiving unworthily, in any ways whatever, his 
 words are general enough to comprehend them all : and so are 
 his other words ; Let every one examine himself, and then eat, &c., 
 and let him discern, discriminate, esteem, reverence the Lord's 
 body. Therefore Chrysostom, upon the place 1, highly extols the 
 wisdom of the Apostle, in making such excellent use of a parti- 
 cular case, as thereupon to lay down general rules for all cases 
 of like nature, for the standing use of the Church in all times to 
 come. Accordingly the judicious Theodoret takes notice, that 
 the Apostle in verse the 27th, where he speaks of receiving un- 
 
 m See Mr. Locke on i Cor. xi. 28. i. n, 12. 
 Arth. Bury's Constant Communicant, P i Cor. xi. 33, 34. 
 p. 250, &.c. i Chrysostom in I Cor. xi. Horn. 
 
 " Jenkins, Remarks on some xxviii. p. 300, &c. Cp. Damascen. 
 
 Books, pp. 140-145. Le Clerc, Bib- in loc. p. 102. Oecumenius, p. 532. 
 
 lioth. Chois. torn. xiii. p. 96. Wol- Theophylact, p. 260. Compare Jen- 
 
 n'us, Cur. Crit. in I Cor. xi. 28. kins, pp. 142, 143. 
 
 " i Cor. xi. 1 8, 19. Compare I Cor.
 
 xiii. the Holy Communion. 357 
 
 worthily, obliquely rebuked the ambitious, and the fornicators, 
 and those also who had eaten of things offered unto idols; and in 
 short, all that come to the Communion with a guilty conscience 1 ". 
 4. Let it be considered, whether such as the Apostle forbids us. 
 to eat with 8 , and whether those whom the Apostle censures as 
 ' partakers of the table of devils V and those whom he elsewhere 
 describes as making one body with harlots u , could be capable, 
 while so abiding, of receiving worthily 1 If they could not, then 
 the general rule of the Apostle, laid down in i Cor. xi. about 
 receiving unworthily, must be understood to extend further than 
 to the particular disorders which occasioned it. But if it be 
 said, that such, so abiding, might notwithstanding receive wor- 
 thily, then these absurdities will follow ; that persons who are 
 not fit for Christians to eat with, or who are communicants of 
 devils ; or who are incapable of being living members of Christ, 
 or temples of the Holy Ghost, are yet capable of worthily receiving 
 that symbolical body and blood of Christ, which are appointed to 
 strengthen our union with him, and which suppose men to be 
 living members of him, at their coming to receive. 
 
 Add to this, that St. Paul himself has elsewhere laid down a 
 general rule, obliging all Christians to come clean to the Chris- 
 tian passover, drawn from the consideration of what was pre- 
 scribed Math respect to the Jewish one x . For if the feast there 
 mentioned does not directly mean the eucharistical feast, but 
 the whole Christian life considered as a feast of holiness ; yet 
 the reason there given will hold more strongly for those particular 
 seasons when we are actually celebrating the memorial of 'Christ 
 our passover Lamb,' as ' sacrificed for us.' For, as at all times, 
 so then more especially, ought we to ' purge out the old leaven,' 
 and to keep the sacred feast with the ' unleavened bread of 
 sincerity and truth.' 
 
 Upon the whole, it must be allowed, that St. Paul's general 
 rule will 'by parity of reason reach further than the particular 
 cases there mentioned, and must be understood to exclude all 
 impenitent offenders. This the Socinians themselves make no 
 
 r Theodoret in i Cor. xi. 27. B i Cor. v. n. * i Cor. x. 10, 21. 
 
 u i Cor. vi. 15, 16. * i Cor. v. 7, 8.
 
 358 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 scruple to allow y ; as indeed it is so clear a case, that there can 
 be but very little room left for any reasonable dispute. 
 
 It remains still to be considered, what repentance really 
 means, or wherein it consists. In the general, it means a new 
 heart, or a serious resolution to amend what we find amiss, to 
 the utmost of our power, and a deliberate intention to live a life 
 of holiness 2 for the future; squaring our conduct, as near as 
 human infirmities will permit, by the unerring rule of God's 
 commandments. To be more particular, there are four principal 
 articles, which the ancients, in this case, most insisted upon, as 
 previous qualifications for receiving the holy Communion ; I 
 shall consider them one by one, but as briefly as may be. 
 
 i. One was, restitution or reparation for any wrongs done to 
 others in their persons, estate, or good name, to the utmost of 
 our ability a . This is but common justice, or moral honesty, and 
 therefore must be looked upon as an essential article of amend- 
 ment. It would lead me too far, to undertake here to state the 
 exact rules or measures of it : those may be learned from sound 
 casuists, who have professedly weighed and considered the sub- 
 ject b . In ordinary cases, an honest mind will not much need 
 an instructor, but every well disposed person may be his own 
 best casuist. All I shall hint is, that for public wrongs public 
 satisfaction is most proper, as being perhaps the only one that 
 can sufficiently repair the public injury : but for secret wrongs, 
 the more secret the reparation is, so much the better, other 
 circumstances being equal ; because so the wrong is repaired, 
 and at the same time ill blood prevented, future suspicions 
 obviated, peace and amity secured. 
 
 To this head belongs what our Lord says ; ' If thou bring thy 
 gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath 
 
 y Crellius, Etbic. Christian, lib. iii. let him not come near. In Hebr. 
 
 c. 10. p. 354. Slichting. in i Cor. Horn. xvii. p. 585. See also above, 
 
 xi. 28. p. 58. Przipcovius in loc. p. 263. 
 
 1 The ancient way was to proclaim See Bingham, b. xv. c. 8. sect, 
 
 before the service be;}an, ayia TO?* 10. 
 
 ayiois. Cyrill. Hierosol. Mystag. v. p. b Bishop Tillotson's Posth. Serm. 
 
 331. A form occurring in all the old cxvi. cxvii. p. 82 &c. fol. edit. Pla- 
 
 Liturgies, and which Chrysostom in- cete, Christian Ca>ui.-t, or Treatise on 
 
 terprets to mean, Et ns OVK itrrlv Conscience, book i. chap 20, 21, 22. 
 
 $) irpoari: w, If a man is not holy, Abridgment of Morality.
 
 xni. the Holy Communion. 359 
 
 ought against thee ; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go 
 thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and 
 offer thy gift c .' The Lord's Supper was not instituted when 
 these words were spoken : nevertheless they are applicable to it, 
 in a view to the general reason on which the rule stands ; and 
 they have been often so applied both by ancients and moderns. 
 Mr. Mede has well proved, that the precept is evangelical d , 
 though worded in Jewish terms, suited to the time wherein it 
 was given. The disciples of our Lord (that is, believers at large, 
 to whom that Divine sermon was directed e ) were Jews and Chris- 
 tians both in one, and therefore could not be properly addressed 
 in any language, but what might competently suit them in such 
 their double capacity. The like was the case with respect to the 
 Lord's Prayer, which though a Christian prayer, was yet formed 
 in such general terms, as might indifferently serve a religious 
 Jew, at the time when it was given. I say then, that the precept 
 delivered by our Lord, about the great duty of reparation to be 
 made to every injured brother, before we offer to God, though an 
 evangelical precept, was yet so worded as to comport with the 
 then present circumstances of the persons to whom it was 
 directed. When circumstances came to be altered, the general 
 reason still continued the same, and the application of it was 
 easy and obvious to every capacity. 
 
 Irenaeus quotes the text, and adapts it to Christian circum- 
 stances in a very just and natural way. Gifts he interprets to 
 mean Christian worship, alms, and oblations : and by altar he 
 understands the high altar in heaven f . Tertullian, in like man- 
 ner, accommodates it to the case of Christians coming to offer up 
 their prayers to God ; intimating, that they ought first to be at 
 peace with their offended brethren, and to bring with them a 
 forgiving temper, as they hoped to be forgiven ?. Both parts 
 are true : but the latter appears foreign with respect t_> this 
 
 c Matth. v. 23, 24. Mount, vol. i. serm. ii. iii. p. 27, &c. 
 
 d Mede, Disc. xlvi. p. 357, &c. edit. f Jren. lib. iv. cap. 18. pp. 250, 
 
 1664. Compare Johnson's Propit. 252. Cp. Pfaffius, pp. 57, 58. 
 Oblat. p. 19, &c., and Lewis's An- s Tertullian. de Poenitent. cap. xii. 
 
 swer to Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 32. p. 147 ; de Orat. cap. x. p. 133 ; et 
 
 e See Blair on the Sermon in the contr. Marc. lib. iv. cap. 9. p. 420.
 
 360 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 text, which relates not to pardoning others who have injured us, 
 but rather to the seeking pardon where we have injured. How- 
 ever, as the two parts are near allied, it was easy to blend ideas, 
 and to run both into one; as several other Fathers did. Cyprian 
 also accommodates the precept to Christian circumstances, inter- 
 preting the gift of prayers, which ought to be offered with a pacific 
 temper of mind h . Elsewhere he applies it to the eucharistical 
 prayers and services . Eusebius and Cyril apply the text much 
 in the same way k . And Origen interprets the gift to mean 
 prayer 1 . The Constitutions called Apostolical interpret 'gift' 
 of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and the precept of enter- 
 taining no enmity against others, and taking what care we can 
 that they may have no just ground of complaint against us ni . 
 Chrysostorn accommodates the precept to the prayers and alms 
 offered at the holy Communion, which would not be accepted, if 
 not brought in charity, and with a peaceful mind n . In another 
 Homily , he presses the point somewhat further, and says many 
 good things of the care we ought to take to make up differences, 
 if possible, even with those who without any just cause are our 
 enemies ; that so we may restore them, and heal their sores, 
 and gain them over to good will. All which is right, if tempered 
 with the rules of Christian prudence, and not strained so far, as 
 to make well disposed and truly peaceable persons stay away 
 from the Lord's table upon needless scruples; arising either 
 from the irreconcilable temper of others, or from a want of due 
 discernment of what is safe, prudent, or proper, under such or 
 such circumstances. Improper or indiscreet overtures made by 
 the offended party towards an offender, may often widen the 
 breach which they mean to heal, and may increase the mischief, 
 instead of curing it. 
 
 Jerome, upon the text, appears rather argute than solid ; 
 where he comments to this effect, if I understand him : 'It is 
 
 h Cyprian, de Oratione, p. 211. "> Constitut. Apostol. lib. ii. cap. 
 
 1 Cyprian de Unit. Eccl. p. 198. 53. p. 260. 
 
 k Eusebius deVit. Constant, lib. iv. n Chrysostom. in Matt. Horn. xvi. 
 
 cap. 41. Cyrill. Hierosol. Mystag. v. p. 217. ed. Bened. torn. vii. 
 
 p. 316. Chrysostom. de Simul. Horn. xx. 
 
 1 Origen. de Orat. p. 198. p. 206, &c. torn. ii.
 
 xiii. the Holy Communion. 361 
 
 not said, if you take anything amiss of your brother, but if your 
 brother takes anything amiss of you ; to make the terms of 
 reconciliation so much the harder. So long as we are not able 
 to pacify the party, I know not whether we ought to offer our 
 gifts unto God P.' This is straining the point too far, if it means 
 anything more than the using all safe, prudent, and reasonable 
 endeavours to remove causeless offences, where a person is 
 ignorant or froward. 
 
 St. Austin, who had a cooler head than Jerome, and was a 
 more exact casuist, has given the justest and clearest account of 
 this text that I have met* with ; perhaps with a design to take off 
 such scruples as Jerome's account might have raised. As to the 
 gift mentioned, he interprets it of prophecy, that is, doctrine, and 
 prayers, and hymns, and the like spiritual services i. And as to 
 the precept, he explains it thus : ' if we call to mind that our 
 brother has ought against us ; that is, if we have any way injured 
 him ; for then it is that he has something against us. But, if 
 he has injured us, then we have something against him : in 
 which case, there is no occasion to go to him for reconcilement. 
 You would not ask pardon of the man that has done you an 
 injury ; it is sufficient that you forgive him, as you desire 
 forgiveness at God's hands for what you have offended in. We 
 are to go therefore to be reconciled, when it comes into our 
 mind, that haply we may have some way injured our brother r .' 
 The sum then of all is, that if we are certain that we have done 
 any man an injury in his person, estate, or good name, or that 
 
 P 'Non dixit, Si tu liabes illiquid p. 167. edit. Bened. torn. iii. 
 
 adversus fratrein tuum, sed, Si frater r 'Siinmentemvenerit.quodaliquid 
 
 tuus habet aliquid adversum te ; ut habeat adversum nos frater ; id est, 
 
 duriorreconciliationis tibi impoiiatur si nos eum in aliquo laesimus : tune 
 
 necessitas. Quamdiu ilium placare eniin ipse habet adversum nos. Nam 
 
 non possumus, neseio an consequen- nos adversus ilium habemus, si ille 
 
 ter munera nosfcra offeramus Deo.' nos laesit : ubi non opus est pergere 
 
 Hieron. in loc. torn. iv. p. 16. edit. adreconciliationem;nonenim veniain 
 
 Bened. postulabis abeoqui tibi fecit injuriam, 
 
 'i ' Quodlibet enini munus offerimus sed tantum dimittes, sicut tibi dimitti 
 
 Deo, sive prophetiam, sive doctrinam, a Domino cupis, quod ipse commi- 
 
 sive orationern, sive hymnum, sive seris. Pergendum est ergo ad recon- 
 
 psalmum, et si quid tale aliud spiritu- ciliationeni, cum in mentem venerit, 
 
 alium donorum animo occurrit,' &c. quod nos forte fratrem in ali quo Jaesi- 
 
 Augustin. de Senn. Domini in Mont, mus.' Augustin. ibid.
 
 3^2 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 we have given just cause of offence, it is our duty and business 
 to make reparation, and to sue first for reconcilement : or if we 
 are not certain, but probably suspect that we have been guilty 
 that way, the same rule will still hold in proportion. But if we 
 have good reason to judge that the person has really injured 
 us, or has causelessly and captiously taken offence where none 
 was given, then be it to himself : there is nothing in this text 
 obliging an innocent person, in such a case, to make the first 
 step towards reconcilement, or to suspend his offerings on any 
 such scruple. There may, in some particular circumstances, be 
 a kind of debt of charity, and Christian condescension, lying 
 upon the injured party, to endeavour to reclaim and pacify 
 the offender by soft and healing ways: but as that is a very 
 nice affair, and the office such as many are not fit for, there 
 lies no strict obligation in such a case, or at least not upon 
 Christians at large, but upon those only who are peculiarly fitted 
 for it. Therefore it falls not properly under the question now 
 in hand, nor within the precept of the text, which is general, 
 extending equally to all Christians. From the summary view 
 here given of what the ancients thought of those words of our 
 Lord, (besides the clearing an important case of conscience, 
 which I chiefly aimed at,) it may be noted by the way, that the 
 gift there mentioned was understood of spiritual saci'ifice only, 
 and the altar also of course must have been spiritual, white con- 
 sidered as an altar : which I take notice of as a confirmation 
 of what hath been advanced in a preceding chapter. But I 
 proceed. 
 
 2. As making restitution for any offences we have committed, 
 is one necessary article of sacramental preparation, so is a readi- 
 ness to forgive any offences committed against us another as 
 necessary an article, and much insisted upon by the ancient 
 churches 8 . This is a rule laid down by our blessed Lord in his 
 Gospel, and made an express condition of our own forgiveness, 
 and left us, for the greater caution, as an article of the Lord's 
 Prayer to be daily repeated. All the difficulty lies in clearing 
 and ascertaining the true and full meaning of the forgiveness 
 * See Bingham, xv. 8. 13.
 
 xin. the Holy Communion. 363 
 
 required. Our Lord in one place says, 'If thy brother trespass 
 against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him ; ' and so 
 again and again, as often as he repents, forgive *. May we then 
 revenge ourselves upon an enemy, if he does not repent 1 No, 
 by no means : vengeance is God's sole right u : man has nothing 
 to do with it. Even magistrates, who, in some sense, are re- 
 vengers, or avengers, to execute wrath x , yet, strictly speaking, 
 are not appointed to dispense vengeance. They do not, they can- 
 not award punishments in just proportion to demerits, as God 
 can do : but they are appointed to act for the safety of the State ; 
 and what they do is a kind of self-defence, in a public capacity, 
 rather than a dispensing of vengeance. So that even they, pro- 
 perly speaking, are not commissioned to revenge : much less can 
 any private persons justly claim any right to it. Forgiveness, 
 if understood in opposition to revenge, is an unlimited duty, 
 knows no bounds or measures, is not restrained to any kind or 
 number of offences, nor to any condition of repenting : but all 
 offences must be forgiven, in that sense, though not repented of, 
 though ever so cruelly or so maliciously carried on and persisted 
 in. Therefore the forgiveness which our Lord speaks of, as 
 limited to the repentance of the party offending, can mean only 
 the receiving a person into such a degree of friendship or 
 intimacy, as he before had : a thing not safe, nor reasonable, 
 unless he shews some tokens of sorrow for his fault, and some 
 signs of a sincere intention to do so no m'ore. Forgive him in 
 such a sense, as to meditate no revenge, to wish him well, and 
 to pray for him, and even to do him good in a way prudent and 
 proper : but admit him not into confidence, nor trust yourself 
 with him, till he repents : for that would be acting too far 
 against the great law of self-preservation. Only take care, on 
 the other hand, not to be over distrustful, nor to stand upon the 
 utmost proofs of his relenting sincerity, but rather risk some 
 relapses. This, I think, in the general, is a just account of 
 Gospel-forgiveness y. 
 
 t Luke xvii. 3, 4. Matt, xviii. 21, x Eom. xiii. 4. 
 
 22, y Compare Abp. Tillotson, Serm. 
 
 u Deut. xxxii. 35. Rom. xii. 19. xxxiii. p. 392. vol. i. fol. edit. Tower- 
 
 Heb. x. 30. son on the Sacraments, p. 298.
 
 3^4 The f reparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 But to prevent all needless scruples, I may explain it a little 
 further, in some distinct articles : i . Gospel -forgiveness interferes 
 not with proper discipline, nor the bringing offenders in a legal 
 way to public justice. An informer may prosecute, a witness 
 accuse, a jury bring in guilty, a judge condemn, and an execu- 
 tioner despatch a criminal, without any proper malevolence 
 towards the party, but in great benevolence towards mankind. 
 2. Gospel -forgiveness interferes not with a person's prosecuting 
 his own just rights, in a legal way, against one that has griev- 
 ously injured him in his estate, person, or good name : for a 
 man's barely doing himself justice, or recovering a right, is 
 not taking revenge. A person wrongs me, perhaps, of a con- 
 siderable sum : I forgive him the wrong, so as to bear him no 
 malice ; but I forgive him not the debt, because I am no way 
 obliged to resign my own property or maintenance to an inju- 
 rious invader. 3. Gospel-forgiveness interferes not with a just 
 aversion to, or abhorrence of, some very ill men ; liars, suppose, 
 adulterers, fornicators, extortioners, impostors, blasphemers, or 
 the like : for such hatred of aversion is a very different thing 
 from hatred of malevolence, may be without it, and ought to be 
 so. We cannot love monsters of iniquity with any love of 
 complacency, neither does God delight in them as such : but 
 still we may love them with a love of benevolence and compas- 
 sion, as God also does z . 4. Neither does Gospel-forgiveness 
 interfere with any proper degrees of love or esteem. A man may 
 love his enemies in a just degree, and yet love his friends better, 
 and one friend more than another, in proportion to their worth, 
 or nearness, or other circumstances. Our Lord loved all his 
 disciples, even Judas not excepted : but he loved one more 
 particularly, who was therefore called ' the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved a ;' and he loved the rest with distinction, and in propor- 
 tionate degrees. 5. I have before hinted, that Gospel -forgive- 
 ness interferes not with rejecting enemies from our confidence, 
 or refusing to admit them into our bosoms. We may wish them 
 well, pray for them, and do them good ; but still at a proper 
 
 1 See Towerson on the Sacraments, pp. 298, 299. 
 John xiii. 23 : six. 26 ; xx. 2 ; xxi. 7, 20.
 
 xiii. the Holy Communion. 365 
 
 distance, such as a just regard for our own safety, or reasons of 
 peace, piety, and charity may require. 6. I may add, that cases 
 perhaps may be supposed, where even the duty of praying for 
 them may be conceived to cease. ' There is a sin unto death : 
 I do not say that he shall pray for it V But in this case, they 
 are not to be considered merely as private enemies, but as public 
 nuisances, and as offending of malicious wickedness, not against 
 man only, but against God and religion. Indeed, charity forbids 
 us to pass such a censure, except it be upon very sure grounds ; 
 which perhaps we can but seldom, if ever, have : but I was 
 willing to mention this case, for the better clearing up St. Paul's 
 conduct in this very article. It may deserve our notice, that he 
 prayed for those who had meanly, and through human infirmity, 
 deserted him in the day of trial, that the sin might not be ' laid 
 to their charge c :' in the same breath almost, speaking of Alex- 
 ander, a wicked apostate, who had most maliciously opposed him 
 and the Gospel, he says ; ' The Lord reward him according to 
 his works <V He would not honour him so far, as to pray for 
 his conversion or forgiveness : or he knew his case to be too 
 desperate to admit of either. Nevertheless, he left the vengeance 
 entirely to God, whose right it was ; and he took not upon him 
 so much as to judge of the precise degree of his demerits, but 
 committed that also to the unerring judgment of God. I am 
 aware, that very considerable Divines, ancient and modern, 
 choose to resolve the case another way, either into prediction by 
 the Spirit, or into apostolical authority : but I humbly conceive, 
 that there is no need of either supposition, to reconcile the 
 seeming difficulty. Only, as I before hinted, an Apostle might 
 better know the desperate state of such a person, than any one 
 can ordinarily know at this day ; and so he might proceed upon 
 surer grounds : on which account, his example is not lightly to 
 be imitated, or to be drawn into a precedent. Enough, I pre- 
 sume, has been here said of the nature, measure, and extent of 
 Gospel-forgiveness, and I may now proceed to a new article of 
 sacramental preparation. 
 
 b i John v. 16. 2 Tim. iv. 16. d 2 Tim. iv. 14.
 
 366 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 3. Another previous qualification, much insisted upon by the 
 ancients e , was a due regard to Church unity and public peace, in 
 opposition to schism in the Church or faction in the State. The 
 reason and the obligation of both is self-evident, and I need not 
 enlarge upon it. It may be noted, that the Corinthians, whom 
 St. Paul reproved, were much wanting in this article of pre- 
 paration ; as appeared by their heats and animosities, their 
 sidings and contests. They did not duly consider this Sacra- 
 ment as a symbol of peace, a feast of amity : they did not discern 
 the Lord's body to be, what it really is, a cement of union, and 
 a bond of true Christian membership, through the Spirit. 
 
 4. A fourth article was mercy and charity towards the poor 
 brethren f . The equity of which is manifest : and it is a duty 
 which has been so often and so well explained, both from the 
 press and the pulpit, that I may here spare myself the trouble 
 of saying a word more of it. 
 
 Having shewn, first, that repentance, at large, is a necessary 
 part of sacramental preparation, and having shewn also of what 
 particulars such repentance chiefly consists, {not excluding other 
 particulars, for repentance means entire obedience,) I may now 
 add, for the preventing groundless scruples, that allowances are 
 always supposed for sins of infirmity, sins of daily incursion, such 
 as are ordinarily consistent with a prevailing love of God and 
 love of our neighbour. The slighter kind of offences ought 
 never to be looked upon as any bar to our receiving, but rather 
 as arguments for receiving, and that frequently, in order to gain 
 ground of them more and more, and to have them washed off in 
 the salutary blood of Christ. 
 
 As to the length of time to be taken up in preparing, there is 
 no one certain rule to be given, which can suit all cases or cir- 
 cumstances : only, when a man has competently adjusted his 
 accounts with God, (be it sooner, or be it later,) then is he fit to 
 come, and not till then. There is an habitual, and there is an 
 actual preparation. The habitual preparation is a good life ; and 
 the further we are advanced in it, the less need there is of any 
 
 e Bingham, xv. 8. II. ' See Bingham, xv. 8. 12.
 
 xiii. the Holy Communion. 367 
 
 actual preparation besides : but because men are too apt to 
 flatter and deceive their own hearts, and to speak peace to them- 
 selves without sufficient grounds for so doing ; therefore some 
 actual preparation, self-examination, &c. is generally necessary 
 even to those who may be habitually good, if it be only to give 
 them a well grounded assurance that they really are so. How- 
 ever, the better men are, the less actual preparation may suffice, 
 and the shorter warning will be needful. Some therefore may 
 receive as often as they have opportunity, though it were ever so 
 sudden or unexpected ; and they may turn it to good account 
 by their pious care and recollection in their closets afterwards. 
 Others may have a great deal to consider of beforehand, many 
 offences to correct, many disorders to set right, much to do and 
 much to undo, before they presume to come to God's altar. 
 
 Fault has been sometimes found with the little treatises of 
 Weekly Preparation, and the like : I think without reason. 
 They are exceeding useful in their kind ; and even their number 
 and variety is an advantage, considering that the tastes, tem- 
 pers, necessities, capacities, and outward circumstances of Chris- 
 tians, are also manifold and various. It may be happy for them 
 who need none of those helps : but they that least need them are 
 not the men, generally, who most despise them. However, they 
 are not obtruded as things absolutely necessary for all, but as 
 highly useful to many, and especially upon their first receiving : 
 though we are none of us perhaps so perfect, as not to want, at 
 some seasons, some such hints for recollection, or helps to de- 
 votion. There may be excesses, or there may be defects in such 
 treatises : what human compositions are without them \ On the 
 other hand, it should be considered, that there may be excesses 
 and defects also in the censures or judgments passed upon them : 
 for human frailties are as much seen to prevail in the work of 
 judging and censuring, as in anything else whatsoever. In the 
 general, it is well for common Christians, that they are so 
 plentifully provided with useful manuals of that kind : they that 
 are well disposed will make use of them as often as they need 
 them, and will at all times give God thanks and praises for 
 them.
 
 368 The Preparation proper for CHAP. 
 
 I have said nothing, hitherto, about coining fasting to the 
 Lord's table, neither need I say much now. The rule was early, 
 and almost universal S ; a rule of the Church, not a rule of Scrip- 
 ture, and so a matter of Christian liberty, rather than of strict 
 command. They that use it as most expressive of Christian 
 humility and reverence, or as an help to devotion, do well; and 
 they that forbear it, either on account of infirmity, or for fear of 
 being indisposed, and rendered less fit to attend the service, are 
 not to be blamed. No one need be scrupulous concerning this 
 matter : none should be censorious either way ; either in rashly 
 charging superstition on one hand, or in charging, as rashly, 
 irreverence on the other. I shall only observe further, that it 
 was a weak thing for so great a man as the justly celebrated 
 Mabillon to draw an argument in favour of the corporal pre- 
 sence, from the custom of the Church in administering or receiv- 
 ing this holy Sacrament fasting h . For as the custom, probably, 
 came in accidentally, either because, in times of persecution. 
 Christians chose to communicate early in the morning for their 
 greater safety, or because abuses had been committed in the 
 previous love feasts ; so was it continued for the like prudential 
 reasons, and then only came to have different colours put upon 
 it, when the reasons which first introduced it were, in a manner, 
 forgotten and sunk. Besides, it was the ancient custom for 
 both the administrator and receiver of Baptism, to come fasting, 
 out of reverence to that Sacrament' : which further shews ho\v 
 slight the argument is, drawn from the custom of fasting before 
 the Eucharist, as to proving anything of a corporal presence. 
 If any man, duly considering how sacred those symbols of the 
 Eucharist are, and to what high and holy purposes they were 
 ordained, looks upon fasting as a proper token of the reverence 
 he bears towards things sacred ; he may as well fast upon that 
 principle, as upon the imaginary notion of a corporal or local 
 presence. 
 
 Bingham, xv. 7. 8. Caspar, lib. i. cap. 6. pp. 60, 61. 
 
 Calvoer. Ritual. Eccles. vol. i. p. ' Martene de Antiq. Eccl. Rit. 
 
 413, &c. Sam. Basnag. Annal. torn. torn. i. p. 25. The like rule was 
 
 ii. p. 295, &c. afterwards made for Confirmation. 
 
 h Mabillon de Liturg. Gallican.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 369 
 
 I have nothing further to add, upon the head of sacramental 
 preparation : but if any one desires to see this article more 
 minutely drawn out, in its full length, he will not perhaps easily 
 find a treatise better fitted to the purpose, than Bishop Taylor's 
 Worthy Communicant k : to that therefore I refer the reader. 
 
 CHAR XIV. 
 
 Of the Obligation to frequent Communion. 
 
 AS to frequency or constancy in receiving the Sacrament, it 
 may be justly said in the general, abstracting from particular 
 circumstances, that a man cannot too often commemorate our 
 Lord and his passion, nor too often return devout thanks and 
 praises for the same, nor too often repeat his resolutions of 
 amendment, nor too often renew his solemn engagements, nor 
 too often receive pardon of sins, and fresh succours of Divine 
 grace : and if coming to the Lord's table (prepared or unpre- 
 pared) were a sure and infallible way to answer those good and 
 great ends, there could then be no question, but that it would 
 be both our wisdom and our duty to communicate as often as 
 opportunities should invite and health permit. But it is cer- 
 tain, on the other hand, that bare communicating is not the 
 thing required, but communicating worthily. Here lies the main 
 stress of all, not to urge frequency of communion so far as to 
 render this holy Saci-ament hui-tful or fruitless to the parties 
 concerned ; neither yet to abate so far of the frequency, as to 
 make a kind of dearth or famine of this so salutary and neces- 
 sary food. Divines in all ages of the Church (unless we may 
 except the first, and part of the second) have found some per- 
 plexity in settling a just mean between the extremes. I do not 
 mean as to theory, or as to the thing considered in the general 
 and in the abstract, but with respect to particular persons, cases, 
 and circumstances ; of which it is very difficult, if not impossible, 
 to judge with unerring exactness. They determined perhaps 
 as well and as wisely, upon the fairest presumptions and pro- 
 babilities, as human sagacity in such dark cases could do : and 
 
 k Taylor's Worthy Communicant, chap. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. pp. 79 357. 
 
 Bb
 
 37 The Olligation to CHAP. 
 
 if they sometimes ran into extremes, either on the right hand or 
 on the left, their meaning all the while was good, and their con- 
 duct such as may reasonably claim all candid construction, and 
 the best natured allowances. One thing is observable, (and I 
 know not whether one can justly blame them for it,) that, for 
 the most part, they seemed inclinable to abate of frequency, 
 rather than of the strictness of preparation or qualification. 
 They considered, that due dispositions were absolutely necessary 
 to make the Sacrament salutary, and were therefore chiefly to 
 be looked to : and they supposed, with good reason, that God 
 would more easily dispense with the want of the Sacrament than 
 with the want of the qualifications proper for it. They thought 
 further, that while a man was content to abstain from the 
 Lord's table, out of an awful reverence for it, there was good 
 probability that such a person would, by degrees, be perfectly 
 reclaimed : but if once a man should set light by those holy 
 solemnities, and irreverently rush upon them, without awe or 
 concern, there could be very little hopes of his conversion or 
 amendment ; because he despised the most sacred bands of alle- 
 giance towards God, and looked upon them only as common 
 forms'. Such were the prevailing sentiments of the ablest 
 Divines and casuists in those ancient times ; as will appear more 
 fully, when I come to give a brief detail of their resolutions in 
 this article, which I shall do presently. 
 
 But I may first take notice, for the clearer conception of the 
 whole case, that, since it is allowed on all hands that there can 
 be no just bar to frequency of Communion but the want of 
 preparation, which is only such a bar as men may themselves 
 remove if they please, it concerns them highly to take off the 
 impediment, as soon as possible, and not to trust to vain hopes 
 of alleviating one fault by another. It was required under the 
 Law, that a man should come holy and clean, and well prepared m 
 to the Passover : but yet his neglecting to be clean (when he 
 might be clean) was never allowed as a just apology for his stay- 
 ing away. No : the absenting in that case was an offence great 
 
 1 Vid. Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. ep. 364, p. 398, alias 345. 
 m 2 Chron. xxx. I, &c. ; xxxv. 3 6, &c.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 371 
 
 enough to deserve the being cut off from God's people n , because 
 it amounted to a disesteeming, and, in effect, disowning God's 
 covenant. The danger of misperforming any religious duty is an 
 argument for fear and caution, but no excuse for neglect : God 
 insists upon the doing it, and the doing it well also. The proper 
 duty of the high priest, under the Law, was a very dangerous 
 employ, requiring the exactest care and profoundest reverence : 
 nevertheless, there was no declining the service ; neither was 
 the exactness of the preparation or qualifications any proper 
 excuse to be pleaded for non-performance. It was no sufficient 
 plea for the slothful servant, under the Gospel, that he thought 
 his Master hard to please, and thereupon neglected his bounden 
 duty P : for the use he ought to have made of that thought was, 
 to have been so much the more wakeful and diligent in his 
 Master's service. Therefore, in the case of the holy Communion, 
 it is to very little purpose to plead the strictness of the self- 
 examination, or preparation, by way of excuse either for a total, 
 or for a frequent, or for a long neglect of it. A man may say, 
 that he comes not to the table, because he is not prepared, and 
 so far he assigns a good reason : but if he should be further 
 asked, why he is not prepared, when he may ; there he can only 
 make some trifling, insufficient excuse, or remain speechless. 
 
 But for the further clearing of this important article of fre- 
 quent Communion, it may be proper to trace the judgment and 
 practice of the churches of Christ from the beginning, and down- 
 wards through six or eight centuries ; which I shall endeavour 
 to do in as plain and few words as the nature of the subject 
 will admit of. 
 
 Century the First. 
 
 In the days of the Apostles, Communions were frequent ; either 
 every day, or at least every Lord's day. Some have probably 
 enough collected from the history of the Acts, that at Jerusalem, 
 the mother church, there was a daily Communion 9, and that in 
 
 n Exod. xii. 15, 19. Num. ix. 13. P Matt. xxv. 24, &c. Luke xix. 
 
 Levit. xvi. 13. Cp. Deyling. 20, &c. 
 Observ. Sacr. torn. ii. n. 41, p. 493; Acts ii. 42, 46. 
 torn. iii. n. 46, p. 454, &c. 
 
 B b 2
 
 372 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 other churches the custom was to have weekly Communions at 
 least, that is to say, upon the Lord's day. But all must be 
 understood of persons fitly prepared, to appearance at least : for 
 it is certain, that open fornicators, extortioners, idolaters, and the 
 like, were not admitted to Communion. Christians were not 
 allowed to keep company with such delinquents, no not to eat 
 common meals s ; much less to communicate. St. Paul gave 
 orders for excommunicating the incestuous Corinthian fc ; and he 
 admitted him not again, till after a very serious and solemn 
 repentance, after his being almost swallowed up of grief u . How- 
 ever, it is observable, that both his exclusion and his readmission 
 were within the compass of a twelvemonth : for St. Paul's two 
 Epistles to Corinth are judged to bear date the same year, 
 namely, A. D. 57. Such are the apostolical precedents for fre- 
 quent Communion if prepared, and for abstaining if not prepared. 
 
 Century tlie Second. 
 
 In the next century we have undoubted evidences of weekly 
 Communions, and particularly on the Lord's day. This is justly 
 collected from the testimony of the younger Pliny above cited x , 
 and is plainly declared by Justin Martyr y, of the same century. 
 None but true believers and men of good lives were permitted to 
 receive, as I before observed z from the same excellent writer : so 
 that frequency of communicating was never urged in derogation 
 of the preparatory requisites, or to make any abatement in them. 
 As to public and scandalous offences, in faith or manners, those 
 the Church could see, and provide against, by debarring the of- 
 fenders from Communion : and as to secret impediments, they 
 took what care they could, by permitting or exhorting such as 
 might be conscious of their own unfitness, to forbear coming to 
 the altar. There is a remarkable passage to this purpose, in a 
 learned writer of the second century, which runs thus : ' Some, 
 after the customary division of the elements, leave it upon the 
 
 r Acts xx. 7. * See above, chap. i. p. 26. 
 
 8 I Cor. v. II, 12. Cp. 2 John 10. J Tfj TOV fi\lov \ryonivri rintp 
 * i Cor. v. 5, 13. K.T. \. Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 97. 
 
 u 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7. x See above, chap. xiii. p. 354.
 
 XIV. frequent Communion. 373 
 
 consciences of their people, either to take their part, or other- 
 wise. For the best rule to determine them in their partici- 
 pation or forbearance, is their own conscience : and the surest 
 foundation for conscience to proceed upon is a good life, joined 
 with a competent measure of proficiency in Christian knowledge. 
 And the best method of coming at the knowledge of the truth, 
 and a right performance of what is commanded, is to choose 
 for your direction persons of most approved faith and conduct. 
 For whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the 
 Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
 Lord : but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of 
 the bread, and drink of the cup a .' Thus far Clemens. And 
 from thence we may observe, that there was yet no standing 
 rule or Canon of the Church, obliging all the faithful to receive 
 as often as they met for Divine Service ; but Christians were 
 left at liberty to judge how far they were fitly qualified in know- 
 ledge, or in godly living : only, it was supposed, that they ought 
 to be fitly qualified ; and if they were, to receive. 
 
 Tertullian, who lived in the close of the same century, takes 
 notice of some who declined receiving, upon the stationary days, 
 (Wednesdays and Fridays,) for fear of breaking their fast b . 
 He blames them for their foolish scruple, and suggests to them 
 a better way, whereby they might keep both their fast and their 
 feast. I may observe from it, that he thought it a duty incum- 
 bent upon all the faithful, to communicate as often as they might; 
 but the Church had not yet enforced the duty with any Canons, 
 obliging them under pain of ecclesiastical censure to receive : for, 
 had that been the case, Tertullian probably would have men- 
 tioned it ; or rather, there would scarce have been room left 
 either for their scruples on one hand, or for his charitable advice 
 on the other. However, from hence perhaps we may date the 
 first beginnings of that coldness and backwardness in point of 
 frequent Communion, which grew up apace amongst Christians 
 afterwards : it is not certain that those persons were sincere in 
 their pretended scruples ; but they might be willing to shift off 
 the duty as decently as they could, under the fairest colours. 
 
 a Clem. Alex. Strom, i. p. 318. b Tertullian. de Orat. cap. xiv. p. 136.
 
 374 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 Century the Third. 
 
 St. Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third 
 century, mentions daily Communions, as the common practice 
 of that time c : and he everywhere speaks highly of the use and 
 benefit of the Sacrament to the worthy receivers : but no man 
 could be more careful to prevent any one's coming to the Lord's 
 table, who had committed any of the grievous sins, and had not 
 yet made full satisfaction to God and the world, by a strict and 
 solemn repentance. 
 
 In this century crept in some superstitious or overcurious 
 conceits about legal defilements d , as a bar to Communion, or even, 
 to coming to the Christian assemblies. Such niceties, while they 
 carried a show of reverence for holy places and things, might 
 notwithstanding have better been let alone ; having no warrant 
 in the Gospel of Christ, nor in the practice of the earlier ages of 
 the Church, so far as appears : neither indeed were they altoge- 
 ther consistent with the ancient custom of daily Communions of 
 all the faithful, which had obtained in some churches. One 
 thing is observable, that during the first three centuries, we meet 
 with no. Canons made to enforce frequent Communion, scarce so 
 much as exhortations to it, or any complaints of neglect in that 
 article : which is an argument that Christians in those times 
 were not tardy in that respect, but rather forward and pressing, 
 under an high notion of the privilege and comfort of partaking 
 of the holy Communion. Therefore the chief care and concern 
 of Church guides, during the first ages, was rather to inculcate 
 the necessity of due preparation, than to insist upon frequency, 
 for which there was less occasion. But times and circumstances 
 soon came to be altered ; as we shall see presently, upon taking 
 a view of the following centuries. 
 
 Century the Fourth. 
 
 In the year 305 (some say, 300, or 303, or 313, or 324) was 
 held a council of nineteen Bishops, at Eliberis, or Elvira, in 
 
 See the whole passage above, drin. Harduin. torn. i. p. 187, &c, 
 chap. vi. p. no. Bevereg. Pandect, torn. ii. p. 4, 
 
 a Vid. Canones Dionys. Alexan- &c.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 375 
 
 Andalusia, a province of Spain. Among many other Canons, a 
 rule was then made, not to accept of an offering from one who 
 did not communicate e . We may judge from hence, that Christ- 
 ians now began to be remiss, with respect to Communion, and 
 that such Canon was intended for a gentle rebuke to them ; a 
 mark of public disfavour, in order to excite and quicken them, 
 first to prepare, and then to receive. Many perhaps might now 
 grow cold and careless as to coming to the Lord's table ; either 
 because they had not a just sense of the use and benefit of it, and 
 of the obligations they were under to it ; or they loved the world 
 too well, and were willing to put off their repentance from day to 
 day, and so of course to stave off that solemn profession which 
 the holy Sacrament required. The like coldness and backward- 
 ness appeared in many of that age, even with respect to Baptism f : 
 for, while they were well-wishers to it, and stood candidates for 
 it, they yet loved to procrastinate and to feign excuses ; because 
 delaying Baptism was delaying repentance, which depraved nature 
 was prone enough to do. The case, very probably, was much 
 the same with respect to this other Sacrament : and hence arose 
 that coldness towards it, which the Church guides of those times 
 wei'e much concerned at, and endeavoured gently to remove. 
 
 When those milder applications did not sufficiently answer, 
 some brisker methods were thought on for the compassing the 
 same good end. In the year 341, a Council of Antioch decreed, 
 That all they who came to Church, and heard the holy Scrip- 
 tures read, and afterwards joined not in prayer with the people, 
 or turned their backs on the holy Communion, after a disorderly 
 way, should be cast out of the Church, till such time as they 
 should make public confession of their fault, and give proofs of 
 their repentance, and humbly sue to be reconciled .' This rule 
 
 e ' Episcopos placuit ab eo, qui torn. iii. p. 216, &c. Compare Bing- 
 
 non coramunicat, munera accipere ham, xi. 6, 2, 3, c. 
 
 non debere.' Concil. Illiberit. Can. s ndvras rovs ej'<n<Was eir rV e/c- 
 
 xxviii. Harduin. 153. K\i\tria.v. Kal riav Itpuv ypa^Siv eucoi'- 
 
 f Vid. Basil. Homil. in Sanct. ovras, /u/Jj KoivavovvTas 5e evxys apa, 
 
 Bapt. p. 114, &c. edit. Bened. torn, rip \aot, ^ airoTpfirofjifvovs r^v aylav 
 
 ii. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 647, (itT<i\ri\l/ii> rf)s tvxapiffTias, icard nva, 
 
 &c. Constit. Apostol. lib. vi. cap. 15. ara(fac, rovrovs a.iro&\-liTovs 
 
 Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism. Opp. rr,s (KKXijffias fois &v
 
 376 The Obligation to' CHAP. 
 
 may seem to be a severe rule, on more accounts than one. i. As 
 it appears to run in general terms, making no express exceptions 
 for those who, for just causes, best known to themselves, might 
 sometimes decline receiving. 2. Supposing any person to absent 
 from the Lord's table, out of reverence to it, (being conscious to 
 himself of some secret offences,) as it was a rule of the Church to 
 excommunicate no man but for open and scandalous sins, it 
 might look hard to excommunicate merely for not receiving con- 
 stantly; because it was, in effect, extending discipline even to 
 the most private and concealed offences, or to other impedimenta. 
 3. Since no one ought to receive but he that sincerely repents ; 
 and since repentance must be free, or it is really no repentance ; 
 it appears not right to excommunicate a man, in order to oblige 
 him to receive, unless it were right also to excommunicate every 
 one who should delay repentance, or who would not instantly be 
 persuaded to reform, so far as to be capable of receiving worthily 
 the holy Communion. This appears not to have been the rule of 
 the earlier centuries : for they left men at liberty to judge (except 
 in cases of open scandal) how far they were worthy or otherwise, 
 and thereupon to choose either to receive or forbear. These or 
 the like reasons, I presume, have put learned men upon softening 
 explications, to mitigate the rigour of the Canon. Emanuel 
 Schelstrate has suggested, that the order then made pointed 
 chiefly at the Audians, or Quarto- decimans h , who held private 
 conventicles, but came occasionally to Church, to hear the Scrip- 
 tures read, and sermons preached, and then departed, in a dis- 
 orderly and scornful manner, upon some erroneous principles of 
 their sect, to the great scandal and offence of the more serious 
 and sober part of the congregation. Schelstrate's account is 
 favoured by two circumstances : one, that the Canon immediately 
 preceding most plainly strikes at the Quarto-decimans, though 
 without naming them ; and the other, that the Canon does not 
 simply and absolutely censure all non-communicants, but some 
 only, with this restriction, as doing it KOTO, nva ara^iav, which 
 
 fjitvoi Kcd Sttlavrts icapirovs fitravolat, ii. Bevereg. Panel, p. 431. 
 icai irapa.Ka\((ravT(s rv\^ v SwaOuxri h Vid. Schelstrate de Concil. Anti- 
 Concil. Antioch. Can. ochen. pp. 179, 222.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 377 
 
 Dionysius Exiguus renders 'pro quadam intemperantia,' with a 
 certain rudeness; and Isidorus Mercator renders 'secunclum 
 aliquam propriam disciplinam,' according to the principles of 
 their own sect. Now, if such was the case, then the rigour of 
 the Canon affected not the main body of the faithful, adhering to 
 the Church, who might be still left to the same discretionary 
 conscientious liberty as before. 
 
 Perhaps the like account may serve for the Apostolical Canons 
 also, so far as concerns this article : Schelstrate was of that 
 mind, and applied the same solution to both \ One of the Apo- 
 stolical Canons orders, ' That if any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, 
 or any of the sacerdotal college, does -not communicate when 
 there is a Communion, [oblation,] he shall be obliged to assign 
 a reason ; and if it be a just one, he shall be excused : other- 
 wise he shall be suspended, as giving offence to the people, and 
 as raising a suspicion upon the administrator, as if he did not 
 salutarily execute his office 1 *.' The last words put me in mind 
 of the fourth Canon of the Council of Gangra, held a few years 
 before the Antiochian : some place it in 324, some in 330; all 
 agree that it was not later than 340. That Canon decrees, 
 ' That if any one takes exception to a married Presbyter, as 
 such, thinking it not lawful to receive the Communion at his 
 hands, let him be anathema 1 .' Whether the Antiochian and 
 Apostolical Canons might not have some view to that case, in 
 what they decreed against any one's turning his back on the 
 Communion, I leave to the learned to consider. 
 
 The next Canon called Apostolical makes a like order with 
 respect to the laity, as the former had done with regard to the 
 clergy : viz. ' That as many of the faithful as came to Church, 
 and did not abide all the time of the prayer and Communion, 
 
 1 Schelstrate, ibid. p. 222. us n^i vyicas art vtyKavTos. Can.Apo- 
 
 k El TIS iirio-Koiros, ^ irpecr/JuTfpoj, stol. vi, alias viii. 
 
 v) Sidicovos, $) IK TOV Ka.ra\6yov TOV ' E5f TIS StaKptvotro irtp\ irpcrf$vTf- 
 
 lepariKov, irpo<r<popus ytvo/j.4vris, /u^ pov yeyaw^ros, us rfi xprii>at, \ti- 
 
 HfTa\d/3oi, T^V al-riav flirdrta' xal lav TovpyJi&avros ouToC, irpofftyopas /j.era- 
 
 ffi\oyos rj, crvyyviafjiris rvyxavtrw tl \afj.Bdvfiv, avdOtpa fffrta. Concil. 
 
 Se fj.^1 Ae'7j7, a<popita6<i>, u>s alnos Gangrens. Can. iv. Hard. p. 530. 
 
 tvnBfls T$ \af, xal vieAvoiav Bevereg. Pand. torn. i. 419. 
 /card TOV irpofftvtynai'T<is,
 
 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 should be excommunicated, as guilty of raising disturbance in 
 the Church m .' It is hard to judge certainly of the parti- 
 cular drift or purport of such Canons, without a more explicit 
 knowledge of the then present circumstances : but it is not likely 
 that they were ever intended to oblige all the faithful to com- 
 municate as often as they came to Divine Service, or to abridge 
 them of the reasonable liberty of judging how far they were 
 prepared for it, and" whether they might not sometimes (provided 
 it were not customary, so as to amount to contempt) abstain 
 from it. Balsamon, in his Notes upon the Apostolical Canon 
 last cited, calls it a very harsh decree n : and so indeed it is, if 
 interpreted with utmost rigour. But he intimates elsewhere, 
 that the Greek Church in his time received it with a softening 
 explication . Schelstrate, as before noted, has suggested another ; 
 and to both I have taken the liberty to subjoin a third. It is 
 not reasonable to think, that a modest and sober departure, 
 before Communion began, (a practice now common, and, I believe, 
 always in use, more or less,) could be looked upon as a dis- 
 turbance : but if it was done out of dislike, or contempt, and upon 
 factious principles, then indeed it would be apt to make great- 
 disturbance ; and that, very probably, was what the compilers of 
 those Canons were solicitous to prevent or remedy. But I return. 
 I proceed in reciting the principles of the fourth century, with 
 regard to frequent Communion. Basil (about the year 372) 
 being consulted on this head, declares it good and profitable to 
 communicate every day ; testifying withal, of the practice of the 
 ehm-ch of Caesarea, where he was, that they celebrated the 
 Sacrament four times a week, (on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, 
 and Saturday,) besides the saints' days, [festivals of martyrs,] as 
 often as they occurred P : but he does not say how diligent or 
 how constant the people were in attending upon it. 
 
 m TldvTas TOOJ fiffi6t>ras ITHTTOVS tls n AiopjiTM^s Spi/j.vrar6s tanv. Bal- 
 
 rV ayiav @eov lKK\^ffia.v, Kal rcav sum. in loc. 
 
 if pav ypa(f>>v aKouocTos, ^ irapanf- Vid. Beveregii Annot. in Apost. 
 
 vovrax Se rrj irpo<revxV Ka ^ r ? &y' l t Can. ix. p. 21. 
 
 jUTo\^6t, us araiav tfutoiovvras TT? P Basil. Epist. xciii. (alias cclxxxix.) 
 
 eKK\i]ffia, a.<(>opieff()ai xpV- Can. Apo- p. 186, ed. Bened. torn. iii. Cp. So- 
 
 stol. vii. alias ix. crat. Eccles. Histor. lib. v. cap. 22.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 379 
 
 Chiysostom, of the same century, somewhat later, will give 
 us the best light, both with respect to the practice of that age, 
 and the rules whereby it was conducted. In one place of his 
 works, he speaks thus : ' Many partake of this sacrifice once a 
 year, some twice, some oftener. Which of them should we 
 most approve oH Those that communicate once, or those that 
 do it often, or those that seldom do it 1 ? Neither the once-comers, 
 nor the often, nor the seldom, but those that come with a clean 
 conscience, a pure heart, and a life unblamable, they that are so 
 qualified should come constantly : but as to them that are not, 
 once is too much for them. And why so 1 Because they will 
 only receive to themselves judgment and condemnation, pains 
 and penalties <i.' Here we may observe how this good Father 
 pressed upon his hearers the duty of constant Communion, but 
 under caution of coming fitly prepared : otherwise he thought it 
 would not be barely fruitless, but hurtful. That was the standing 
 rule of the Church, the settled principle which they constantly 
 went upon, with respect to both Sacraments. For, whatever high 
 notions they might entertain of the use or necessity of Baptism, 
 yet they never would encourage any person to receive it, before 
 they believed him well qualified for it ; but would sometimes 
 keep the catechumens back, for five, or ten, or twenty years, or 
 even to the hour of death, rather than admit them in a state of 
 impenitence, or before they had been well disciplined and proved 1 ". 
 Sacraments were a good superstructure : but the foundation was 
 first and principally to be looked to, the foundation of repentance 
 and a good life. Qualifications ought to go before admission : 
 and service before privileges. But I pass on. 
 
 Chrysostom, in another Homily, reproves the non-communi- 
 cants, and presses frequent Communion in the manner here fol- 
 lowing : ' In vain stand we at the altar, none come to receive. 
 I speak not barely to persuade you to receive, but to make 
 yourselves worthy. You are not worthy [you will say] of the 
 sacrifice, or not fit to receive ? Then neither are you worthy 
 of the prayer : do you not hear the Deacon, when he stands up 
 
 i Chrysostom. in Heb. Horn. xvii. T See Testimonies referred to in 
 p. 856, edit. Paris. Bingham, xi. 6. I.
 
 380 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 and proclaims, As many among you as are under penance, with- 
 draw ? All that do not communicate, are supposed to be 
 under penance. If you are of the number of penitents, you 
 must not receive : for he that does not receive is under 
 penance. "Why does he [the Deacon] say, All ye that cannot 
 pray, depart? And why do you, after that, impudently stay? 
 You are not one of those, you will say, but of those who may 
 receive. Have you then no regard for that, or do you think 
 it a slight privilege ? Consider, I beseech you, &c. Every one 
 that does not partake of the mysteries, is shameless and im- 
 pudent to stand by all the while. You sing the hymn with 
 the rest, and you profess yourself one of the worthy, by your 
 not departing with the unworthy. With what face then can 
 you presume to stay, and yet not partake of the table? You 
 plead, you are unworthy : you are therefore unworthy to join 
 in the prayers, for the Holy Spirit descends, not only in the 
 offering of the elements, but also in the chanting of the hymns 8 / 
 Chrysostom here pleads for frequent Communion, in a strong 
 affecting way, but still loses not sight of the main point, which 
 was the receiving worthily. 
 
 The argument he draws from prayer to Communion has been 
 sometimes misunderstood, and may here deserve to be set right. 
 He does not mean that prayer in general requires the same 
 preparation that the Communion does, or that every one who 
 may properly be admitted to the former may as properly be 
 admitted to the latter also. No : that would run directly counter 
 to the known principles and practice, and standing discipline of 
 
 * Chrysost. in Ephes. Horn. iii. pp. Isa. vi. 3. 
 
 887, 888. But the first and fourth are the 
 
 N. B. The Communion hymns are most ancient : the second and third 
 
 by Goar (Euchol. p. 136) distin- are both later than Chrysostom. The 
 
 guished into four : three last are but one trisagium in 
 
 I. "ffivos a>7Aj)cdj. The angeli- the main, one cherubical, or sera- 
 pal. 'Glory to God on high,' &c. phical hymn, with some variations, 
 
 i. "Ypvos xfpov$i6s. The cherub- additions, and interpolations made 
 
 'ical hymn, in Goar, p. 206. at different times. See Bingham, 
 
 3. "Tfiifos rpiffdyios. Sanctus Deus, xiv. 2, 3 ; xv. 3, 9, 10. Allix. Dis- 
 sanctus fortis, &c. sert. de Trisagii Origine. Renaudot. 
 
 4. "Tjuvos tirivlitios. The triumphal Liturg. Collect, torn. i. p. 228. torn, 
 hymn. 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord,'&c. ii. p. 69.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 381 
 
 the Church in that age : for nothing was more usual than to 
 admit penitents of the foui'th order, to communion in prayers, for 
 two, three, four, or sometimes five years, and all the while to 
 debar them from the holy Communion, as not yet worthy to be 
 admitted to it 4 . But what Chrysostom meant was, that it was 
 very absurd, and even downright impudent, for a man to claim 
 a right to stand by, all the while that the Communion was 
 administering, and to join in those most sacred and mystical 
 prayers and hymns, which were proper to it, and at the same 
 time to pretend that he was not worthy of it : for, if he really 
 was not worthy to receive, he was not worthy to be present 
 during that holy solemnity, or to bear a part in the prayers 
 which peculiarly belonged to it. I know, it has been thought 
 by persons of good learning, that the fourth order of penitents 
 (called a-vviordnevoi, consistentes, in English co-standers, or asso- 
 ciates) were allowed to be present during the whole solemnity, 
 while prohibited from receiving, and that Sunday after Sunday, 
 for several years together : which would have been committing 
 that very absurdity which Chrysostom here so strongly remon- 
 strates against. But I take that prevailing notion to be all a 
 mistake, owing to the want of a right understanding the ancient 
 Canons and ancient phi-ases. Those co-standers were allowed to 
 communicate in prayers with the faithful". What prayers, is 
 the question. I suppose the prayers previous to the holy kiss, 
 previous also to the oblation; which were indeed part of the Missa 
 fklelium, or Communion Service, (like to our prayer for the Church 
 militant,) but were not the proper mystical prayers belonging to 
 the Communion, and of which Chrysostom is to be understood. 
 The co-standers, being the highest order of penitents, had the 
 
 * Concil. Ancyran. Can. 4, 5, 6, catechumens, after the Gospel, or 
 
 7, 8, 9, 16, 24. Concil. Nicen. Can. with the penitents soon after, com- 
 
 II, 11, 13. Basil. Can. 22, 30, 56, municated in prayer, as appears by 
 
 57> 58, 59, 61, 66, 75, 82, 83. Con- the Apostolical Constitutions. Mi; 
 
 cil. Carthag. vi. Can. n. Concil. Koivtavfiroxrav 5e fv rrj irpoffevx^, 
 
 Trull. Can. 87. oAA" f^fpxevOtaffav /ueroc rrji> avajvo. - 
 
 u Ei/x^s 8e novrjs KOivuvriffai. Con- ffiv rov v6fj.ov Kal riOiv irpo<f>tjruf Kal 
 
 cil. Ancyr. Can. iv. Koivtavfia'ai x- ra ^> evayyf\lov. lib. ii. cap. 39. The 
 
 p\s irpoffcpopas. Ibid. Can. vi. So in Council of Laodicea distinctly men- 
 
 the Xicene Canons, and Basil's, '&c. tions what prayers preceded the ob- 
 
 All that did not depart with the lation. Can. xix. p. 786, Harduin..
 
 382 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 privilege to stand in the same place of the Church with the 
 faithful, and to abide there, after the catechumens and lower 
 penitents were dismissed ; and they were permitted to commu- 
 nicate in prayer, till the oblation began, and then they also were 
 to withdraw. This I collect, as from several other circumstances, 
 so particularly from hence, that the Deacons just before the 
 salutation of peace, warned all non-communicants to withdraw x . 
 The co-stauders must of course have been reckoned of that num- 
 ber, being forbid to communicate ; and therefore they must have 
 been obliged to withdraw after the preparatory prayers, and 
 before the Communion, properly speaking, began. Chrysostom 
 himself intimates in another Homily, that all non-communicants 
 were warned to depart y; and that presently after came on the 
 mystical hymn. About that time the co-standers, as I conceive, 
 withdrew. Neither, indeed, is it credible, that so knowing a 
 person as Chrysostom would have represented it as a flaming 
 absurdity for a non-communicant to be present during the whole 
 solemnity, had the custom of the Church allowed it in the co- 
 standers, who were non-communicants. 
 
 It may be objected, that Pope Sirieius (about A. D. 385) 
 allowed or ordered some non -communicants to abide till the whole 
 service was over z : and Sozomen speaks of the custom of the 
 western churches, as obliging the penitents to wait all the time 
 of the Communion Service, in order to receive the Bishop's abso- 
 lution after it was ended 8 . These are the principal passages 
 which have led learned men into a persuasion, that the co-standers 
 were used to be present during the whole solemnity. But they 
 
 * 'f.v rfj dfia avatpopa. 6 Siaxovos sost. Homil. de Fil. Prod. torn. ri. 
 
 Tpoatpavt't irpb TOV affTfafffiOv' ol CLKOI- p. 375, Paris. 
 
 VI!>VI}TOL irepnrar'fia-are. Timoth. Alex. z ' Diximus decernendum, ut sola 
 
 Resp. ix. 1 104, Hard. Ol rrjv icpfarp intra ecclesiam fidelibus oratione jun- 
 
 tuxV fvxfafvoi, irpof \9fTf. Apost. gantur; Sacris niysteriorum celebri- 
 
 Constitut. lib. viii. cap. 12. 'Si quis tatibus, quamvis non mereantur, in- 
 
 non communicat, det locum.' Gre- tersint ; a Dominicae autem mensae 
 
 gor. M. Dial. lib. ii. cap. 23. convivio segregentur,' &c. Siric. 
 
 y Mr) rts TUV KaTTfixov(j.fvu>i>, p-fi TIS Epist. p. 848, Harduin. 
 TUV fitr) fffOiovTiav, fnij ns riav Ka.TO.ffn6- * H \Tr)pta8t iffr\ j TTJJ TOV &tov \fi~ 
 
 irwv, pr) ris TOIV p)] Svya-Ufvuv 8td<ra- Tovpyias. Sozom. lib. vii. cap. 1 6, 
 
 aOat Tbv pdcrxov iaOi6fj.tvov. . . . H.TI TJ p. 300, edit. Cant. 
 avd^tos Tjjy ^uxrris 6u<rias, &c. Chry-
 
 XIV. frequent Communion. 383 
 
 did not observe, that the preparatory service was called the 
 service, or the mass, and that the Communion, properly, began 
 not till that service was ended, and the non-communicants were 
 withdrawn. Gregory Turonensis, of the sixth century, may help 
 to clear this matter : he speaks of the Communion's beginning 
 after the masses or liturgies were ended b . Cyprian, long before, 
 spake much after the same way c . And even Justin Martyr has 
 made mention of the common prayers, as ended, before the Com- 
 munion began, before the holy salutation : and soon after he 
 takes notice of the subsequent prayers and thanksgivings proper 
 to the Communion d . Those subsequent prayers were what 
 Chrysostom spake of, as altogether improper for any to join in, 
 or to be present at, except the communicants themselves. 
 
 A learned writer of our own observes, that 'what in Chry- 
 sostom's time was reckoned a crime, was presently after ac- 
 counted a piece of devotion, for the people to stay and hear 
 the whole solemnity of the service, till the time of communicat- 
 ing, and then they might depart without partaking of the 
 Communion : which was plainly a relaxation of the ancient 
 discipline, and a deviation from the primitive practice 6 .' For 
 this he refers to the Council of Agde of the year 506, and to the 
 first Council of Orleans in 5 1 1 . I take not upon me to defend 
 Avhat was done in later times, but to clear Chrysostom's argu- 
 ment, as consonant to the principles and practice of that age 
 with respect to non-communicants, whether co-standers or others. 
 However, I must observe, with respect even to the Councils of 
 Agde and Orleans, that no order was made for non-communicants 
 to stay during the whole solemnity of the Communion : only, they 
 
 b ' Ubi peractis solemnibus, ad coepit,'&c. Cyprian, de Laps. p. 132, 
 
 sacrosanctum altarium communican- edit. Oxon. 
 
 cli gratia accessisset,' &c. Gregor. d "AAArjAous <f>i\-finan a.<rira.ij(j.f8a, 
 
 Turon. lib. ix. n. 3, p. 419. ira.vffdfj.evoi Ttav fi/x^f firfira irpoa- 
 
 ' Cumque expletis missis, populus <ptptTai rtf irpofffreoTt T>V aSe\<pwf 
 
 coepisset sacrosanctum corpus Re- &pros, KOI irorfyiov SSoToy, Kal Kpdua- 
 
 demptoris accipere.' Greg. Turon. ros. Kal OVTOS \a&iav, alvov Kal $6av 
 
 de Mirac. Mattin. lib. ii. cap. 47, ry Trarpl -ruv 8A.au', 5io TOV 6v6naros 
 
 p. 1060. Cp. Mabillon de Liturg. TOV vlov, Kal TOV irveu/uaroj TOV ayiov, 
 
 Gallican. pp. 35, 36, 51. wwrt^vti. Justin. Mart. Apol. i. 
 
 c ' Ubi vero solennibua adimpletis, pp. 95, 96, edit. Thirlb. 
 
 calicem diaconus offerre praesentibus e Bingham, xv. 4, 2.
 
 384 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 were obliged to wait for the Bishop's benediction, (which was 
 previous f to the most solemn part of the service,) and then to 
 depart. So that though the dismission of the non-communicants 
 might perhaps be deferred somewhat later now, than in Chry- 
 sostom's time, yet dismissed they were before the Communion 
 properly came on ; and the absurdity which Chrysostom com- 
 plained of, that of staying out the whole solemnity without 
 communicating, never was admitted in those days. 
 
 The principal use I had in view, by what I have here said, 
 was to take off a kind of popular plea, which has been sometimes 
 urged in the name of Chrysostom, that every one who may be 
 admitted to prayers, ought to be admitted to Communion also ; 
 and that there is no more reason for absenting from the Com- 
 munion, on account of unfitness, than there is for absenting from 
 prayers on the like account : for it is pleaded, that either a man 
 is fit for both or for neither. Chrysostom never said, or most 
 certainly never meant any such thing : so that his authority ought 
 to be out of the question. As to the reason of the case, the plea 
 can never hold upon that foot. It is true, prayer requires some 
 preparation ; and a man may pray unworthily, as well as com- 
 municate unworthily : and his prayer, in such circumstances, 
 may be vain and fruitless . But yet it is nowhere said, that he 
 who prays unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
 Lord, or that he shall draw down judgment upon himself by 
 doing it. Neither is all prayer so sacred and solemn as sacra- 
 mental prayer, nor is any mere prayer a federal rite, like a 
 Sacrament : nor does the want of due preparation in prayer 
 (though a culpable neglect) so directly tend to frustrate the 
 most sacred ties, and to turn all religion into hypocrisy and form, 
 as the want of it in the other case does : therefore, the two cases 
 are by no means parallel, but similar only, and that in great 
 disproportion. And hence it was (as I before hinted) that the 
 ancients, while they admitted catechumens to some prayers, pro- 
 per to them, and the lower degrees of penitents to prayers proper 
 
 f Vid. Bona de Reh. Liturg. lib. Ecclesiast. vol. i. p. 713. Bingham, 
 
 ii. cap. 16, n. I, 2, p. 664, &c. Ma- xv. 3, 28, 29. 
 billoii de Liturg. Gallic, lib. i. cap. Prov. xv. 8. Isa. i. 15. 
 4, n. 14, p. 35. Calvoer. RituaL
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 385 
 
 for them, and the highest order of penitents to some part of the 
 Communion prayers, as not improper for them ; yet they debarred 
 even the best of them, sometimes, month after month, or year 
 after year, as not yet worthy to receive the holy Communion. 
 
 I may now proceed somewhat further with Chrysostom. In 
 another Homily, after he had been speaking of the danger of 
 receiving unworthily, he adds, 'I speak not this to deter you 
 from coming, but from coming carelessly. For, as there is danger 
 in coming carelessly, so there is famine and death in the not 
 partaking at all of the mystical supper. This table is, as it were, 
 the sinews of our souls, the girding up of the mind, the support 
 of our confidence; our hope, our health, our light, our life h .' 
 Here the eloquent Father seems to make it not so bad to receive 
 unworthily, as to forbear receiving at all : for he represents the 
 one as dangerous, the other as fatal. If so, the unworthy non- 
 communicant would be in a worse condition than the unworthy 
 communicant ; and it would be safest to receive at all adventures : 
 and if that were admitted, it would be hard to justify the ancient 
 discipline with respect to either Sacrament. But here we must 
 answer with distinction. Supposing the unworthiness equal in 
 both, there is equally contempt in both cases, but not equal 
 contempt ; for the unworthy communicant is guilty of a greater 
 contempt than the other, and is the most profane of the two, 
 incurring greater damnation. As it were better not to have 
 known the way of life, than to go counter to it 1 ; so it were 
 better never to take the Sacrament, than to profane it as con- 
 stantly as we take it. So then, to neglect it out of contempt is 
 indeed famine and death : but still the other is more dangerous, 
 as exposing the person to sorer death and more grievous punish- 
 ment ; which I take to be Chrysostom's real meaning. Never- 
 theless, if a man only suspects or doubts within himself, whether 
 he is fit to receive, it will certainly be his safest way to receive ; 
 and his humble modesty, if really such, will itself be a commend- 
 able part of his preparation k . The degrees of unworthiness are 
 many and various, and no man is strictly worthy : a sincere, 
 
 h Chrysostom in I Cor. x, Horn. 2 Pet. ii. 21. 
 xxv. p. 262. t See Luke xviii. 13, 14. 
 
 C C
 
 386 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 though for the present weak resolution to amend instantly in 
 every known article of disobedience, seems to be ordinarily a 
 sufficient security against the danger of receiving unworthily. 
 
 Century the Fifth. 
 
 The first Council of Toledo, in the year 400, made an order 
 about those who were observed never to come to Communion, that 
 they should be admonished for such their habitual and total 
 neglect, and if they did not reform, should be obliged to submit 
 to penance 1 . This decree appears very mild and moderate, as 
 being pointed only against those who constantly absented, and 
 as prescribing an admonition before the censure ; and at length 
 excommunicating those only, who had in a manner excommuni- 
 cated themselves. No doubt but such order might have a veiy 
 good effect upon those who were barely supine and careless in 
 that article, otherwise leading innocent lives. But perhaps ex- 
 hortation or admonition alone might have been sufficient to as 
 many as were well disposed ; and as to the rest, censure might be 
 thought too much : for who shall force a man to repent 1 Or 
 how is it repentance, if it is not free 1 Or what signifies the 
 coming to the Lord's table in hypocrisy ? These considerations 
 have their weight : and therefore excommunication in such a 
 case, so far as it is justifiable, must be maintained upon some 
 general principle, such as the necessity of removing notorious 
 offences or scandals, for fear of contagion to the rest, and for fear 
 of bringing an infamy upon the whole body, by such connivance 
 as might look too like an allowance of so shameful a neglect. 
 The general good of the Church, in some cases, ought to overrule 
 all such considerations as have been before mentioned. For ex- 
 ample : there are, suppose, ten thousand officiating clergy in a 
 nation, who may be obliged, by the laws of Church and State, to 
 administer and to receive the holy 1 Communion, so often, be they 
 prepared or otherwise. In such a number, some hundreds, it 
 may be, may officiate and receive, not duly prepared. Let them 
 
 1 ' De his qui intrant in ecclesiam, communicant, ad poenitentiam ac- 
 et deprehenduntur imnquara com- cedant,' &c. Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 
 uiunicare t admoneantur, ut, si non 13.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 387 
 
 look to that : the Church is clear so far, because the necessity of 
 the case and the general good so requires. It would be trifling 
 here to urge, that it is forcing men to profane the holy Sacra- 
 ment, or forcing them to repent and amend. That must be 
 risked upon higher and more weighty considerations : for God's 
 people must not be deprived of the benefit of the Sacrament in 
 such cases. Therefore, I observed, that the considerations before 
 mentioned have their weight ; as indeed they ought to have ; but 
 so far only, as they are not opposed to other considerations of a 
 more general nature, and of still greater weight. 
 
 The same Council made a strict order, that such of the resi- 
 dent clergy as came not to the daily prayers and Communion 
 should be deposed, if they did not reform after admonition 10 . 
 By this we see that daily Communions were yet kept up in some 
 churches. Which appears likewise from the testimonies of 
 Jerome 11 and Austin , of that time. Some Christians of that 
 age were so scrupulous in that matter, that they thought them- 
 selves under a strict obligation to communicate, if possible, 
 every day : others thought otherwise ; and St. Austin was con- 
 sulted upon the question. It was pleaded on the side of daily 
 Communion, that every one ought to communicate as often as he 
 worthily might ; and that if he was not debarred by Church cen- 
 sures from it, he might be looked upon as worthy, the Church 
 being judge of that case. On the other side it was pleaded, that 
 some particular chosen days, when a man might be most recol- 
 lected, and best prepared, were preferable ; for so the greater 
 reverence would be shewn towards the Sacrament, and it would 
 be more likely to answer its end and use. St. Austin did not 
 care to determine for either, but took a middle way to compro- 
 
 m ' Clericus, si intra civitatein fue- corpus accipiant : quod nee repre- 
 
 rit, vel in loco quo ecclesia est, aut hendo, nee laudo ; unusquisque enim 
 
 castello, aut vico, aut villa, et ad in suo sensu abundat.' Hieron. adv. 
 
 ecclesiam ad sacrificium quotidianum Jovin. p. 239. Cp. Ep. lii. ad Lucin. 
 
 non accesserit, clericus non habeatur, p. 579, ed. Bened. 
 si castigatus per satisfaction em ve- ' Alii quotidie communicant cor- 
 
 niamab episcopo noluerit promereri.' pori et sanguini Domini, alii certis 
 
 Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 5. diebus accipiunt.' Augustin. Epist. 
 
 n 'Scio Eomae hanc esse consue- ad Jan. liv. (alias cxviii.) p. 124. 
 
 tudinem ut fideles semper Christi torn. ii. edit. Bened. 
 
 C C 2
 
 388 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 mise the dispute ; which was to advise both parties (as they in- 
 tended the same thing in the main) to shew their reverence to 
 the Sacrament in their different ways, according to their respec- 
 tive persuasions. For, says he, ' neither of them really dishon- 
 ours the Lord's body and blood, while both contend, only in a 
 different way, who shall do most honour to the blessed Sacrament. 
 For neither did Zaccheus and the Centurion strive together, or 
 one prefer himself before the other, when the former gladly 
 received our Lord into his house, and the latter said, " I am not 
 worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof :" but both did 
 honour to our Saviour in their several, or rather, contrary ways ; 
 both were sinners, and both found mercy. So here, one out of 
 reverence dares not partake every day : another out of the like 
 reverence, dares not omit it a single day : all is well, so long as 
 there is no contempt in either case upon the holy Sacrament P.' 
 This resolution of St. Austin was most certainly very wise and 
 just, suitable to the question as there stated, whether a man 
 should communicate every day, or only upon some select days, 
 when fittest for it. But had the question been, whether it were 
 sufficient for persons fitly prepared to communicate once or twice 
 a year, or the like, he would have said no, but oftener; either 
 every month, or every week, if opportunity offered. Gennadius, 
 who lived in the close of the same century, (about A. D. 495,) 
 determined as cautiously about daily receiving, neither approving 
 or disapproving it : but weekly receiving he spoke fully up to, 
 recommending it as highly proper for all that were competently 
 prepared, that is, for all that were sincerely penitent, and were 
 not under any prevailing inclination to vicei. 
 
 P ' Neuter enim eorum exhonorat ambo peccatis miseri, ambo miseri- 
 
 corpus et sanguinem Domini, sed cordiam consecuti. . . . Ille honoran- 
 
 saluberrimum sacramentum certatim do non audet quotidie sumere ; et 
 
 honorare coritendunt. Neque enim ille honorando non audet ullo die 
 
 litigaverunt inter se, aut quisquam praetermittere. Contemptum solum 
 
 eorum se alteri praeposuit Zachaeus non vult cibus iste," &c. Augustin. 
 
 et ille Centurio, cum alter eorum ibid. p. 125. 
 
 gaudens in domum suam susceperit * 'Quotidie Eucharistiae commu- 
 
 Dominum. Alter dixerit ; Non sum nionem percipere nee laudo nee 
 
 dignus ut intres sub tectum meum : vitupero : omnibus tamen Dominicis 
 
 ambo Salvatorem honor! ficantes di- diebus communicandum suadeo et 
 
 verso, et quasi contrario, modo ; hortor ; si tamen mens in affectu
 
 xiv. frequent Communion, 389 
 
 Century tite Sixth. 
 
 In the beginning of this century (about A. D. 506) the 
 Council of Agde, in Gaul, obliged the laity to receive three times 
 a year at least, at the three great festivals, Christmas, Easter, 
 and Whitsuntide r . It is the first precedent of that kind : and 
 some very pious and serious Christians have wished, that it 
 never had been set, because it might furnish an handle to many 
 for imagining that they were under no obligation to greater 
 frequency. But the Council designed no such inference ; which 
 at best is but a perverse construction of the thing : only, they 
 considered, that to oblige all persons to receive weekly was im- 
 practicable ; and to exhort them to frequency at large, without 
 specifying any certain times, was doing nothing; and that if 
 ordinary Christians were left to themselves, they would not, 
 probably, communicate so often as thrice in the year, nor 
 twice. 
 
 Other Councils, later in the same century, revived the more 
 ancient rules: the Councils of Braccara and Luca, in Spain, 
 (A.D. 572,) approved of the collection of old canons drawn up by 
 Martinus Braccarensis ; among which is the Second Antiochian 
 canon, above recited, being the eighty-third in this collection B . 
 Afterwards, the second Council of Macon (A. D. 585) endea- 
 voured to reinforce weekly communions, obliging both men 
 and women to communicate every Lord's Day, under pain of 
 
 peccandi non sit. Nam habentem r ' Seculares, qui Natali Domini, 
 
 adhuc voluntatem peccandi, gravari Pascha, et Pentecosten, non commu- 
 
 magis dico Eucharistiae perceptione, nicaverint, Catholici non credantur, 
 
 quam purificari. Et ideo quamvis nee inter Catholicos habeantur.' Con- 
 
 quis peccato mordeatur, peccandi cil. Agatheng. Can. xviii. p. 1000. 
 
 non habeat de caetero voluntatem, Hard. 
 
 et communicaturus satisfaciat lacry- 6 It is thus worded : ' Si quis in- 
 
 mis et orationibus, et confidens de trat Ecclesiam Dei, et sacras Scrip- 
 
 Domini miseratione, qui peccata turas audit, et pro luxuria sua aver- 
 
 piae confessioni donare consuevit, tit se a communione sacramenti, et 
 
 accedat ad Eucharistiam intrepidus in observandis mysteriis declinat 
 
 et securus. Sed hoc de illo dico, constitutam regulam disciplinae, is- 
 
 quern capitalia et mortalia peccata turn talem projiciendum de Ecclesia 
 
 non gravant.' Gennad. Massil. inter Catholica decernimus,' &c. Concil. 
 
 August. Opp. torn. viii. App. p. 78. Braccarens. et Lucens. Can. Ixxxiii. 
 
 ed. Bened. Hard. torn. iii. p. 400.
 
 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 anathema * : which was severe enough, unless we may understand 
 it only as opposed to absenting in way of scorn or contempt. 
 
 Century the Seventh. 
 
 I may here take notice, that the Council of Autun, in the year 
 670 u , revived the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Agde, 
 about communicating three times a year, at the three great fes- 
 tivals. In this century, the Greeks used to communicate weekly ; 
 and such as neglected three weeks together were excommuni- 
 cated : but in the Church of Rome, the people were left more 
 to their own liberty x . 
 
 Century the Eigltth. 
 
 Venerable Bede, in his epistle to Ecgbriht Archbishop of 
 York, in the year 734, has a passage to our purpose, worth the 
 noting. He writes thus: 'The teachers... should instruct the 
 people, how salutary daily communions might be to all kinds 
 of Christians; a point which the Church of Christ through 
 Italy, Gaul, Africa, Greece, and the whole East, have much 
 laboured, as you well know. This solemn service of religion, 
 and devout sanctification to Godward, is so far sunk almost 
 among all the laity, by negligence of their teachers; that even 
 those among them who appear to have a more than ordinary 
 sense of religion, yet presume not to partake of those holy 
 mysteries but upon the Nativity, Epiphany, and Easter : 
 though there are innumerable persons of very innocent and 
 chaste conversation, boys and girls, young men and maidens, 
 old men and matrons, who, without the least scruple of doubt, 
 might well receive every Lord's Day, or over and above, upon 
 
 ' 'Decernimus, ut omnibus Domi- Can. iv. Hard. torn. iii. p. 461. 
 nicis diebus, altaris oblatio ab omni- u Concil. Augustodunens. Can. 
 
 bus viris et mulieribus offeratur tarn xiv. Hard. torn. iii. p. 1015. 
 panis quam vini, ut per has immola- * 'Graeci omni Dominica die com- 
 
 tiones, et peccatorum fascibus care- municant, sive Clerici sive Laici, et 
 
 ant, et cum Abel, vel caeteris justis qui tribus Dominicis non communi- 
 
 offerentibus, promereautur ease con- caverint, excommunicantur. Romani 
 
 series. Omnes autem qui defini- similiter communicant qui volunt, 
 
 tiones nostras per inobedientiam qui autem noluerint, non escommu- 
 
 evacuare contendunt, anathemate nicantur.' Theodor. Poenitential. 
 
 percellantur.' . Concil. Matiscon. II. p. 46.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 391 
 
 all the festivals, whether of Apostles or Martyrs ; as you have 
 seen with your own eyes, in the holy apostolical Church of 
 Rome y.' 
 
 From this remarkable paragraph, we may observe, that even 
 so late as the eighth century, daily communions were still kept 
 up, among some of the Clergy at least ; and that all the Christ- 
 ian Churches, or Church guides of best note, wished to have 
 the like prevail among the laity, and had laboured that point as 
 far as they could : but as that was impracticable, hopes however 
 were conceived, that weekly communions, and more, might yet 
 take place, if due care were taken ; and that it was in some 
 measure owing to the remissness of pastors, that communion was 
 grown so rare and uncommon among the laity of the better sort ; 
 who neglected the communion, when competently qualified for 
 it, only for want of opportunity, or for want of being reminded 
 of it and exhorted to it, or else out of ignorance, supineness, or 
 the like, more than out of any dislike to it or unfitness for it : 
 which may also be the case at this very day. 
 
 What has been here offered may be sufficient, I conceive, to 
 give a competent idea of the state of frequent communion, for the 
 first eight centuries : and I need not go lower ; except it be to 
 throw in a word or two of what has been done, as to this article, 
 since the Reformation. 
 
 The Lutherans, we are told, by one that declares he is well 
 assui'ed of it z , do in this particular excel all other Protestants : 
 
 y ' . . . quam salutaris sit omni innocentes et castissimae conversa- 
 
 Christianorum generi quotidiana Do- tionis pueri et puellae, juvenes et 
 
 rninici corporis ac sanguinis percep- virgines, senes et anus, qui absque 
 
 tio ; juxta quod Ecclesiam Christi ullo scrupulo controversiae omni die 
 
 per Italiam, Galliam, Africam, Grae- Dominico, sive etiam in natalitiis 
 
 ciam, ac totum Orientem solerter sanctorum Apostolorum, sive Mar- 
 
 agere nosti. Quod videlicet genus tyrum (quomodo ipse in sancta Ro- 
 
 religionis ac Deo devotae sanctifica- mana et Apostolica Ecclesia fieri 
 
 tionis tarn longe a cunctis pene nos- vidisti) mysteriis caelestibus com- 
 
 trae provinciae laicis, per incuriam municare valeant.' Bed. Epist. ad 
 
 docentium, quasi prope peregrinum Ecgbert. p. 311, edit. Cant, 
 
 abest, ut hi qui inter religiosiores * Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 esse videntur, non nisi in Natali part ii. p. 151. But compare Cal- 
 
 Domini, et Epiphania, et Pascha voer, a Lutheran, who gives but an 
 
 sacrosanctis mysteriis commuuicare indifferent account of the number of 
 
 praesumant ; cum sint innumeri their communicants, being left to
 
 392 The Obligation to CHAP. 
 
 for they have a communion every Sunday and holyday throughout 
 the year. Calvin and Beza, and the French churches, laboured 
 to restore monthly or weekly communions ; but strictly insisted 
 upon four times a year, under pain of contempt*. Our own 
 Church has taken good care about frequent communion, time 
 after time b . She has been one while charged as doing too little, 
 and another while charged as doing too much : an argument that 
 she has competently observed the golden mean. But in com- 
 plicated cases, where there is no passing any certain judgment, 
 without a large comprehensive view of a vast variety of circum- 
 stances, it is impossible to please everybody, or even to satisfy 
 all the honest and well-deserving. In Queen Elizabeth's time, 
 Mr. Cartwright managed the charge of remissness against us in 
 that article : he would have had the generality obliged to com- 
 municate constantly, (except in cases of infirmity or necessity,) 
 under pain of ecclesiastical censure, yea, and of civil penalties c . 
 Dr. Whitgift, on the other hand, pleaded for moderate counsels 
 and convenient discipline, considering the end and use, and how 
 it might best be attained d . 
 
 It is well known what canons have been since made to enforce 
 frequent communion 6 : moderate enough, if compared with ancient 
 canons, or even with those of other Reformed churches. For 
 no express mention is made of excommunicating for neglect, but 
 the affair is in a great measure left to the prudential care of the 
 Diocesan, as is just and proper. Nevertheless, exceptions have 
 been taken to the severity of those canons : and the charge has 
 been well answered by our learned Divines f , so that there is no 
 occasion now to enter into that dispute. However, I am per- 
 suaded that instruction and exhortation, generally, are the best 
 
 their own liberty, and no particular part ii. p. 148. 
 
 times strictly insisted on. Calvoer. d Whitgift, Defence of his Answer 
 
 de Hit, Eccl. torn, i. p. 758. to the Admonition, p. 530, &c. Com- 
 
 * Bingham, French Church's Apo- pare Hooker, book v. sect. 68. 
 logy, c. xiv. L'Arroque, Conformity e Canons of 1603. Can. 13, 21, 22, 
 
 of the Reformed Churches of France, 23, 24, 1 1 2. 
 p. 346. { Falkner, Libert. Eccl. book i. 
 
 b See Wheatly on the Common c. 5. p. 205, &c. Sherlock, Defence 
 
 Prayer, p. 326. of Stillingfleet, p. 119. Bingham, 
 
 c Cartwright, Reply to Whitgift, French Church's Apol. book iii. 
 
 p. 117. Reply to Whitgift's Defence, c. 14.
 
 xiv. frequent Communion. 393 
 
 and most effectual methods of promoting frequent communion, 
 so as to make it answer its true end and use. The most religious 
 kind of persons will of course communicate as often as they have 
 opportunity : the impenitent or irreligious will not choose to com- 
 municate at all ; neither is it fit that they should, because, while 
 they continue such, it would do them no good, hut harm. There 
 remain only the supine, careless, and ignorant, but well-disposed, 
 (such as Bede, before cited, spake of,) who perhaps make up the 
 main body of Christians : and they are to be dealt with in a 
 tender, engaging manner, either by exhortations from the pulpit, 
 or by private instruction, or by putting good books into their 
 hands. Much probably might be done, in this way, towards re- 
 viving frequent communions, if suitable care and diligence were 
 used in it. But I have said enough on this article, and it is now 
 time to conclude. I once thought of adding a chapter upon the 
 comportment proper at and after receiving the communion : but 
 these papers are already drawn out into a length beyond what I 
 at first suspected ; and I may the more conveniently omit what 
 relates to the demeanour proper at and after receiving, since it 
 is well provided for by most of the little manuals which are in 
 every one's hands, and particularly by Bishop Taylor's Worthy 
 Communicant, chapter the seventh. 
 
 What I have endeavoured all the way, has been to maintain 
 the dignity of a venerable sacrament, by the light of reason, 
 Scripture, and antiquity, against unreasonable attempts to de- 
 preciate or undervalue it. The common methods of subversion 
 begin with lessening the work of preparation, and then go on to 
 sink the benefits : the next step in the progress is to reduce the 
 whole to a bare memorial, a memorial of an absent friend, master, 
 or chief martyr ; passing over the Divine perfections of our Lord, 
 and the all-sufficient merits of what he has done and suffered for 
 us. Now in order to build up again, as others pull down, the 
 business of these papers has been to shew, that the sacramental 
 memorial is a memorial of Christ God-man, who died a willing 
 sacrifice for the sins of mankind ; and that it is not a bare 
 memorial, or representation of something once done and suffered, 
 but a real and present exhibition of the graces, comforts, or
 
 394 ffl g Obligation to frequent Communion. CHAP. xiv. 
 
 blessings accruing therefrom, to every worthy receiver: that 
 therefore proper acknowledgments and engagements are expected 
 from us, and those require suitable preparations and qualifica- 
 tions, and a deportment thereto corresponding ; in a word, self- 
 examination and self- approbation beforehand, serious resolutions 
 of amendment at the time, and a conscientious care afterwards, 
 to persevere in well-doing to our lives' end.
 
 THE DOCTRINAL USE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS 
 
 CONSIDERED : 
 
 IN 
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVERED TO THE MIDDLESEX CLERGY, 
 MAY i2tb, 1736.
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVERED TO THE 
 
 MIDDLESEX CLERGY. 
 
 REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 As it hath been customaiy, upon these occasions, to recom- 
 mend some important point of Christianity ; so I take the 
 liberty to offer to your thoughts, at this juncture, the consi- 
 deration of the Christian Sacraments. Not that I can have room, 
 in a short discourse, to enter into the heart of the subject : but 
 the time perhaps may permit me to single out some collateral 
 article, of moderate compass, and to throw in a few incidental 
 reflections, tending to illustrate the value and dignity of those 
 Divine ordinances, and to preserve in our minds a just regard 
 and veneration for them. 
 
 When we duly consider the many excellent ends and purposes 
 for which these holy Sacraments were ordained, or have been 
 found in fact to serve, through a long succession of ages, we shall 
 see great reason to adore the Divine wisdom and goodness in the 
 appointment of them. They are of admirable use many ways ; 
 either for confirming our faith in the Christian religion at large, 
 and the prime articles of it ; or for promoting Christian practice 
 in this world ; or for procuring eternal happiness in a world to 
 come. 
 
 I shall confine my present views to the fh'st particular, the 
 subserviency of the Sacraments to true and sound faith : which, 
 though it may be looked upon as a bye-point, and for that reason 
 hath not been so commonly insisted upon; may yet be of weight 
 sufficient to deserve some consideration at this time.
 
 398 The doctrinal Use 
 
 I. Give me leave then to take notice, in the first place, that 
 the Sacraments of the Church have all along been, and are to 
 this clay, standing monuments of the truth of Christianity against 
 Atheists, Deists, Jews, Turks, Pagans, and all kinds of infidels. 
 They bear date as early as the Gospel itself ; and have continued, 
 without interruption, from the days of their Founder. They 
 proclaim to the world, that there once was such a person as 
 Christ Jesus ; that he lived, and died, and was buried, and rose 
 again ; and that he erected a Church, and drew the world after 
 him, maugre all opposition; (which could never have been 
 effected without many and great miracles ;) and that he appointed 
 these ordinances for the preserving and perpetuating the same 
 Church, till his coming again. The two Sacraments, in this 
 view, are abiding memorials of Christ and of his religion, and 
 are of impregnable force against unbelievers, who presume either 
 to call in question such plain facts, or to charge our most holy 
 religion, as an invention of men. 
 
 II. But besides this general use of the Sacraments against 
 unbelievers, they have been further of great service all along, for 
 the supporting of particular doctrines of prime value, against 
 misbelievers of various kinds ; as may appear by an historical 
 deduction all the way down from the earliest ages of the Church 
 to the present times. 
 
 No sooner did some misbelieving Christians a of the apostolical 
 age endeavour to deprave the true Gospel doctrine of God made 
 man, rejecting our Lord's humanity, but the Sacrament of the 
 Eucharist, carrying in it so indisputable a reference to our Lord's 
 veal flesh and blood, bore testimony against them with a force 
 irresistible. They were so sensible of it, that within a while 
 they forbore coming either to the holy Communion, or to the 
 prayers that belonged to it b , merely for the sake of avoiding a 
 
 a The Docetae, or Phantasiastae, as weak reasons. Some short ac- 
 
 whom in English we may call Vi- count of them may be seen in my 
 
 sionaries: men that would not admit Importance, vol. iii. pp. 402, 547, 
 
 that our Lord assumed real flesh and or a larger and more distinct one in 
 
 blood, but in appearance only; con- Buddaeus's Eccles. Apostol. pp. 550- 
 
 sidering him as a walking phantom 570. 
 
 or apparition, in order to take off b 'Evxa-piffrias *^ irpotrti/x'S* O.TT- 
 
 the scandal of the cross, or for other e'xovrai, Sa rb ^rj 6fju>\oyf!v T^V ux a ~
 
 of the Christian Sacraments. 399 
 
 practice contradictory to their principles. However, this was 
 sufficient intimation to every honest Christian, of the meanest 
 capacity, that their principles must be false, which obliged them 
 in consequence to vilify and reject the plain and certain insti- 
 tutions of Christ. There was no need of entering into the sub- 
 tilties of argument ; for the thing declared itself, and left no room 
 for dispute. Such was the valuable use of this Sacrament, at that 
 time, for supporting truth and detecting error, for the confirming 
 the faithful in the right way, and for confounding seducers. 
 
 III. In the century next following, the Valentinian Gnostics 
 corrupted the faith of Christ more ways than one, but particu- 
 larly in pretending that this lower or visible world was not made 
 by God most high, but by some inferior power or aeon. Here 
 again the Sacrament of the Eucharist was of signal service for 
 the confuting such wild doctrine, and for the guarding sincere 
 Christians against the smooth insinuations of artful disputers. 
 It was very plain, that the bread and wine in that Sacrament 
 were presented before God, as his creatures and his gifts ; which 
 amounted, in just construction, to a recognising him as their 
 true Creator : and it was absurd to imagine that God should 
 accept of, and sanctify to heavenly purposes, creatures not his 
 o\vn c . Besides, our Lord had chosen these creatures of the 
 lower world to represent his own body and blood, and called them 
 his body and blood, as being indeed such in Divine construction 
 and beneficial effect to all worthy receivers : a plain argument 
 that he looked upon them as his own and his Father's creatures, 
 and not belonging to any strange creator, with whom neither he 
 nor his Father had anything to do. 
 
 pia-riav a&pita. tivai TOV ffunripos 7ifj.uiv tradicerent.' Eccl. Hist. pp. 568, 569. 
 
 'lri<TovXpi<rTvv, &c. Ignat. ad Smyrn. c Tertullian afterwards makes use 
 
 c. vii. p. 4. Le Clerc well com- of the same argument, against the 
 
 ments upon this passage : ' Quod qui- same error, as espoused by the Mar- 
 
 dem convenienter ceterae suae doc- cionites : and he strengthens it fur- 
 
 trinae faciebant : cum enim Eucha- ther, by taking in the other Sacra- 
 
 ristia sit instituta ad celebrandum ment also. ' Sed ille quidem (Deus 
 
 memoriam corporis Christi pro nobis noster) usque nunc nee aquam re- 
 
 fracti, et sanguinis eflusi, non pote- probavit Creatoris, qua suos abluit 
 
 rat celebrari, ex institute Christi, ab ... nee panem quo ipsum corpus 
 
 hominibus qui mortuum non esse suum repraesentat.' Contra Mar- 
 
 Christum putabant, nisi sibi ipsi con- cion. lib. i. cap. 14.
 
 400 The doctrinal Use 
 
 These arguments, drawn from the holy Eucharist, were tri- 
 umphantly urged against those false teachers, by an eminent 
 Father of that time d : who, no doubt, made choice of them as 
 the most affecting and sensible of any ; being more entertaining 
 than dry criticisms upon texts, or abstracted reasonings, and 
 more likely to leave strong and lively impressions upon the 
 minds of common Christians. At the same time they served 
 to expose the adversaries to public shame, as appearing 
 along with others at the holy Communion, while they taught 
 things directly contrary to the known language of that Sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 IV. The same deceivers, upon some specious pretences, (but 
 such as no cause can want, that does not want artful pleaders,) 
 took upon them to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
 body ; conceiving that the unbodied soul only had any concern 
 in a life to come 6 . Here again, the Sacrament of the Eucharist 
 was a kind of armour of proof against the seducers. For as the 
 consecrated bread and wine were the authentic symbols of 
 Christ's body and blood, and were, in construction and certain 
 effect, (though not in substance,) the same with what they stood 
 for, to all worthy receivers ; it was manifest, that bodies so incor- 
 porated with the body of Christ must of course be partners with 
 it in a glorious resurrection. Thus was the Eucharist considered 
 as a sure and certain pledge to all good men of the future resur- 
 rection of their bodies, symbolically fed with the body of Christ. 
 For like as the branches partake of the vine, and the members of 
 the head, so the bodies of the faithful, being by the Eucharist 
 incorporate with Christ's glorified body, must of consequence 
 appertain to it, and be glorified with it. This is the argument 
 which the Christian Fathers f of those times insisted upon, and 
 
 d ' Nostra autem consonans est century, taught this doctrine. Iren. 
 
 sententia Eucharistiae, et Eucharis- lib. i. cap. 24. p. 102. Afterwards, 
 
 tia rursus confirmat sententiam noa- Cerdo also, and Marcion, lib. i. cap. 
 
 tram: offerimus enim ei quae sunt 27. p. 106. The Yalentinian Gnos- 
 
 ejus.' Iren. lib. 5v. cap. 18. p. 251. tics also taught the same, lib. v. cap. 
 
 edit. Bened. Cp. cap. xxxiii. p. 270. i. p. 292. 
 
 Cp. Tertull. contra Marcion. lib. i. f Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. cap. xx. 
 
 cap. 14. p. 19- Iren. lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251. 
 
 ? Basilides, probably of the first lib. v. cap. 2. p. 294. Tertull. de
 
 of the Christian Sacraments. 
 
 with this they prevailed ; as it was an argument easily 
 understood e and sensibly felt, (by as many as had any 
 tender regard for the Sacraments of the Church,) and as it 
 expressed to the life the inconsistent conduct of the new 
 teachers, proclaiming them to be self -condemned. Wherefore 
 they were put in mind over and over, to correct either their 
 practice or their principles ; and either to come no more to 
 the holy Communion, or to espouse no more such doctrines 
 as were contrary to it 1 '. 
 
 V. In the same century, or beginning of the next, when the 
 Marcionites revived the old pretences of the Visionaries, reject- 
 ing our Lord's humanity ; the Eucharist still served, as before, 
 to confound the adversaries : for it was impossible to invent any 
 just reply to this plain argument, that our Lord's appointing 
 a memorial to be observed, of his body broken and of his blood 
 shed, must imply, that he really took part of flesh and blood, 
 and was in substance and in truth what the Sacrament sets 
 forth in symbols and figures . 
 
 Resurr. Carnis, cap. viii. p. 330. 
 Rigalt. Cp. Athanas. Epist. iv. ad 
 Scrap, p. 710. ed. Bened. 
 
 Notwithstanding the plainness 
 of the argument, a very learned and 
 ingenious Lutheran declares, that he 
 does not understand it, can make no 
 sense or consequence of it. (Pfaff. 
 Notae in Iren. Fragm. 84, 85.) I 
 suppose the reason is, because it 
 agrees not with the Lutheran notion 
 of the presence : for indeed, as such 
 corporal or local presence supposes 
 Christ's body and blood to be received 
 by all communicants, both good and 
 bad, Irenaeus's arguments will by no 
 means favour that hypothesis, nor 
 consist with it. His reasoning will 
 extend only to good men, real mem- 
 bers of Christ's body, men whose 
 bodies, by the .Eucharist worthily 
 received, (perseverance supposed,) 
 are made abiding members of Christ's 
 body, flesh, and bones. The argu- 
 ment, so stated, proves the resurrec- 
 tion of such persons ; and it is all 
 
 that it directly proves : which how- 
 ever was sufficient against those who 
 admitted no resurrection of the body, 
 but denied all. . . N. B. The argument 
 is of as little force on the hypothesis 
 of tran substantiation ; as is plain 
 from what has been hinted of the 
 other. 
 
 h *H TV yv<ai^i]V o.\\a^ir<affa,v, i) 
 rb irpoafytpeiv TO, tlpr)/j.ti>a ira.pa.iT- 
 eiffOtuffav . rj^Siv Sf ffiifjuptavos 77 yvta/^r) 
 rfj (vxapiffrlq, cal ^ fvx.a.purrla, . . . 
 jSejSaioi rV yvca/tqv. Iren. lib. iv. 
 cap. 18. p. 251. 
 
 1 'Acceptumpanem,etdistributum 
 discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, 
 Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo ; id 
 est figura corporis mei. Figura au- 
 tem noil fuisset, nisi veritatis esset 
 corpus : ceterum vacua res, quod est 
 phantasma, figuram capere non pos- 
 set.' Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 
 40. p. 458. Cp. Pseud. Orig. Dial, 
 contr. Marcion. lib. iv. p. 853. 
 ed. Bened. 
 
 Dd
 
 402 The doctrinal Use 
 
 VI. When the Encratitae, or Continents, of the second cen- 
 tury, (so called from their overscrupulous abstemiousness,) had 
 contracted odd prejudices against the use of wine, as absolutely 
 unlawful ; the Sacrament of the Eucharist was justly pleaded, as 
 alone sufficient to correct their groundless surmises k : but 
 rather than part with a favourite principle, they chose to cele- 
 brate the Communion in water only, rejecting wine ; and were 
 from thence styled Aquarians 1 . Which practice of theirs 
 served however to detect their hypocrisy, and to take off the 
 sheep's clothing : for nobody could now make it any question, 
 whether those so seemingly conscientious and self-denying 
 teachers were really deceivers, when they were found to make 
 no scruple of violating a holy Sacrament, and running directly 
 counter to the express commands and known practice of Christ 
 their Lord. 
 
 VII. When the Praxeans, Noetians, and Sabellians, of the 
 second and third centuries, presumed to innovate in the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, by reducing the three Persons of the Godhead to 
 one ; then the Sacrament of Baptism remarkably manifested its 
 doctrinal force, to the confusion of those misbelievers. There was 
 no resisting the pointed language of the sacramental form, 
 which ran distinctly in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost m . It seems, that those men being con- 
 scious of it, did therefore change our Lord's form, and baptized 
 in a new one of their own n ; not considering, that that was 
 plunging deeper than before, and adding iniquitous practice to 
 ungodly principles. But the case was desperate, and they had 
 no other way left to make themselves appear consistent men. In 
 the meanwhile, their carrying matters to such lengths could 
 not but make their false doctrine the more notorious to all 
 men, and prevent its stealing upon honest and well disposed 
 
 k Vid. Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. m Vid. Tertull. adv. Prax. cap. 
 
 cap. 2. p. 186. Strom, lib. i. p. 26, 27. Hippol. ctfntra Noet. cap. 
 
 359. xiv. p. 1 6. 
 
 1 Epiphan. Haeres. xlvii. 3. Theo- n Vid. Bevereg. Vindic. Can. lib. 
 
 dorit. Haeret. Fab. lib. i. cap. 21. ii. cap. 6. p. 252. Bingham, Eccles. 
 
 Philastrius, Haer. Ixxvii. p. 146. Antiq. lib. si. cap. 3. p. 7. 
 Augustinus, Haec. cap. Ixiv.
 
 of the Christian Sacraments. 43 
 
 Christians, by ignorance or surprise. Such was the seasonable 
 use of the Sacrament of Baptism in that instance ; detecting 
 error, and obstructing its progress, and strongly supporting 
 the true faith. 
 
 VIII. When the Arians, of the fourth century, took upon 
 them to deprave the doctrine of the Trinity in an opposite 
 extreme, by rejecting the Deity of our Saviour Christ, ' who is 
 over all, God blessed for ever ;' then again the same Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism reclaimed against novelty, and convicted the 
 misbelievers in the face of the world. It was obvious to every 
 impartial and considering man, that the form of Baptism ran 
 equally in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that it 
 could never be intended to initiate Christ's disciples in the 
 belief and worship of God and two creatures P. The new teachers 
 however, in prudence, thought proper to continue the old form 
 of baptizing, till the Eunomians, their successors, being plainer 
 men, or being weary of a practice contradictory to their prin- 
 ciples, resolved at length to set aside the Scripture form, and 
 to substitute others more agreeable to their sentiments 9. This 
 was intimation sufficient to every well-disposed Christian to be 
 upon his guard against the new doctrines, which were found 
 to drive men to such desperate extremities. For now no man 
 of ordinary discernment, who had any remains of godliness left 
 in him, could make it matter of dispute, whether he ought to 
 follow Eunomius or Christ. .-..**' 
 
 There was a further use made of both Sacraments, by way 
 of argument, in the Arian controversy. For when the Arians 
 pleaded, that the words 'I and my Father are one' meant no more 
 than an unity of will or consent, inasmuch as all the faithful were 
 said to be one with Christ and with each other, on account of 
 such unity of consent ; the argument was retorted upon them in 
 
 Rom. ix. 5. i Epiphan. Haer. Ixxvi. Greg. 
 
 P A full account of this argument Nyssen. contr. Eunom. lib. x. p. 
 
 may be seen in Bishop Stillingfleet 278. Theodorit. Haeret. Fab. lib. iv. 
 
 on the Trinity, ch. ix. or in my cap. 3. Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. 
 
 eighth sermon per tot. vol. ii. or cap. 24. Theodorus, Lect. lib. xi. 
 
 in Athanasius, pp. 510, 633. ed. p. 576. ed. Cant. 
 Bened. 
 
 D d 2
 
 4^4 The doctrinal Use 
 
 this manner: that as Christ had made himself really one with 
 us, by taking our flesh and blood upon him in the incarnation ; 
 so again he had reciprocally made us really one with himself by 
 the two Sacraments. For in Baptism we put on Christ, and in 
 the Eucharist we are made partakers of his flesh and blood : and 
 therefore the union of Christ's disciples with the Head, and with 
 each other, (though far short of the essential union between 
 Father and Son,) was more than a bare unity of will or consent ; 
 being a real, and vital, and substantial union, though withal 
 mystical and spiritual. Thus Hilary of Poictiers (an eminent 
 Father of that time) retorted the argument of the adversaries ; 
 throwing off" their refined subtilties, by one plain and affecting 
 consideration, drawn from the known doctrine of the Christian 
 Sacraments r . 
 
 IX. About the year 360 rose up the sect of Macedonians, 
 otherwise called Pneumatomachi, impugners of the Divinity of 
 the Holy Ghost. They were a kind of Semi-Arians, admitting 
 the Divinity of the second Person, but rejecting the Divinity of 
 the third, and in broader terms than the Arians before them 
 had done. However, the Sacrament of Baptism stood full 
 in their way, being a lasting monument of the true Divinity 
 of the third Person as well as of the second : and by that 
 chiefly were the generality of Christians confirmed in the 
 ancient faith, and preserved from falling into the snares of 
 seducers 8 . 
 
 X. About the year 370, or a little sooner, the sect of Apolli- 
 narians began to spread new doctrines, and to make some noise 
 in the world. Among sundry other wrong tenets, they had this 
 conceit, that the manhood of our Saviour Christ was converted 
 into or absorbed in his Godhead. For they imagined, that by 
 thus resolving two distinct natures into one, they should the more 
 easily account for the one Person of Christ ; not considering that 
 the whole economy of man's redemption was founded in the 
 plain Scripture doctrine of a Saviour both God and man. In 
 
 1 Hilarius de Trinit. lib. viii. p. ' See St. Basil on this argument, 
 951, &c. Cp. Cyrill. Alexandr. de De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 10, 12, 27, 
 Trin. Dial. i. p. 407. 29.
 
 of the Christian Sacraments, 405 
 
 opposition to those dangerous tenets, the learned and eloquent 
 Chrysostom (A. D. 405, circ.) made use of an argument drawn 
 from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to this effect ; that the 
 representative body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (sancti- 
 fied by Divine grace, but not converted into Divine substance) 
 plainly implied, that the natural body of Christ, though joined 
 with the Godhead, was not converted into Godhead : for like as 
 the consecrated bread, though called Christ's body on account 
 of its sanctification, did not cease to be bread ; so the human 
 nature of Christ, though dignified with the Divine, did not cease 
 to be the same human nature which it always was *. We may 
 call this either an argument or an illustration ; for indeed it is 
 both under different views. Considered as a similitude, it is an 
 illustration of a case : but at the same time is an argument to 
 shew, that the Apollinarians were widely mistaken in imagining 
 that a change of qualities, circumstances, or names, inferred a 
 change of nature and substance. Bread was still bread, though 
 for good reasons dignified with the name of the Lord's body : 
 and the man Christ was still man, though for good reasons (that 
 is, on account of a personal union) dignified with the title of 
 God. Thus the Sacrament of the Eucharist, being a memorial 
 of the incarnation, and a kind of emblem of it u , was made use 
 
 * 'Sicutenim,antequamsanctifice- upon it, the reader may consult, if 
 
 tur panis, panem nominamus, Divina he pleases, besides Harduin, Frid. 
 
 autem sanctificante gratia, mediante Spanheim. Opp. torn. i. p. 844. .Le 
 
 sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ap- Moyne, Varia Sacra, torn. i. p. 530. 
 
 pellatione panis, dignus autem ha- Wake's Defence ag. M. de Meaux, 
 
 bitus est Dominici corporis appella- printed 1686. Fabricii Bibl. Graec. 
 
 tione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso torn. i. p. 433. Le Quien, Dissert, 
 
 permansit ; et non duo corpora, sed Damascen. p. 48. et in Notis, p. 270. 
 
 unum corpus Filii praedicatur : sic Zornii Opusc. Sacr. torn. i. p. 727. 
 et hie Divina tv&pva&ai)* (id est, u Vid. Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 290. 
 
 inundante) corpori natura, unum Apol. i. p. 96. ed. Thirlby. 
 Filium, unam Personam, utraque N.B. The Eucharist was anciently 
 
 haec fecerunt ; agnoscendum tamen considered as a kind of emblem of 
 
 inconfusametindivisibilemrationem, the incarnation, but in a loose 
 
 non in una solum natura, sed in general way : for like as there is an 
 
 duabus perfectis.' Chrysost. Epist. heavenly part and an earthly part 
 
 ad Caesar. Monach. pp. 7, 8. ed. here, so it is also there; and like as 
 
 Harduin. Divine grace together with the ele- 
 
 As to what concerns this Epistle, ments make the Eucharist, so the 
 
 and our debates with the Romanists Divine Logos with the manhood
 
 406 The doctrinal Use 
 
 of to explain it, and to confirm the faithful in the ancient belief 
 of that important article. But I proceed. 
 
 XL About the year 410, Pelagius opened the prejudices 
 which he had for some time privately entertained against the 
 Church's Doctrine of original sin : but the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism" looked him full in the face, and proved one of the most 
 considerable obstacles to his progress. The prevailing practice 
 had all along been to baptize infants : and the Church had 
 understood it to be baptizing them for remission of sin. The 
 inference was clear and certain, and level to the capacity of 
 every common Christian. Wherefore this single argument had 
 weight sufficient to bear down all the abstracted subtilties 
 and laboured refinements of Pelagius and his associates, and 
 proved one of the strongest securities to the Christian faith so 
 far, during that momentous controversy 1 . 
 
 XII. About the year 430 appeared the Nestorian heresy : 
 which, dividing the manhood of our Lord from the Godhead, 
 made in effect two Persons, or two Christs. Here the Sacra- 
 ment of the Eucharist was again called in, to compose the 
 difference, and to settle the point in question. For since the 
 virtue and efficacy of the representative body was principally 
 founded in the supposed personal union of the real body with 
 the Divine nature of our Lord, it would be frustrating or 
 evacuating all the efficacy of the Eucharist, to divide the man- 
 hood, in such a sense, from the Godhead y. The argument was 
 just and weighty, and could not fail of its due effect among 
 as many as had any tender regard for so divine and comfortable 
 a Sacrament. 
 
 make God incarnate. But then the * A full and distinct account of 
 
 analogy or resemblance ought not this whole matter may be seen either 
 
 to be strained beyond the intention in Vossius, Hist. Pelagian, lib. ii. 
 
 of it : for there is this observable par. i. Thess. v. Opp. torn. vi. p. 
 
 difference in the two cases ; that in 603, &c. or in Dr. Wall's Hist, of 
 
 one case there is barely a conjunction Infant Baptism, part i. ch. 19. 
 or concomitance of the two natures, J' Vid. Cyrill. Alex. Epist. ad Nes- 
 
 and that to the worthy receivers tor. p. 1290. Anathem. xi. p. 1294. 
 
 only : in the other, there is an abso- cum Cyrill. Explan. apud Harduin. 
 
 lute, permanent, and personal union. Concil. Cp. Albertin. de Eucharist. 
 
 So then the Eucharist is but a faint, p. 754. 
 imperfect emblem of the other.
 
 of the Christian Sacraments. 407. 
 
 XIII. Within twenty years after, came up the Eutychian 
 heresy ; which, in the contrary extreme, so blended the God- 
 head and manhood together, as to make but one nature of both, 
 after the example of the Apollinarians, whom I before mentioned. 
 The Sacrament of the Eucharist was of eminent service in this 
 cause also : for if the bread and wine in that Sacrament are 
 what they have been called, (and as constantly believed to be,) 
 symbols and figures of Christ's body and blood, then it is certain 
 that our Lord really put on flesh and blood, and that his human 
 nature was and is distinct from his Divine. To say, that ' the 
 Word was made flesh/ or that the flesh was converted into the 
 Word, in such a sense as to leave no distinct humanity, was as 
 much as to say, that the Sacraments now make us not ' mem- 
 bers of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones z ;' and that the 
 Eucharist in particular is an insignificant show, or worse, either 
 not representing the truth of things, or representing a falsehood. 
 Such was the argument made use of in the Eutychian con- 
 troversy a : a plainer or stronger there could not be ; nor any 
 wherein the generality of Christians could think themselves 
 more deeply concerned. 
 
 XIV. Long after this, in the eighth century, endeavours were 
 employed by many to bring in the worship, or at least the use, 
 of images into churches. In this case also, the Sacrament of 
 the Eucharist was seasonably pleaded, for the giving some check 
 to the growing corruption. The good Fathers of Constantinople, 
 in the year 754, meeting in council to the number of 338, 
 argued against images to this effect : that as our Lord had 
 appointed no visible image of himself, his incarnation, or pas- 
 sion, but the eucharistical one, and probably intended that for a 
 most effectual bar, to preclude all appearances of idolatry ; it 
 would be high presumption in men, without warrant, without 
 occasion, and against the very design of our Lord in' that Sacra- 
 ment, to introduce any other kind of images of their own devising b . 
 
 z Ephes. v. 30. 836, 867, 868, 874, 886 
 
 a The reader may see the ancient b Vid. Acta Concil. Nicaen. se- 
 
 testimonies collected and commented cundi, toin. iii. vers. finem. 
 
 upon in Albertinus, pp. 802, 835,
 
 40 8 The doctrinal Use 
 
 The opposite party, some time after, (A. D. 787,) in the second 
 Council of Nice, eluded this plain reasoning, by pretending, 
 falsely, that the sacred symbols are not the image of Christ's 
 body and blood, but the very body and blood c : and thus they 
 laid the seeds of that error, which grew up at length by degrees 
 into the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation. For the true 
 notion of the Eucharist lying cross to their darling schemes, 
 they choose rather to deprave the Sacrament itself, than to stand 
 corrected by it. However, all this tends to confirm the main 
 point, which I have been insisting upon, that the Sacraments, 
 among other very valuable uses, have for many ages upwards 
 been the standing barriers against corruptions : though there 
 are no fences so strong, nor any ramparts so high, but daring 
 and desultorious wits may either break through them or leap 
 over them. 
 
 XV. I shall add but one example more ; and it shall be of 
 Faustus Socinus, of the sixteenth century : a person of pregnant 
 wit and teeming invention ; of moderate learning, but a very 
 large share of sufficiency. His great ambition was, to strike 
 out a new system of religion from his own conceits ; though he 
 happened only to revive (and perhaps very ignorantly) the an- 
 cient Sabellianism, Photiniauisin, and Pelagianism, with other 
 exploded heresies. He began with subverting (as far as in him 
 lay) the true and ancient doctrine of the Trinity, rejecting the 
 Deity of the second Person, and even the being of the third. 
 After a thousand subtilties brought to elude plain Scripture, and 
 after infinite pains taken in so unnatural a war against Heaven, 
 he was yet sensible, that he should prevail nothing, unless, to- 
 gether with the doctrine of the Trinity, he could discard the 
 two Sacraments also, or render them contemptible. Baptism was 
 a standing monument of the personality and equal Divinity of 
 
 c N.B. They might justly have are, in construction and beneficial 
 
 said, that the sacred symbols are effect, to worthy receivers, the very 
 
 more than a mere image, more than body and blood : but they ought not 
 
 meie signs and figures : but they to have asserted what they did, in 
 
 should not have denied their being that absolute manner, or in such 
 
 images at all. And they might justly crude terms, left without the proper 
 
 have said, that the sacred symbols qualifying explanations.
 
 of the Christian Sacraments. 409 
 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : and the other Sacrament was an 
 abiding memorial of the merits (though no creature can merit) 
 of our Lord's obedience and sufferings : and both together were 
 lasting attestations, all the way down from the very infancy of 
 the Church, of the secret workings, the heavenly graces and 
 influences of the Holy Spirit upon the faithful receivers. There- 
 fore to let the Sacraments stand, as aforetime, was leaving the 
 ancient faith to grow up again in the Christian world, much 
 faster than Socinus, with all his subtile explications of Scripture 
 texts, could bear it down. Being well aware how this matter 
 was, he fell next upon the Sacraments ; discarding one of them, 
 in a manner, under pretence that it was needless ; and castrating 
 the other, with respect to what was most valuable in it, to ren- 
 der it despicable. It was thought somewhat odd, by some of 
 his own friends d , that he should labour to throw off Baptism, 
 and at the same time retain the Eucharist, which appeared to 
 be comparatively of slighter moment, and less insisted upon in 
 Scripture. But he well knew what he did j for the form of 
 Baptism stood most directly in his way. As to the Eucharist, 
 if he could but reduce it to a bare commemoration of an absent 
 friend, there would be nothing left in it to create him much 
 ti-ouble ; but it might look sincere and ingenuous, in that in- 
 stance at least, to abide by the letter of the text, and to plead 
 for the perpetuity of an ancient and venerable (now by Tiim 
 made a nominal) Sacrament. This appears to be the most 
 natural account of his conduct in the whole affair. For other- 
 wise it is a very plain case, that a lively imagination like his 
 might have invented as fair or fairer pretexts for laying aside 
 the Eucharist e , than for discarding Baptism ; and it might have 
 been easier to elude some few places of Scripture than many. 
 But I return. 
 
 From the induction of particulars here drawn together, and 
 laid before you, may be understood, by the way, the true and 
 
 d Vid. Ruari Epistolae, vol. ii. p. merits, and tend to the discarding of 
 
 -5 1 - both, or neither; as Vossius justly 
 
 e Indeed, the same pretences, some remarks, De Baptismo. 
 of them, equally affect both Sacra-
 
 The doctrinal Use 
 
 right notion of the Christian Eucharist, such as obtained from 
 the beginning, and continued till the dark ages came on, and 
 longer : but the point which I aimed at was, to illustrate the 
 use of both the Sacraments considered as fences or barriers, 
 ordained by Christ, to secure the true faith, and to preclude false 
 doctrines. Few have ever attempted to corrupt Christianity in 
 any of its considerable branches, but, first or last, they have 
 found themselves embarrassed by one or both Sacraments ; and 
 have been thereby obliged either to desist presently, or to expose 
 themselves further, by quarrelling with those sacred institu- 
 tions, which all wise and good men have ever most highly 
 revered. 
 
 I have taken notice, how the most essential articles of the 
 Christian religion have, in their several turns, (as they happened 
 to be attacked,) been supported and strengthened by these aux- 
 iliary means. The doctrine of the visible creation by God most 
 high : the doctrine of our redemption by Christ, both God and man: 
 the doctrine of sanctifying grace by the Holy Spirit of God, a 
 real Person, and also Divine : the doctrines of original sin, and of 
 our Lord's meritorious sacrifice, and of a future resurrection of 
 the body : these, and as many others as are contained in these, 
 have all been eminently preserved and held up by the Christian 
 Sacraments. The Sacraments therefore are full of excellent 
 instruction and admonition : they carry creeds and command- 
 ments, as it were, in the bowels of them : they speak even to 
 the eyes in silent imagery, and often teach more in dumb show, 
 with less expense of time and much greater efficacy, than any the 
 most eloquent discourses could do. The Romanists have some- 
 times boasted, that images are the laymen's books, wherein the 
 unlearned may read what it concerns them to know, without 
 knowing letters. And indeed, if images had been authorized, 
 or had they not been prohibited books, they might have been 
 admitted with a better grace. But our Sacraments are the 
 true books, (or serving as books,) both to learned and un- 
 learned ; full of lively imagery and instructive emblem ; drawn 
 by Christ himself, and left as his legacies, for the use of all the 
 churches.
 
 of the Christian Sacraments. 41 1 
 
 Let us then, my Reverend Brethren, be careful to preserve 
 these sacred deposits with all due reverence and watchfulness ; 
 inasmuch as they contain treasures of infinite value ; and 
 Christianity itself appears to be so entirely wrapped up in 
 them, that, humanly speaking, it must unavoidably stand or 
 fall with them.
 
 THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE 
 
 EXPLAINED, 
 
 DELIVERED IN PART TO 
 
 ST. CLEMEXT-DANES, 
 APRIL THE 20th, 1738. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED 
 
 AN APPENDIX.
 
 REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 THE Sacrament of the Eucharist has for some time been the 
 subject of debate amongst us, and appears to be so still, in 
 some measure ; particularly with regard to the sacrificial part of 
 it. As it is a federal rite between God and man, so it must be 
 supposed to carry in it something that God gives to us, and 
 something also that we give, or pi-esent, to God. These are, as it 
 were, the two integral parts of that holy ceremony : the former 
 may properly be called the sacramental part, and the latter, the 
 sacrificial. Any great mistake concerning either may be of very 
 ill consequence to the main thing : for if we either mistake the 
 nature of God's engagements towards us, or the nature of our 
 engagements towards God, in that sacred solemnity, we so far 
 defeat the great ends and uses of it, and prejudice ourselves in 
 so doing. 
 
 A question was unhappily raised amongst us, about an hundred 
 years ago, whether the material elements of the Eucharist were 
 properly the Christian sacrifice. From thence arose some debate; 
 which however lasted not long, nor spread very far. But at the 
 beginning of this present century, the same question was again 
 brought up, and the debate revived, with some warmth ; and it 
 is not altogether extinct even at this day. 
 
 Those who shall look narrowly into the heart of that dispute 
 may see reason to judge, that a great part of it was owing to 
 some confusion of ideas, or ambiguity of terms ; more particularly, 
 from the want of settling the definitions of sacrifice by certain 
 niles, such as might satisfy reasonable men on both sides. 
 
 How that confusion at first arose may perhaps be learned by 
 looking back as far as to Bellarmine, about 1590, or however 
 as far as to the Council of Trent, about thirty years higher. 
 Before that time things were much clearer, so far as concerned 
 this article. Nobody almost, doubted but that the old definitions
 
 416 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 of sacrifice were right, and that spiritual sacrifice was true and 
 proper sacrifice, yea the most proper of any. 
 
 ' Spiritual sacrifice' is St. Peter's phrase a : and it agrees with 
 St. Paul's phrase of ' reasonable service b :' and both of them fall in 
 with our Lord's own phrase, of ' worshipping God in spirit and in 
 truth c .' It is serving God ' in newness of spirit, not in the oldness 
 of the letter d :' It is offering him true sacrifice and direct homage, 
 as opposed to legal and typical, in order to come at true and 
 direct expiation, without the previous covers or shadows of legal 
 and typical expiations, which reached only to the purifying of 
 the flesh, not to the purging of the conscience e . This kind of 
 sacrifice called spiritual does not mean mental service only, but 
 takes in mental, vocal, and manual, the service of the heart, mouth, 
 and hand ; all true and direct service, bodily f service as well as 
 any other, since we ought to serve God with our bodies as well 
 as our souls. Such is the nature and quality of what Scripture 
 and the ancients call spiritual sacrifice, as opposed to the out- 
 ward letter. Such services have obtained the name of sacrifice 
 ever since David's time s, warranted by God himself, under the 
 Old Testament and New. The Jews, before Christ and since h , 
 have frequently used the name of sacrifice in the same spiritual 
 sense. The very Pagans were proud to borrow the same way of 
 speaking * from Jews and Christians : so that custom of language 
 has not run altogether on the side of material sacrifice. It may 
 rather be said, that the custom of Christian language, not 
 only in the New Testament, but also in the Church writers, 
 has run on the side of spiritual sacrifice, without giving the 
 
 a i Pet. Si. 5. b Rom. xii. i. Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 387. 
 
 c John iv. 23. See Dodwell on In- ' PorphyriusdeAbstin.lib.il. sect. 
 
 strumental Music, p. 31. Stilling- 34. Cp. Euseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. 
 
 fleet, Serm. xxxix. p. 602. Scot, iv. cap. 9-14. xiii. cap. 13. Clem. 
 
 vol. iv. Serm. iv. d Rom. vii. 6. Alex. Strom, v. p. 686. ed. Ox. 
 
 e Heb. ix. 9, 13, 14. Even Plato, long before Christianity, 
 
 f Rom. xii. I. I Cor. vi. 20. had defined sacrifice to mean a pre- 
 
 s They are emphatically styled sa- sent to the Divine Majesty; not con- 
 
 crificesof God (Psalm li. 17), as being fining it, so far as appears, to ma- 
 
 the fittest presents or gifts to him, terial, but leaving it at large, so as 
 
 the most acceptable offerings. to comprehend either material or 
 
 h Vid. Vitringa de vet. Synag. in spiritual. See my Review, &c. above, 
 
 Prolog, pp. 40, 41. Philo passim, p. 311.
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 417 
 
 least hint that it was not true sacrifice, or not sacrifice properly 
 so called. 
 
 St. Austin's definition of true and Christian sacrifice k is well 
 known, and need not here be repeated. He spoke the sense of 
 the churches before him : and the Schools, after him, followed 
 him in the same. Aquinas, at the head of the Schoolmen, may 
 here speak for the rest : he determines, that a sacrifice, properly, 
 is anything performed for God's sole and due honour, in order 
 to appease him I He plainly makes it a work, or service, not a 
 material thing : and by that very rule he determined, that the 
 sacrifice of the cross was a true sacrifice; which expression implies 
 both proper and acceptable. This notion of sacrifice prevailed in 
 that century, and in the centuries following, and was admitted 
 by the early Reformers m ; and even by Romanists also, as low 
 as the year 1556, or yet lower. Alphonsus a Castro, of that 
 time, a zealous Romanist, in a famous book (which between 1534 
 and 1556 had gone through ten or more editions) declared his 
 full agreement with Calvin, so far as concerned the definition of 
 true sacrifice, conformable to St. Austin's n . Even Bellarmine 
 acknowledged, above thirty years after, that some noted Doctor 
 of the Roman Church still adhered to the same definition . So 
 that spiritual sacrifice was not yet entirely excluded as improper, 
 metaphorical, and nominal, among the Romanists themselves ; 
 
 k ' Verum sacrificium eat omne turn est, quod passio Christi fuerit 
 
 opus quod agitur ut sancta societate verum sacrificium.' Aquin. Summ. 
 
 inhaereamus Deo, relatum scilicet par. iii. q. 48. 
 
 ad ilium finem boni quo veraciter ra Vid. Melancthon. de Missa, 
 
 beati esse possimus.' Augustin. de p. 195. In Malachi, p. 545. torn. ii. 
 
 Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242. Chemnit. Examen. part. ii. p. 137. 
 
 torn. 7. ed. Bened. Compare my "After reciting Austin's definition, 
 
 Review, above, p. 309. he proceeds : 'Haec Augustinus, ex 
 
 1 Dicendum, quod sacrificium quibus verbis aperte colligitur omhe 
 
 proprie dicitur aliquid factum in ho- opus bonum quod Deo offertur, esse 
 
 norem proprie Deo debitum ad eum verum sacrificium, et hanc definitio- 
 
 placandum. Et inde est quod Augus- nem ipsemet Calvinus admittit . . . ex 
 
 tinus dicit, verum sacrificium est, &c. cujus verbis constat, inter nos et 
 
 Christus autem, ut ibidem subditur, ilium de veri sacrificii definitione 
 
 seipsum obtulit in passionepronobis. convenire." Alphons. a Castro, adv. 
 
 Et Loc ipsum opus, quod voluntarie Haeres. lib. x. p. 75. ed. 1=65. 
 
 passionem sustinuit, Deo maxime Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 
 
 acceptum fuit, utpote ex caritate 2. p. 710. 
 maxime proveniens : unde manifes: 
 
 E e
 
 41 8 *The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 neither was it hitherto a ruled j>oint amongst them, that material 
 thing was essential to the nature, notion, or definition of true 
 and proper sacrifice. How that came about afterwards, we shall 
 see presently. 
 
 The Romanists, wanting arguments to support their mass 
 sacrifice, thought of this pretence, among others, that either 
 their mass must be the sacrifice of the Church, or the Church had 
 really none : and so if the Protestants resolved to throw off the 
 mass, they would be left without a sacrifice, without an altar, 
 without a priesthood, and be no longer a Church P. The Pro- 
 testants had two very just answers to make, which were much 
 the same with what the primitive Christians had before made to 
 the Pagans, when the like had been objected to them. The first 
 was, that Christ himself was the Church's sacrifice 1, considered 
 in a passive sense, as commemorated, applied, and participated 
 in the Eucharist. The second was, that they had sacrifices 
 besides, in the active sense, sacrifices of their own to offer, visibly, 
 publicly, and by sacerdotal hands, in the Eucharist : which 
 sacrifices were their prayers, and praises, and commemorations r ; 
 eucharistic sacrifices, properly, though propitiatory also in a 
 qualified sense. The Council of Trent, in 1562, endeavoured to 
 obviate both those answers s : and Bellarmine afterwards under- 
 took formally to confute them. The Romanists had no way left 
 but to affirm stoutly, and to endeavour weakly to prove, that 
 
 P Alphons. a Castro, lib. x. p. 74. 231, 316, 503. ed. Bened. Hiero- 
 
 Cp.Bellarmin.deMissa, lib.i.cap. 20. nym. torn. ii. pp. 186, 250, 254. 
 
 Vid. Clem. Alex. pp. 688, 836. torn. iii. pp. 15, 1122, 1420. ed. 
 
 ed.Ox. Euseb.Demonstr.Evan.p.38. Bened. Augustin. torn. ii. p. 439. 
 
 Augustin. torn. iv. p. 1462. ed. Bened. iv. pp. 14, 473, 455, 527, 498, 1026, 
 
 Greg. M. torn. ii. p. 472. ed. Bened. 1113. vii. p. 240. ed. Bened. and 
 
 Cyrill. Alex, contr. Jul. lib. ix. compare my Review, chap. xii. 
 
 r Justin Martyr, pp. 14, 19, 387, 8 ' Si quis dixerit in missa non 
 
 389. ed. Thirlb. Clem. Alex. 686, offerri Deo verum et proprium sacri- 
 
 836, 848, 849, 850, 860. ed. Ox. ficium, aut quod offerri non sit aliud 
 
 Origen. torn. ii. pp. 210, 311, 191, quam n obis Christum ad manducan- 
 
 205, 243, 363, 418, 563. ed. Bened. dum dari, anathema sit. . . . Si quis 
 
 Euseb. Dem. Evang. pp. 20, 21, 23. dixerit missae sacrificium tantum 
 
 Tertullian, pp. 69, 188, 330. Rigalt. esse laudis etgratiarum actionis, aut 
 
 Cyprian. Ep. Ixxvii. p. 159. ed. nudam commemorationem sacrificii 
 
 Bened. Hilarius Pictav. pp. 154, in cruce peracti, non autem propitia- 
 
 228, 535. Basil, torn. iii. p. 52. torium, anathema sit.' Concil. Trid. 
 
 ed. Bened. Chrysost. torn. v. pp. Bess. xxii. can. i, 3.
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 419 
 
 the two things which the Protestants insisted upon did neither 
 singly, nor both together, amount to true and proper sacrifice. 
 Here began all the subtilties and thorny perplexities which have 
 darkened the subject ever since ; and which must, I conceive, be 
 thrown off, (together with the new and false definitions, which 
 came in with them,) if ever we hope to clear the subject effect- 
 ually, and to set it upon its true and ancient basis. 
 
 I shall pass over Bellarmine's trifling exceptions to the Pro- 
 testant sacrifice, (meaning the grand sacrifice,) considered in the 
 passive sense. It is self-evident, that while we have Christ, we 
 want neither sacrifice, altar, nor priest ; for in him we have all : 
 and if he is the head, and we the body, there is the Church. Had 
 we no active sacrifice at all, yet so long as we are empowered, by 
 Divine commission, to convey the blessings * of the great sacrifice 
 to as many as are worthy, we therein exercise an honourable 
 priesthood u , and may be said to magnify our office. But waving 
 that consideration at present, for the sake of brevity, I shall 
 proceed to examine what Bellarmine has objected to our sacri- 
 fices considered in the active sense, and to inquire by what kind 
 of logic he attempted to discard all spiritual sacrifices, under the 
 notion of improper, metaphorical, nominal sacrifices, or, in short, 
 no sacrifices. 
 
 i. He pleads, that Scripture opposes good works to sacrifice; 
 as particularly in Hosea vi. 6, 'I will have mercy, and not 
 sacrifice :' therefore good works are not sacrifice properly so 
 called x . But St. Austin long before had sufficiently obviated 
 that pretence, by observing, that Scripture, in such instances, 
 had only opposed one kind of sacrifice to another kind, symboli- 
 cal to real, typical to true, shadow to substance y. God rejected 
 
 * Blessing was a considerable part retur.' Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. xii. 
 
 of the sacerdotal office in the Aaron- cap. 12. 
 
 ical priesthood. Numb. vi. 23-27. x Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 
 
 Deut. x. 8. xxi. 5. 2. p. 710. 
 
 u Some of the elder Romanists y ' Per hoc ubi scriptum est, Mise- 
 
 acknowledged this to be sufficient, ricordiam volo quam sacrificium, ni- 
 
 ' Satis est, ut vere et proprie sit hil aliud quam sacrificio sacrificium 
 
 sacrificium, quod mors Christi ita praelatum oportet intelligi : quoniarn 
 
 nunc ad peccati remissionem appli- illud quod ab omnibus appellatur 
 
 cetur, ac si nunc ipse Christus more- sacrificium signum est veri sacrificii. 
 
 E e 2
 
 42O The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 the sign, which had almost engrossed the name, and pointed out 
 the thing signified ; which more justly deserved to be called 
 sacrifice. So it was not opposing sacrifice to no sacrifice, but 
 legal sacrifice to evangelical. Such was St. Austin's solution of 
 the objected difficulty : and it appears to be very just and solid, 
 sufficiently confirmed both by the Old Testament and New. 
 
 2. Bellarmine's next pretence is, that in every sacrifice, pro- 
 perly so called, there must be some sensible thing offered ; because 
 St. Paul has intimated, that a priest must have somewhat to offer. 
 Heb. viii. 3 z . But St. Paul says ' somewhat,' not ' some sensible 
 thing.' And certainly, if a man offers prayers, lauds, good works, 
 &c. he offers somewhat, yea and somewhat sensible too : for 
 public prayers, especially, are open to the sense of hearing, and 
 public performances to more senses than one. Therefore the 
 service may be the sacrifice, not the material things : and such 
 service being evangelical, (not legal or typical,) is spiritual 
 sacrifice. 
 
 3. The Cardinal has a third argument about elicit acts ; 
 which being highly metaphysical and fanciful, I choose rather 
 to pass it off without further answer, than to offend your ears 
 with it. 
 
 4. A fourth pretence is, that the sacrifice of the Church being 
 but one, the spiritual sacrifices, which are many, cannot be that 
 one sacrifice. Here he quotes Austin, Pope Leo, and Chry- 
 sostom, to prove that the Church's sacrifice is but one, and that 
 one the Eucharist a . He might have spared the labour, because 
 the same Fathers assert the sacrifice of the Eucharist to be both 
 one and many, diversly considered : one complicated sacrifice, 
 taking in the whole action ; many sacrifices, if distinctly viewed 
 under the several particulars. And though the Eucharist might 
 
 Porro autem misericordia est verum Serm. liii.) that almost all call the 
 
 sacrificium.' Augustin. de Civ. Dei, Sacrament, (that is, sign of the body,) 
 
 lib. x. cap. 5. the body. ' Paene quidem sacramen- 
 
 N. B. In explication of what Aus- turn omnes corpus ejus dicunt.' And 
 
 tin says, ' quod ab omnibus,' &c. it yet he did not think that the sign 
 
 may be noted, that he did not take was more properly the body, than 
 
 the vulgar language for the best, or the body itself, but quite otherwise, 
 the only rule of propriety: he ob- z Bellarnrn, de Missa, lib. i. cap. 
 
 serves elsewhere (de Verb. Dom. 2. p. 711. a Ibid. p. 7 12 -
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 by common use come to be called emphatically, the Sacrifice, as 
 being most observable, or most excellent, or as comprehending 
 more sacrifices in one than any other service did, yet it does not 
 from thence follow that the other less observable or less con- 
 siderable sacrifices were not properly sacrifices. For has not the 
 same Eucharist, in vulgar speech, and by custom, come to be 
 emphatically called, the Sacrament, as if there were no other 
 Sacrament 1 And yet certain it is, that Baptism is as properly 
 a Sacrament as the other. Emphatical appellations therefore 
 are rather marks of the excellency or notoriety of a thing, than 
 of strict propriety of speech. But I return to Bellarmine. 
 
 5. A fifth pretence is, that spiritual sacrifices, being common 
 both to clergy and laity, require no proper priesthood, and there- 
 fore cannot be justly esteemed proper sacrifices ; for proper 
 sacrifice and proper priesthood, being relatives, must stand or 
 fall together *>. To which it may be answered, that even lay 
 Christians, considered as offering spiritual sacrifices, are so far 
 priests, according to the doctrine of the New Testament, con- 
 firmed by Catholic antiquity 6 . But waving that nicety, (as 
 some may call it,) yet certainly when spiritual sacrifices are 
 offered up by priests, divinely commissioned, and in the face of 
 a Christian congregation, they are then as proper sacrifices as 
 any other are, or can be : and this is sufficient to our purpose. 
 Let the Eucharist therefore, duly administered by sacerdotal 
 officers, be admitted as a sacrifice properly so called, but of the 
 spiritual kind, and we desire nothing further. If a sacerdotal 
 oblation of the people's loaf and wine can be thought sufficient 
 to convert them into proper sacrifices, though they had nothing 
 at all of a sacrificial nature in them before such oblation ; surely 
 the like sacerdotal oblation may much more convert the people's 
 prayers, praises, and devout services (which previously had 
 something of a sacrificial nature in them) into real and proper 
 sacrifices, yea the properest of any d . Why then must our spiri- 
 
 b Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. and judicious Bp. Montague. 
 
 2. p. 712. 'In lege Christi sunt sacerdotes, 
 
 c See my Review, above, p. 350. non tantum ilia laxa significatione, 
 
 a This matter is briefly and accu- qua quotquot Jesu Christi sumus 
 
 rately expressed by our very learned iiruwpoi, (Christian! nominati,)
 
 42 Z The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 tual offerings be set aside as of no account in respect of proper 
 sacrifice, only to take in other things of much lower account 
 than they 1 Why should we take in those meaner things at all, 
 as sacrifices, into our pure offerings, which are much better 
 without them, and can only be defiled by such an heterogeneous 
 mixture of legal and evangelical 1 Let the elements be signs (as 
 they really are) of the sacrifice which we offer, as they are also 
 signs of the sacrifice whereof we participate : that appears to be 
 the end and use of them, (and great use it is,) and seems to be 
 all the honour which God ever intended them. To be plainer, 
 we ourselves are the sacrifice offered by those 6 symbols; and the 
 victim of the cross is the sacrifice participated by the same 
 symbols. But I proceed. 
 
 6. It is further argued against spiritual sacrifices, that they 
 require no proper altar, as all proper sacrifices do : therefore 
 they are not proper sacrifices f . This argument is faulty, more 
 ways than one. For, i. It can never be proved, that sacrifices, 
 and altars are such inseparable relatives, that one may not sub- 
 sist without the other. An altar seems to be rather a circum- 
 stance of convenience, or decency, than essential to sacrifice. It 
 was accidental to the Jewish sacrifices, that they needed altars : 
 and the reason was not because all sacrifices must have altars, 
 but because sacrifices of such a kind could not be performed 
 without them ; otherwise, an altar appears no more necessary 
 to a sacrifice, considered at large, than a case or a plate, a pix or 
 a patin, is to a gift, or present. 2. Besides, how will it be 
 made appear that the table on which our Lord consecrated the 
 Eucharist, or the cross on which he suffered, was properly and 
 
 sumus etiam et dicimur sacerdotes, be offered in the Eucharist. But 
 
 sed et ilia magis stricta, qua qui po- then it means only offered to view, 
 
 pulo acquisitions praesunt tv vAfjitf or offered to Divine consideration : 
 
 0eoO, /col els tbv, Dei sunt et populi that is, represented before God, 
 
 pee'irai Habemus autem et altare, angels, and men, and pleaded before 
 
 ad quod offerimus oblationes et sacri- God as what we claim to ; not offered 
 
 ficia commemorationis, laudationis, again in sacrifice. See Field on the 
 
 orationis, nos. nostra, Deo, per sacer- Church, pp. 204, 205. and my Re- 
 
 dotem.' Montacut. Orig. torn. ii. view, above, p. 344. 
 
 p. 313. f Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 
 
 e The sacrifice of the cross, or 2. pp. 712, 713. 
 Christ himself, may also be said to
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 423 
 
 previously an altar ? The Cardinal's argument proves too much 
 to prove anything : for it does not only strike at the spiritual 
 sacrifices, but at the mass sacrifice too, and even at the sacrifice 
 of the cross, which had no proper altar S. But if it be said, that 
 both the table and the cross were proper altars, as being the 
 seats of proper sacrifices, then whatever is the seat of a spiritual 
 sacrifice (which we now suppose to be proper) will, by parity of 
 reason, be a spiritual altar also, and proper in its kind : so then, 
 take the thing either way, the argument is frivolous, and con- 
 cludes nothing 11 . I have now run through the Cardinal's sub- 
 tilties on this head ; excepting that some notice remains to be 
 taken of his artful contrivance to elude St. Austin's definition 
 of sacrifice, and therewith all the old definitions which had ob- 
 tained in the Church for fifteen hundred years before. 
 
 7. He pretends, that that Father defined only true sacrifice, 
 not proper sacrifice ; and that therefore his definition comes not 
 up to the point in hand : good works may be true sacrifices, in 
 St. Austin's sense, but they will be improper, metaphorical, or 
 nominal only, notwithstanding 1 . This is the substance of the 
 pretext, laid down in its full force, and it will require a clear and 
 distinct answer. First, I may take notice, that it is very odd, 
 in this case especially, to make a distinction between true and 
 proper, and to oppose one to the other. St. Austin, most un- 
 doubtedly, intended, under the word 'true,' to take in all Christian, 
 
 8 Some make the cross itself the 559, 567. 
 
 altar, which has been the current h The Lord's table is by the an- 
 
 way of speaking from Origen of the cients frequently called an altar, as 
 
 third century. Others say, the Di- being the seat of the elements, and 
 
 vine nature of our Lord was the so an altar in the same metonymical 
 
 altar, grounding it upon Heb. ix. 14. meaning, as the elements were body 
 
 Others take in both, in different re- and blood, or the grand sacrifice 
 
 spects : but neither of them seems itself. The Lord's table might also 
 
 to have been an altar in strict pro- more properly be called an altar, aa 
 
 priety of speech, but rather in the being that from which, or at which, 
 
 way of analogy, or resemblance, prayers and praises and commemo- 
 
 This article has been minutely dis- rations (spiritual sacrifices) were 
 
 cussed by Cloppenburg. Opp. vol. i. offered. See my Review, above, pp. 
 
 p. 82, &c. Witsius, Miscellan. torn. 333, 334. 
 
 i. p. 509. In Symb. Apostol. p. 146. l Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 
 
 Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. 13. ?. p. 713. Cp. Vasquez, torn. hi. 
 
 lib. iv. cap. 15. Deylingius, Obs. p. 507. Suarez, torn. iii. p. 886. 
 
 Sacr. torn. ii. p. 393. Miscellan. Bapt. Scortia, p. 18.
 
 424 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 all evangelical, all salutary or acceptable, yea all allowable sacri- 
 fices : and what can it signify to talk of any proper sacrifice 
 (Jewish, suppose, or Pagan) as opposed to true, so long as such 
 proper sacrifice is no sacrifice at all in Christian account, but a 
 sacrilege rather, or a profanation ? But I answer further, that 
 there is no reason to imagine that St. Austin did not intend to 
 include ' proper' under the word ' true.' It would not have been 
 sufficient to his purpose to have said proper sacrifice, because 
 Jewish and Pagan sacrifices might come under the same appella- 
 tion : but he chose the word ' true,' as carrying in it more than 
 ' proper,' and as expressing proper and salutary, or authorized, 
 both in one. As true religion implies both proper and authorized 
 religion, and as true worship implies the like ; so true sacrifice 
 implies both propriety as to the name, and truth as to the 
 thing k . 
 
 The point may be further argued from hence, that the ancient 
 Fathers did not only call spiritual sacrifices real and true 1 , but they 
 looked upon them as the best, the noblest, the most perfect sacri- 
 fices, the most suitable and proper gifts or presents that could be 
 offered to the Divine Majesty m : and they never dropped any 
 hints of their being either improper or metaphorical. The 
 Romanists knew this very well ; and it may be useful to observe 
 their exquisite subtilty in this argument. For after they have 
 exploded, with a kind of popular clamour, all that the Fathers 
 ever called true sacrifice, under the opprobrious name of improper 
 
 k In this sense St. Austin called goras, pp. 48, 49. ed. Ox. Clem, 
 
 our Lord's Sacrifice true. Contr. Alex. pp. 836, 848, 849, 860. Ter- 
 
 Faust. lib. xx. cap. 18. xxii. 17. tullian, Apol. cap. xxx. De Orat. 
 
 Contr. advers. Leg. &c. lib. i. cap. cap. 27, 28. Minuc. Felix, sect. 
 
 18. xxxii. p. 183. Cyprian. Ep. Ixxvii. 
 
 1 Justin. Dial. p. 389. ed. Tbirlb. p. 159. ed. Bened. Lactantius, Epit. 
 
 Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 17. p. 248. ed. cap. Iviii. de vero Cultu, lib. vi. cap. 
 
 Bened. Origen. torn. ii. p. 362. ed. 24, 25. Eusebius, Demonstr. p. 40. 
 
 Bened. Clem. Alex. p. 686. ed. Ox. Hilarius Pictav. p. 154. ed. Bened. 
 
 Lactant. Epit. 169, 204, 205. ed. Dav. Basil, torn. iii. p. 207. ed Bened. 
 
 Philastrius, Haer. cap. cix. p. 221. Nazianzen. torn. i. pp. 38, 484. 
 
 ed. Fabr. Hieronym. in Amos, cap. Chrysostom. torn. v. pp. 20, 231, 
 
 v. p. 1420. ed. Bened. Augustin. 316, 503. vii. 216. ed. Bened. Au- 
 
 tom. x. pp. 94, 242, 243, 256. ed. gustin. torn. v. p. 268. de Civit. Dei, 
 
 Be.ied. Gregor. Magn. Dial. lib. iv. lib. x. cap. 20. lib. xix. cap. 23. Isi- 
 
 cap. 59^ p. 472. ed. Bened. dorus Pelus. lib. iii. Ep. 75. 
 
 10 Justin. Dial. p. 387. Athena-
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 425 
 
 and metaphorical 11 , and have raised an odium against Protestants 
 for admitting no other, then, (as if they had forgot all that 
 they had been before doing,) they fetch a round, and come upon 
 us with the high and emphatical expressions of the Fathers, ask- 
 ing, how we can be so dull as to understand them of metaphorical, 
 nominal sacrifices ? Yet we are very certain, that all those high 
 expressions of the Fathers belonged only to spiritual sacrifices ; 
 the very same that Bellarmine and the rest discard as improper 
 and metaphorical. 
 
 But they here play fast and loose with us : first, pretending 
 that the true and noble sacrifices of the ancients did not mean 
 proper ones, in order to discard the old definitions ; and then 
 again, (to serve another turn,) pretending that those very sacri- 
 fices must have been proper, (not metaphorical,) because the 
 Fathers so highly esteemed them, and spake so honourably of 
 them. In short, the whole artifice terminates in this, that the 
 self-same sacrifices as admitted by Protestants shall be called 
 metaphorical, in order to disgrace the Protestant cause, but shall 
 be called proper and true as admitted by the Fathers, in order to 
 keep up some show of agreement in this article with antiquity- 
 But I return to the Cardinal, whom I left disabling all the old 
 definitions, in order to introduce a new one of his own, a very 
 strange one P ; fitted indeed to throw out spiritual sacrifice most 
 effectually, (which was what he chiefly aimed at,) but at the 
 same time also overthrowing, undesignedly, both the sacrifice of 
 the mass and the sacrifice of the cross. 
 
 i. As to the sacrifice of the mass, the subject of it is supposed 
 to be our Lord's natural body, invisible in the Eucharist; and yet, 
 by the definition, the sacrifice should be ' res sensibilis V some- 
 
 n Vide Suarez, torn. iii. pp. 886, calling it a definition of animal. 
 891, 892, 893, 896. 'Sacrificium eat oblatio externa, 
 
 Vide Petavius, Eocl. Dogm. torn, facta soli Deo, qua ad agnitionem 
 
 iii. p. 130. humanae infirmitatis, et professi- 
 
 P A definition of one kind of sacri- onem Divinae majestatis, a legitimo 
 
 fice, (Jewish, as it seems,) rather ministro res aliqua sensibilis et per- 
 
 than of sacrifice in general, or of manens, in ritu mystico, consecratur, 
 
 Christian in particular. It is giving et transmutatur, ita ut plane destru- 
 
 us a species for the genus, like the atur.' Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i; 
 
 making a definition of man, and then cap. 2. pp. 7*5; 7 J 7
 
 426 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 thing visible, obvious to one or more of the senses. Again, our 
 Lord's body is not liable any more to destruction ; and yet, by 
 the definition, the sacrifice should be destroyed. But I shall 
 insist no longer upon the Cardinal's inconsistencies in that 
 article, because he has often been called to account for them by 
 learned Protestants r . 
 
 2. The second article, relating to the sacrifice of the cross, has 
 been less taken notice of : but it is certain, that Bellarmine's 
 definition is no more friendly to that than to the other. 
 
 If our Lord's soul was any part of his offering, (as Scripture 
 seems to intimate s , and as the Fathers plainly teach { , and the 
 reason of the thing persuades,) or if his life was an offering, 
 which Scripture plainly, and more than once testifies 11 ; then 'res 
 aliqua sensibilis,' ' some sensible thing' is not the true notion of 
 proper sacrifice, neither is it essential to the definition of it ; 
 unless the life which our Lord gave upon the. cross was no proper 
 sacrifice. Perhaps, in strictness of notion, his 'obedience unto 
 death v ,' his amazing act of philanthropy, (so highly extolled in 
 the New Testament,) was properly the acceptable sacrifice. So 
 Aquinas states that matter, as I before noted : and Bellarmine 
 was aware of it, in another chapter, wherein he undertakes to 
 prove, that our Lord's death was a proper sacrifice w . There he 
 was obliged to say, though he says it coldly, that acts of charity 
 are ' quoddam sacrificium,' a kind of sacrifice. But the question 
 was about proper sacrifice, and about our Lord's philanthropy : 
 was that only 'quoddam sacrificium,' or was it not proper 1 Here 
 the Cardinal was nonplussed, and had no way to extricate himself, 
 but by admitting (faintly however and tacitly, as conscious of 
 self-contradiction) that spiritual sacrifice may be proper sacrifice, 
 
 r Joaun. Forbesius, p. 615. Mon- aeus, p. 292. ed. Bened. Hieronym. 
 
 tacutius, Orig. torn. ii. pp. 302, 357. torn. ii. part. 2. pp. 167, 173. ed. 
 
 Bishop Morton, b. vi. cap. 6. pp. 467, Bened. Fulgentius ad Thrasimund. 
 
 468, &c. Hakewill, p. 8. Brevint. lib. iii. Compare Bishop Bilson, Full 
 
 Depth and Mystery, &c. pp. 133, Redemption, &c. p. 83, &c. 
 144. Payne on the Sacrifice of the n Matt. xx. 28. Mark 5.45. John 
 
 Mass, p. 70. Bishop Kidder, pp. x. n, 15, 17. xv. 13. i John iii. 16. 
 316, 415. T Phil. ii. 8. Heb. v. 8. 
 
 Isa. liii. 10, ii, 12. Psalm xvi. w Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 
 10. Luke xxiii. 46. 3. p. 718. 
 
 * Clem. Roman, cap. xlix. Iren-
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 427 
 
 and is not always metaphorical : otherwise, the very brightest 
 part of our Lord's own sacrifice, the very flower and perfection 
 of it, his most stupendous work of philanthropy, must have 
 been thrown off, under the low and disparaging names of meta- 
 phorical, improper, nominal sacrifice. 
 
 Having seen how the ablest champion of the Romish cause 
 failed in his attempts against spiritual sacrifices, failed in not 
 proving his point, failed also in over proving, we may now with 
 the greater assurance maintain, that the old definitions, which 
 took in spiritual sacrifice, were true and just, and that the new 
 ones, arbitrarily introduced, in the decline of the sixteenth 
 century, are false and wrong ; such as one would expect from 
 men zealous for a party cause, and disposed to support manifest 
 errors and absurdities, at any rate whatsoever. 
 
 After pointing out the rise of the new definitions, I am next 
 to observe what their progress was, and what the result or issue 
 of them. It must, I am afraid, be owned, that our Romish 
 adversaries were but too successful in spreading mists and dark- 
 ness all over the subject, in opening a new and wide field of 
 dispute, thereby drawing the Protestants, more or less, out of 
 their safe intrenchments ; dividing them also, if not as to their 
 main sentiments, yet at least as to their modes of expression and 
 their methods of defence. 
 
 How this affair had been fixed amongst us, but a few years 
 before, may be collected from Archbishop Sandys's judicious 
 definition of sacrifice x , published in 1585, and contrived to take 
 in sacrifices both of the material and spiritual kind. Dr. Bilson 
 also (afterwards Bishop) published his book of Christian Subjec- 
 tion, the same year; wherein he took occasion to assert, that 
 the Eucharist is a sacrifice, yea, and a true sacrifice ; but under- 
 standing it to be of the spiritual kind y. This kind of language 
 
 * ' Sacrificing is a voluntary action and so to the end, was and shall be 
 
 whereby we worship God, offering more acceptable to God, than the 
 
 him somewhat, in token that we bloody and external sacrifices of the 
 
 acknowledge him to be the Lord, Jews.' Bilson, p. 696. 
 
 and ourselves his servants.' Sandys, ' Neither they nor I ever denied 
 
 Serm. xxi. p. 185. the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. The 
 
 J ' Malachi speaketh of the true very name enforceth it to be the 
 
 sacrifice, which, from the beginning, sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ;
 
 428 Fhe Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 (the uniform language of antiquity, and of the whole reformation z 
 for sixty or seventy years,) began to vary in some measure, from 
 Bellarmine's time, and jnore and more so, both here and abroad. 
 Some indeed stood by the old definitions and ancient language 
 concerning the Eucharist : more went off from it ; and so 
 Protestants became divided, in sounds at least, while they differed 
 not much in sense. Many finding that they were sufficiently 
 able to maintain their ground against the Romanists, even upon 
 the foot of the Romish definitions, never troubled themselves 
 further to examine how just they were : it was enough, they 
 thought, that the Romanists could not prove the Eucharist a 
 time and proper Sacrifice, in their own way of defining ; and the 
 rest seemed to be only contending about words and names. 
 Nevertheless the more thoughtful and considerate men saw 
 what advantage the adversaries might make by aspersing the 
 Protestants as having no sacrifice properly so called, nor pre- 
 tending to any : besides that the dignity of a venerable Sacra- 
 ment would probably suffer much by it ; and the ancient 
 Fathers, who were very wise men, had never consented (though 
 as much provoked to it by the Pagan objectors) to lessen the 
 dignity of their true and real sacrifices by the low and diminutive 
 names of improper or metaphorical. They always stood to it, 
 that they had sacrifices, yea and true sacrifices, (of the spiritual a 
 kind,) the noblest and divinest that could be offered ; while all 
 
 which is the true and lively sacrifice nem habet, idque triplici respectu. 
 
 of the New Testament. The Lord's i. Quatenus in ea aliquid Deo offeri- 
 
 table, in respect of his graces and mus, solennem videlicet gratiamm 
 
 mercies there proposed to us, is an actiouem, ex illo Christi praecepto. 
 
 heavenly banquet, which we must I Cor. xi. 26. 
 
 eat, and not sacrifice : but the duties ' 2. Deinde, quod in ea conferren- 
 
 which he requireth at our hands, tur eleemosynae, ex institute fortas- 
 
 when we approach his table, are sa- sis Apostoli, I Cor. xvi. 2. Quae 
 
 crifices, not sacraments. As namely, eleemosynae vocantur irpoff<popai, ex 
 
 to ofler him thanks and praises, faith illo Christi sermone, Matt. xxv. 20. 
 and obedience, yea our bodies and ' 3. Quod mortis Domini sncrifici- 
 
 souls, to be living, holy, and accept- um, ob oculos quodammodo in illis 
 
 able sacrifices unto him, which is myateriis positum, veluti renovetur.' 
 
 our reasonable service.' Bilson, p. Beza, Quaest. et Respons. p. 105. 
 699. a See the testimonies in my Re- 
 
 1 Beza's account (in 1577) may view, above, chap. xii. To which 
 
 serve for a specimen : abundance more may be added. And 
 
 ' Coena Domini sacrificii ratio- note, that though the epithet ' spiri-
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 other pi-etended sacrifices, all material sacrifices b , were mean, 
 poor, contemptible things, in comparison. Such, I humbly coa- 
 ceive, ought to have been our constant, standing reply to the 
 Romanists, with respect to this article : for we have certainly 
 as just a plea for it in our case, as the ancient Fathers had in 
 theirs. However, as I before hinted, Protestant Divines varied 
 in their language on this head, some abiding by the old definitions, 
 upon good consideration, others too unwarily departing from 
 them. So now we are to consider them as divided into two 
 sorts : and in process of time, as shall be related, sprang up a 
 third sort, growing, as it were, out of the other two. I shall 
 say something of each in their order and place, for the further 
 clearing of the subject. 
 
 i. Among those that adhered to the old language, and still 
 continued to call the Eucharist a true or a proper sacrifice, but 
 of the spiritual kind, I may first mention Amandus Polanus c , 
 
 tual,' joined, suppose, with 'meat,' or 
 'drink,' or the like, may denote some 
 material thing bearing a mystical 
 signification, yet it has not been 
 shewn, neither can it be shewn, that 
 the phrase ' spiritual sacrifice' anci- 
 ently denoted a material substance 
 offered as a sacrifice. A sacred re- 
 gard was had to St. Peter's use of 
 that phrase, to denote evangelical 
 services : besides that the Fathers 
 constantly explained what they 
 meant by spiritual sacrifices, and 
 so specified the particulars, as to 
 leave no room for scruple or eva- 
 sion, among persons of any reason- 
 able discernment. So that the put- 
 ting a new construction upon the 
 phrase, in order to make some show 
 of agreement with antiquity, is a 
 transparent fallacy. It is keeping 
 their terms, but eluding their mean- 
 ing. It is teaching novel doctrine 
 under ancient phrases. 
 
 b Express testimonies against ma- 
 terial sacrifice may be seen in Justin 
 Martyr, Apol. p. 14. Tertullian, p. 
 1 88. Rigalt. Origen. in Psalm, pp. 
 563, 722. ed. Bened. Lactantius, 
 Epit. cap. Iviii. p. 169. Eusebius, 
 
 Praep. Evang. lib. iv. cap. 10. pp. 
 148, 149. Eusebius, Demonstr. 
 Evang. pp. 39, 222, 223. Basil, torn, 
 ii. pp. 402, 403. ed. Bened. Chry- 
 sostom, torn. i. p. 664. ed. Bened. 
 Cyrill. Alex, contr. Jul. lib. x. p. 345. 
 Procopius in Isa. pp. 22, 493. 
 
 N.B. It is not possible to recon- 
 cile those testimonies to the material 
 scheme : but it is very easy to make 
 the Fathers consistent throughout, 
 with themselves, and with each other, 
 on the spiritual foot, as making the 
 work, or service, the sacrifice. The 
 single question then is, whether the 
 Fathers ought to be so interpreted 
 as to make them consistent upon the 
 whole ; or whether some detached 
 passages, capable of a consistent 
 meaning, ought to be understood in 
 a sense repugnant to the uniform 
 tenor of their writings. The passive 
 sense is the true key to those pas- 
 sages. 
 
 c ' Coena Domini est sacrificium, 
 turn eucharisticum, turn propitiate- 
 rium : eucharisticum quidem pro- 
 prium, quatenus in ejus usu gratias 
 Deo agimus quod nos ex servitute, 
 &c. . . . propitiatorium vero aliquo
 
 43 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 a learned Calvinist, who died in 1610. Our very judicious Dean 
 Field, (who finished his book of the Church in 1610, and died 
 in 1616,) he also adhered to the old language, disregarding the 
 new definitions. He asserted the Eucharist to be, with regard to 
 the sacrifices of our selves, our praises, &c. a true but spiritual 
 sacrifice d . 
 
 Scharpius, a learned Calvinist, who published his Cursus 
 Theologicus in 1617, scrupled not to reckon the Eucharist 
 among the sacrifices strictly and properly so called, but still of 
 the eucharistical and spiritual kind. He had seen Bellarmine's 
 affected subtilties on that head, despised them, and in part con- 
 futed them e . 
 
 Bishop Andrews appears to have been a Divine of the same 
 ancient stamp, in this article. In the year 1592, he discovered 
 some uneasiness, that many would not allow the Eucharist to be 
 a sacrifice at all, but a mere sacrament f . Afterwards, in 1610, 
 he asserted the Lord's Supper to be a sacrifice, of the eucha- 
 ristical kinds. In 1612, he went so far as to say, that the 
 Apostle (i Cor. x.) match eth the Eucharist with the sacrifice of 
 the Jews, and that, by the 'rule of comparisons, they must be 
 ejusdem generis 11 .' By which he did not mean, as some have 
 widely mistaken him, that both must be the same kind of sacri- 
 fice, but that both must be of the sacrificial kind, agreeing in 
 the same common genus of sacrifice : for he said it in opposi- 
 tion to those who pretended that the Eucharist was an ordi- 
 nance merely of the sacramental kind, and not at all of the 
 sacrificial >. 
 
 modo, quatenus unici illius sacrificii Cp. his Posthumous Answer to 
 
 vere propitiatorii memoriam in eo Card. Perron, pp. 6, 7- 
 eerio frequentare jubemur.' Amand. * Besides the argument here drawn 
 
 Polan. Symphon. Cathol. cap. xvii. from the consideration of what prin- 
 
 p. 275. Cp. p. 855. ciples he was then opposing, (which 
 
 d Field, of the Church, pp. 210, is a good rule of construction,) it 
 
 220. may further be considered that the 
 
 e Scharpius, Curs. Theolog. pp. approved Divines of his time, Mason 
 
 1522, 1525, 1539. ed. 2. Genevae. and Spalatensis, rejected with indig- 
 
 f Bp. Andrews's Sermons, part ii. nation the thought of any material 
 
 p. 35. sacrifice, (vid. Mason de Ministerio 
 
 8 Andrews ad Bellarmin. Apolog. Anglican, pp. 575, 599, 618, 551, 
 
 Respons. p. 184. 595- Spalatensis, lib. v. pp. 149, 
 
 h Bp. Andrews's Sermons, p. 453. 265, 267.) condemned it as absurdity,
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 431 
 
 Dr. Buckeridge wrote in 1614. His notion of the eucharistic 
 sacrifice seems to resolve into a real and proper sacrifice of 
 Christ's mystical body, the Church, and a metonymical, improper 
 offering of Christ himself ; offering him in some sort, or in the 
 way of representation, like as is done in Baptism \ He does not 
 indeed use the word ' proper,' following the style of the ancients 
 before ever that word came in : but he apparently means it, 
 where he speaks of the sacrifice of Christ's mystical body, that 
 is, of self-sacrifice. 
 
 Archbishop Laud speaks of three sacrifices : i. Christ's own 
 sacrifice, commemorated before God, by the priest alone, in his 
 breaking the bread, and pouring out the wine. 2. The sacrifice 
 made by priest and people jointly, the sacrifice of praise and 
 thanksgiving. 3. Self-sacrifice by every communicant 1 . I will 
 not defend all those distinctions. I think all the three sacrifices 
 are properly the sacrifices of the Church, or of all the worthy 
 communicants, recommended or offered up by their priests in 
 that holy solemnity : the priest is their mouth in doing it, their 
 conductor, or principal, authorized by God so to be. This great 
 man said nothing of proper or improper : all the three sacrifices 
 may be understood to be proper, but spiritual. What he be- 
 lieved, as to each, is not easy to say. If we explain his comme- 
 morative sacrifice by Bishop Buckeridge's account of the same 
 thing, it could be no more than figurative, in that relative view ; 
 
 madness, and impiety. So also Bp. Papae in praefat. 
 Morton, (b. vi. cap. 5. pp.438, 439.) ' In the Eucharist we offer up to 
 
 approving what the wiser Romanists God three sacrifices : ' One, by the 
 
 had said, condemning the notion in priest only, that is, the commemora- 
 
 the like strong terms. tive sacrifice of Christ's death, repre- 
 
 k ' De sacrificio cordis contriti . . . sented in bread broken and wine 
 
 de sacrificiis item corporis Christi poured out : another, by the priest 
 
 mystici (non naturalis) in quo nos- and people jointly ; and that is the 
 
 metipsos Deo ofFerimus, satis con- sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving 
 
 venit. . . . De sacrificio item comme- for all the benefits and graces we 
 
 morativo, sive repraesentativo, quo receive by the precious death of 
 
 Christus ipse, qui in cruce pro nobis Christ : the third, by every particu- 
 
 iminolatus est, per viam repraesen- lar man for himself only, and that 
 
 tationis et commemoration is a nobis is the sacrifice of every man's body 
 
 etiam quodammodo offerri dicitur, and soul, to serve him in both all 
 
 lis non magna est : in Baptismo enim the rest of his life, for this blessing 
 
 offertur sacrificium Christi, uti Au- thus bestowed upon him.' Laud's 
 
 gustiiius, &c.' Buckeridge de Potest. Conference, sect. xxxv. pp. 305, 306.
 
 432 Ihe Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 for we cannot properly sacrifice Christ himself ; but the com- 
 memorative service, being of the same nature with hymns and 
 praises, may be considered in the absolute view, as a proper 
 sacrifice of ours, of the eucharistical and spiritual kind ; and 
 that perhaps was what that great Prelate might have in his 
 thoughts. 
 
 It is certain that Bishop Montague, of that time, understood 
 the whole action, or memorial service, to be a true and real sacri- 
 fice of praise m . And as he was a great admirer of antiquity, he 
 had no regard to the new definitions, but referred the novelists 
 to St. Austin for correction and better instruction n . The very 
 learned Dr. Hammond was, undoubtedly, in the same way of 
 thinking : the whole eucharistical action both of priest and people, 
 the memorial service jointly performed, that was the sacrifice in 
 his account . Bishop Taylor P, Archbishop Bramhall % Hamon 
 I'Estrange 1 ", appear to have been in the like sentiments. Dr. 
 Patrick, who wrote in 1659, more plainly followed the ancient 
 way of thinking and speaking, such as had been in use before 
 the new definitions came in. Duties and set-vices were his sacri- 
 fice, a spiritual sacrifice 8 . He pleads, that such services justly 
 deserve the name * ; that even the Pagan Platonists (as well as 
 Scripture and Fathers) had so used the name of Sacrifice ; and 
 that the appellation was very proper", taking in not only mental, 
 or vocal praises, but manual also ; that is, as he expresses it, 
 the eucharistical actions w . Upon these principles, he tells the 
 Pap ; sts, that ' we are sacrificers as well as they x :' which was 
 
 m Montacut. Origin, torn. ii. pp. blem, p. 137, or English Works, vol. 
 
 301-304. Compare his Antidiatribe, ii. p. 550. 
 
 pp. 143, 144, where he takes in our P Taylor, Holy Living, &c. ch. iv. 
 
 self-sacrifice, calling it the sacrifice sect. 10. Worthy Commun. p. 54. 
 of Christ's mystical body. 1 Bramhall's Works, pp. 35, 36, 
 
 n Montacut. ibid. p. 358. 996. 
 
 Hammond, Practical Catechism, " L'Estrange's Alliance, &c. pp. 
 
 lib. vi. sect. 4. vol. i. p. 174. Com- 187, 221. 
 
 pare View of New Direct, p. 154. Patrick's Mensa Mystica, pp. 
 
 and vol. ii. Dispatch, p. 164. vol. 16, 18, 19. ed. 4. 
 iii. p. 769. The notion of the whole * Ibid. p. 35. 
 action being the sacrifice, was not u Ibid. pp. 35, 36. 
 new : it appears in the Fathers of w Ibid. p. 36. ed. 4 : compare p, 
 
 old; and Mr. Perkins, who died in 19. 
 ^602, had taught the same. Pro- * Ibid. p. 37: Compare pp. 38, 40.
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 433 
 
 the right turn, copied from what the ancient Fathers had said 
 in answer to the like charge of having no sacrifice, and as justly 
 pleaded by Protestants now, as by Christians then, against their 
 injurious accusers. 
 
 Bishop Lany, after the Restoration, (A. D. 1663,) a very 
 learned Divine, and of great acumen, scrupled not to call the 
 whole eucharistical service true and proper sacrifice, proper with- 
 out a metaphoi-, as being the fittest gift or present that could be 
 offered to the Divine Majesty y. So little did he regard the 
 frivolous distinctions of the Trent Council, or the new definitions 
 invented to support them. 
 
 Nine years after appeared Dr. Brevint 2 . He was well read 
 in the eucharistic sacrifice: no man understood it better; which 
 may appear sufficiently from two tracts of his upon the subject, 
 small ones both, but extremely fine. He stood upon the ancient 
 ground, looked upon evangelical duties as the true oblations and 
 sacrifices* 1 , resolved the sacrifice of the Eucharist, actively con- 
 sidered, solely into them b ; and he explained the practical uses 
 of that doctrine in so clear, so lively, and so affecting a way, that 
 one shall scarce meet with anything on the subject that can be 
 justly thought to exceed it, or even to come up to it c . So that 
 I could heartily join my wishes with a late learned writer, that 
 that 'excellent little book, entitled, The Christian Sacrament 
 and Sacrifice, might be reprinted, for the honour of God, and 
 
 N.B. I have omitted Mr. Thorndike, and Sacrifice. He was made Dean 
 
 because his notion plainly resolves of Lincoln in 1681, and died in 
 
 into the passive sense, viz. into the 1695. 
 
 grand sacrifice itself, as contained a Brevint, Depth and Myst. p. 
 
 in the Eucharist, because represent- 16. 
 
 ed, applied, and participated in it. b ' Sincere Christians must have 
 
 The Lutherans, generally, resolve it their hands full, at the receiving the 
 
 the same way, only differing as to holy Communion, with four distinct 
 
 the point of real or local presence, sorts of sacrifices. I. The sacramen- 
 
 Vide Brochmand, torn. iii. pp. 2072, tal and commemorative sacrifice of 
 
 35 2 - Christ. 2. The real and actual sacri- 
 
 y Bishop Lany's Sermon on Heb. fice of themselves. 3. The free-will 
 xiii. 15. pp. 1 6, 32. Compare my offering of their goods. 4. The peace- 
 Review, above, p. 318. offering of their praises.' Brevint, 
 
 2 In 1672, Dr. Brevint wrote the Christian Sacrifice, no, in. 
 
 Depth and Mystery of the Roman c Brevint, Sacram. and Sacrif. sect. 
 
 Mass: reprinted 1673. In 1673, he vi. vii. viii. pp. 74-134. 
 published the Christian Sacrament 
 
 Ff
 
 434 Tfa Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 the benefit of the Church d .' It is worth the noting, how 
 acutely Dr. Brevint distinguished between the sacramental sacri- 
 fice of Christ, and the real or actual sacrifice of ourselves. We 
 cannot properly sacrifice Christ : we can only do it in signs and 
 figures, that is, improperly, or comniemoratively : but we may 
 properly offer up ourselves to God ; and that is, in strict pro- 
 priety of speech, our sacrifice, our spiritual sacrifice. Dr. Brevint 
 rejected, with disdain, any thought of a material sacrifice, a bread 
 offering, or a wine offering ; tartly ridiculing the pretences com- 
 monly made for it e . But I have dwelt long enough upon the 
 Divines of the first class : who standing upon the old principles, 
 and disregarding the new definitions, continued to call the Eu- 
 charist a true sacrifice, or a proper sacrifice, (meaning eucharistical 
 and spiritual,) or forbore, at least, to call it improper, or meta- 
 phorical. 
 
 2. I may now look back to other Divines, who used a different 
 language in this article. 
 
 At the head of them f stands the celebrated Mr. Hooker, who 
 wrote in 1597, and who feared not to say, that ' sacrifice is now 
 no part of the Church ministry,' and that we have, 'properly, 
 now no sacrifice?.' I presume he meant by proper sacrifice, 
 propitiatory, according to the sense of the Trent Council, or of 
 the new definitions. In such a sense as that, he might justly 
 say, that sacrifice is no part of the Church ministry, or that the 
 
 d Dr. Hickes's Christian Priest- f Dr. Rainoldes, in 1584, had in 
 
 hood, vol. i. Prefat. Disc. pp. 39, 40. the way of arguing 'ad hominem' 
 
 e ' Now among these magnificent shewn, that the Fathers were no 
 wonders of Christ's law, bread and friends to the mass-sacrifice, con- 
 wine can be reputed but of little sidered as true and proper, inas- 
 importance ; which you may find as much as they allowed only of spi- 
 well or better among the oblations ritual sacrifices, which, in the Ro- 
 of Aaron, and thus far belonging mish account, were not true or 
 better to his order ; because he is proper sacrifices. See Rainoldes 
 often commanded to offer bread, against Harte, pp. 472. 535) 536, 
 which Priest Melchizedek is. not. 539. That kind of arguing first led 
 Therefore, if offering bread and wine the way to such sort of language 
 makes an order, Aaron will be more as Mr. Hooker made use of ; but 
 certainly a priest after the order was not precisely the same with it, 
 of Melchizedek, than was either not running in the like absolute 
 Melchizedek or Christ himself.' Ere- terms. 
 
 vint, Depth and Mystery, p. 1 1 6. * Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book v. 
 
 See p. 117. ch. 78. sect. 2. Oxf. edit.
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 435 
 
 Christian Church has no sacrifice. But I commend not the use 
 of such new language, be the meaning ever so right : the Fathers 
 never used it h . 
 
 Dr. Francis White, in the year 1617, (lie was afterwards 
 Bishop of Ely,) observed, that the name of sacrifice doth not in 
 a proper and univocal sense belong to the Eucharist, but in a 
 large acceptation of the word, and in a figurative meaning; 
 because it is a representation of the real sacrifice of Christ once 
 offered upon the cross \ He was so far right, in making a 
 representation of Christ's sacrifice to be but figuratively that 
 sacrifice : but he forgot, that the Eucharist contains many spirit- 
 ual services, which are truly sacrifices in the Scripture language, 
 and that even the memorial service, though it is but metonymi- 
 cally Christ's sacrifice, is yet really our sacrifice, our spiritual 
 sacrifice. From hence, however, may be seen how and by what 
 degrees Protestant Divines came to leave off calling the Eucharist 
 a sacrifice, or called it so with the epithet of ' improper' or ' figu- 
 rative.' It was chiefly owing to a partial conception of it : they 
 considered it barely in its representative or relative view, and 
 too hastily concluded, that since it was not the sacrifice repre- 
 sented, (as the Romanists pretended it was,) it was no sacrifice 
 at all in propriety of speech. 
 
 Spalatensis, of that time, made no scruple of saying, over and 
 over, that the Eucharist is 'not a true sacrifice V In a certain 
 place, he expressed himself in such a manner as might be apt 
 to surprise a man at the first reading : he says, that the name of 
 true sacrifice was never given to the Eucharist, never thought 
 on, before the very latest and the most corrupt ages \ But he 
 meant it, I suppose, according to that sense of true sacrifice, 
 
 h Once Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 339. 
 
 (Str. vii. p. 836.) and once Arno- k Antonius de Dominis, lib. v. 
 bius, (lib. vii.) has said, that the c. 6. pp.82, 265, 269, 271, 278. 
 Christians had no sacrifices ; mean- ' ' Esse verum sacrificium, nun- 
 ing such as the Pagans had boasted quam ad postrema corrupta saecula 
 of : but that did not amount to say- invenio, aut dictum, aut cogitatum, 
 ing, that the Church had no proper aut traditum, aut practicatum in 
 sacrifices, or properly no sacri- Ecclesia.' Antonius de Dominis, 
 fice. ibid. p. 281. 
 
 1 White, Orthodox Faith and Way, 
 
 F f 2
 
 436 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 which the Trent Council and the Popish writers had lately 
 affixed to the name. 
 
 The Divinity chairs in both universities, about that time, con- 
 curred in denying the Eucharist to be a true, real, or proper 
 sacrifice : which appears from Dr. Abbot m , afterwards Bishop 
 of Sarum ; and from Dr. Davenant n , afterwards Bishop of the 
 same see. Both of them seemed to take their estimate of true 
 and proper sacrifice from the new definitions ; allowing them for 
 argument sake, and joining issue with the Komanists upon their 
 own terms. The like may be said of Mr. Mason, who frequently 
 allows, or declares, that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly 
 so called . But Dr. Crakanthorp (about A. D. 1624) may serve 
 for a good comment upon all the rest : for when he denied the 
 Eucharist to be either a true sacrifice, or a sacrifice properly so 
 called, he cautiously guarded what he had said, by restraining 
 it to such a sense as the Trent Council and Komish divines had 
 affixed to the phrases of true sacrifice, and sacrifice properly so 
 called P. That restriction, or salvo, was often forgot, and came, 
 by degrees, to be more and more omitted ; and so the most 
 prevailing doctrine ran in absolute terms, that the Eucharist is 
 no true sacrifice, or no proper sacrifice, or in short, no sacrifice. 
 Bishop Morton, being sensible how much it tended to disparage 
 the holy Eucharist, and how contradictory it was to ancient 
 language, to say that the Eucharist is not a true or not a proper 
 
 m ' The passion of Christ is the men sortiantur ; quamvis etiam ipsa 
 
 sacrifice which we offer : and be- repraesentatio fracti corporis Christi 
 
 cause the passion of Christ is not et fusi sanguinis, figurate sacrificium 
 
 now really acted, therefore the sa- a veteribus saepenumero vocetur." 
 
 crifice which we offer is no true and Davenant. Deterininat. p. 13. 
 
 real sacrifice.' Abbot, Counterproof Mason, de Minist. Anglic, pp. 
 
 against Dr. Bishop, ch. xiv. p. 364. 549, 550, 551, 555, 627, 628. 
 
 N. B. Here was the like partial con- P 'Sacrificium missae non est vere 
 
 ception of the thing as I before sacrificium propitiatorium, ut conci- 
 
 noted in Dr. White. Hum Tridentinum definit, vestrique 
 
 11 ' Nos asserimus, in missa nihil decent ; sed Eucharisticum tantum- 
 
 posse nominari aut ostendi quod modo et conimemorativum. . . . Sed 
 
 sit sacrificabile, aut quod rationem nee omnino verurn et proprie dic- 
 
 et essentiam habeat realis, externi, turn sacrificium in missa ullum est ; 
 
 et proprie dicti sacrificii : quamvis non quale Tridentinum concilium 
 
 quae adhiberi in eadem solent pre- definlvit, et vestri uno ore profiten- 
 
 ces, eleemosynae, gratiarum acti- tur.' Crakanthorp. contr. Spalatens. 
 
 ones, spiritualium sacrificiorum no- c. Isxiv. p. 574.
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 437 
 
 sacrifice, endeavoured to help the matter by a distinction be- 
 tween truth of excellency and truth of propriety 1 ; allowing the 
 Eucharist to be true sacrifice, as to excellency of nature, but not 
 as to propriety of speech : as if the new definitions were a better 
 rule of propriety, than all that had prevailed for fifteen hundred 
 years before. His distinction was a good one, in the main, but 
 was not justly applied in this particular, where truth of excellency 
 and truth of propriety are really coincident, and resolve both into 
 one. However, so the vogue ran, as I have before said, and 
 so has it been transmitted, through many hands, down to this 
 day r . 
 
 3. Such being the case, there is the less reason to wonder that 
 a third set of Divines, in process of time, sprang up, as it were, 
 out of the two former. For some serious men perceiving how 
 much the ancient and modern language differed in this article, 
 and that by means of the now prevailing definitions they were 
 
 i Morton's Institut. of theSacram. 
 book vi. chap. 3. p. 415. chap. 7. 
 sect. i. p. 470. 
 
 How much the old notion of sacri- 
 fice was now wearing out may be 
 judged from Dr. George Hakewill, 
 who wrote in 1641, and was other- 
 wise a learned and judicious writer, 
 particularly as to this very argu- 
 ment. He says, ' Commemoration 
 being an action, cannot, in propriety 
 of speech, be the thing sacrificed, 
 which must of necessity be a sub- 
 stance,' &c. Hakewill, Dissertat. 
 P- 25- 
 
 He rejects Austin s definition, p. 
 4. And it is too plain from several 
 places of his work, that the mists 
 first raised by Bellarmine, and other 
 Romish divines, hung before his 
 eyes. 
 
 r The Lutheran way of speaking, 
 in this matter, may be seen in Dey- 
 lingius, Observat. Miscellan. p. 291. 
 and in Zeltner. Breviar. Controvers. 
 cum Eccl. Grace, pp. 231, 251. 
 
 The Calvinistical way, in Dallaeus, 
 cle Cult. Religiosis. pp. 1122, 1126. 
 L'Arroque, Hist, of the Eucharist, 
 
 2 75> & c - Basnage, Annal. torn. 3. 
 p. 373. all declare it, absolutely, no 
 true sacrifice : which, though well 
 meant, is too unguarded, and is dif- 
 ferent language from that of the 
 Fathers of the Reformation. 
 
 One of our late Divines (a person 
 of great learning) speaks thus : 
 
 ' We deny that there is any reason 
 why the Eucharist should be called 
 a true sacrifice, and properly so cal- 
 led, or ought to be so : for when we 
 call anything a true sacrifice, we 
 have regard to the formal reason of 
 a sacrifice, and not to the final.' 
 Nichols's Additional Notes, p. 51. 
 printed A.D. 1710. 
 
 But what did he make the formal 
 reason of a sacrifice ? Did he take 
 it from the new definitions ? Where 
 there is properly a gift to God, by 
 way of worship, to honour, or to 
 please him, there is the foi-mal rea- 
 son of a sacrifice. Gratulatory sacri- 
 fice is as properly sacrifice, as the 
 propitiatory, or expiatory : they are 
 different species under the same 
 genus.
 
 438 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 likely to lose their sacrifice ; they thought of reconciling the eu- 
 charistic sacrifice with the new definitions, by making it a material 
 sacrifice. Our excellent Mr. Mede, in the year 1635, was chief 
 in this scheme. The aim was good, to retrieve the Christian 
 sacrifice, which seemed to be almost sinking ; but the measures 
 were ill laid : for the only right way, as I conceive, of com- 
 passing what he intended, would have been to have restored the 
 old definitions of sacrifice, and so to have set the Eucharist upon 
 its true, and ancient, that is, spiritual foundation. The endea- 
 vouring to fix it on a material foot, and to make the elements 
 themselves a sacrifice, was no more than what had been at- 
 tempted, about fourscore years before, by the Romanists s , and, 
 after mature deliberation, had been justly exploded by the 
 shrewder men *, as Jewish, or meaner than Jewish, and altogether 
 repugnant to Christian principles. Neither could Mr. Mede 
 escape the censures of many of that time for what he was 
 doing; as appears by a letter of Dr. Twisse, written in 1636, 
 and since printed in Mede's Works u . Mr. Mede forbore how- 
 ever to print his Christian Sacrifice ; though he published the 
 appendage to it, concerning the altar, which might give least 
 offence : the rest appeared not till ten years after his decease, 
 in the year 1648. There are many good things in it, for which 
 reason it has generally been mentioned with respect by our best 
 Divines : but in the point of a material sacrifice, (a sacrifice of 
 the elements,) he had not many followers. Dr. Heylin, who in 
 1636 and 1637 had some scheme or schemes of his own w , seems 
 to have taken into Mr. Mede's in or before 1654, when he pub- 
 lished his exposition of the Apostles' Creed *. 
 
 s Kuard'is Tapper, contr. Luther. 34, 36, 38. Arcudius, pp. 187, 189. 
 
 art. 1 8. Caspar. Casalius. De Sacrif. u 'I perceive, the main thing you 
 
 lib. i. c. 20. Jansenius, Concord, reached after, was a certain mystery 
 
 Evang. p. 905. Gordon. Huntlaeus, concerning a sacrifice ; which the 
 
 lib. ix. c. 3. n. I. Papists have miserably transformed; 
 
 * Salmeron. torn. ix. tract. 29. but, in your sense, is nowadays be- 
 
 p. 224. Maldonate, de Sacr. torn. i. come a mystery to all the Christian 
 
 par. 3. p. 334. Bellarmine, pp. 788, world.' Twisse, Ep. 70. Compare 
 
 792, 793. Vasquez, torn. iii. p. 527. Mede's Answer, Ep. 71. 
 
 Suarez, torn. iii. pp. 886, 905, 906, In his Coal from the Altar, and 
 
 910. Gregor. de Valentia, torn, iv. in his Antidotum. 
 
 p. 1274. Baptista Scortia. de Missa, * Heyliu on the Creed, p. 240, &c.
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 439 
 
 There are two fundamental flaws in Mr. Mede's system : 
 i. One in his endeavouring to fix the notion or definition of a 
 Christian sacrifice by the rules of the Levitical ; as if typical and 
 true were the same thing. 2. The other, in not being able to 
 make out the sacrifice he aimed at, by the very rules which 
 himself had fixed for it. He observed very justly, that in the 
 Levitical peace offerings, God had, as it were, his part, portion, 
 or mess, assigned in the sacrifice y, or feast : (for God was con- 
 sidered in those feasts, not merely as Convivator, but as Conviva 
 also ; a necessary circumstance to complete the federal oblation 
 and federal feast.) But when he came to make out the analogy 
 between the Jewish and Christian feast, he could find no part or 
 portion for God in the Eucharist ; where we take all to our- 
 selves z . There the parallel failed ; the rule would not answer : 
 therefore the rule was wrong. It would be trifling here to reply, 
 that a Christian sacrifice is no Jewish one, and is therefore not 
 to be measured by Jewish rules : for why then shoxild a Christian 
 sacrifice be made material by Jewish rules ? or why is the defini- 
 tion of sacrifice measured by the same ? Either uniformly hold 
 to the rule assigned, or else give it up as no rule ; and then the 
 Christian sacrifice may be a true and proper sacrifice, (though 
 spiritual only,) being of a different kind from the Jewish ones. 
 If, indeed, the Eucharist could be proved to be a material sacri- 
 fice by any clear text of Old Testament or New, then there 
 would remain no further room for dispute : but since the point 
 is chiefly argued from its supposed analogy to other material 
 
 y Mede's Christian Sacrifice, book neque offerimus si voramus : et ita 
 
 ii. c. 7. pp. 370, 371. dum utrumque facimus, neutrum 
 
 z Luther first took notice of the facimus. Quis audivit unquam talia ? 
 
 self-contradiction contained in the Omnia sibi pugnantissime contradi- 
 
 making the elements a proper sacri- cunt, et invicem sese consumunt : 
 
 fice to God in the Eucharist. aut necessario et infallibiliter con- 
 
 ' Totuna ergo cur nos panem, et cludunt Eucharistiam sacrificium esse 
 
 vinum totum comedimus et bibiinus, non posse. Diluant haec, rogo, Lo- 
 
 nihil relinquentes Deo ? . . . Dura cor- vanienses et Parisienses.' Luth. de 
 
 j.ora nostra et laudes sacrificamus, abrogand. Missa privata, torn. ii. 
 
 nihil nobis, sed omnia Deo soli exhi- par. 2. fol. 255. Several answers 
 
 bemus, ut stet ratio sacrificii etiam have been thought on, to elude this 
 
 spiritualis. Totum nos voramus, et argument, by Romanists and others : 
 
 totura offerhnus : hoc est tantum but it is impossible to invent any 
 
 dicere ; neque voramus si ofFerimus, that will bear.
 
 44 Tht Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 sacrifices, (Jewish or Pagan,) and that analogy does not answer, 
 but fails in the main thing belonging to all material sacrifices, 
 and which alone should make them appear gifts to God ; it is 
 plain that the argument has an essential flaw in it, which no 
 art can cure. 
 
 One thing may be pertinently observed of Mr. Mede, that he 
 confined the sacrifice to the ante-oblation. His was a sacrifice of 
 the unconsecrated bread and wine a , not of the consecrated : not 
 of the body and blood. He supposed no new sacrificing act in the 
 post-oblation, but the representation only of Christ's sacrifice, 
 made by what had been sacrificed before. So that some late 
 notions of the eucharistic sacrifice can claim but very little coun- 
 tenance from Mr. Mede. What we call offering the elements 
 for consecration, (like as we offer the waters of Baptism,) he called 
 sacrificing ; which was indeed calling it by a wrong name, and 
 upon wrong principles : but, in other things, his notion of the 
 Eucharist was much the same with the common one; and he 
 went not those strange lengths, those unwarrantable excesses, 
 which, I am sorry to say, some late schemes manifestly abound 
 with. But I proceed. 
 
 The doctrine of a material sacrifice, first brought hither about 
 1635, barely subsisted till the Restoration, and afterwards slept, 
 as it were, for thirty or forty years. But in 1697, two queries 
 being sent to a learned man b , in these terms, 'Whether there 
 ought to be a true and real sacrifice in the Church ; and Whether 
 there is any such thing in the Church of England,' (both which 
 might very safely have been answered in the affirmative, keeping 
 to the terms wherein they were stated,) that learned person chose 
 to alter the terms, true and real, into material, and still answered 
 in the affirmative : which was going too far. Nevertheless, in 
 his answer to the queries, he admitted of some spiritual sacrifices, 
 
 a ' Thus was there, as it were, a body ; offering wine, but receiving 
 mutual commerce between God and the mystical blood of Christ Jesus.' 
 the people ; the people giving unto Mede's Disc. li. p. 293. Comp. Chris- 
 God, and God again unto his people : tian Sacrif. chap. viii. 
 the people giving a small thanksgiv- b Dr. Hickes, in Two Discourses, 
 ing, but receiving a great blessing; p. 51, &c. 61. printed 1732. 
 offering bread, but receiving the
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 44 x 
 
 as being true, and real, and proper sacrifices; which makes it 
 the more surprising that he should think of any other sacrifice. 
 For since it is self-evident that truth of excellency goes along 
 with the spiritual sacrifices, and since he himself had allowed 
 truth of propriety to go along with the same, or with some of 
 them at least ; to what purpose could it be to seek out for 
 another sacrifice, not more proper, but certainly less excellent, 
 than what we had before 1 It is an tmcontestable maxim, that 
 the value of a sacrifice can never rise higher than the value of 
 the sacrificers c ; and therefore if they sacrifice themselves, it is 
 not possible that they should do more, because in the giving 
 themselves, they give all that they have to give. What dignity 
 then, or value, could it add to an evangelical priesthood, or 
 sacrifice, to present the Divine Majesty with a loaf of bread, or a 
 chalice of wine 1 or what practical ends or uses could be served 
 by it 1 ? I shall only observe further, that the same learned 
 writer, afterwards, took material thing into the very definition 
 of sacrifice d : but upon the latest correction, he struck it out 
 again, putting gift instead of it e ; thereby leaving room for 
 spiritual sacrifice (which undoubtedly is a gift) to be as proper 
 a sacrifice as any. So that his first and his last thoughts upon 
 the subject appear to have been conformable so far, in a critical 
 point, upon which much depends. 
 
 Another learned writer (a zealous materialist, if ever there 
 was one) laid it down for his groundwork, that nothing can 
 properly be called a sacrifice except some material thing : but to 
 save himself the trouble of proving it, he was pleased to aver, 
 that it was given for granted f . It might reasonably be asked, 
 
 c Vid. Peter Martyr. Loc. Com- e Hickes's Christian Priesthood, 
 mun. pp. 753, 895, Field on the vol. i. p. 159. A.D. 1711. 'A sacri- 
 Church, p. 209. Cornel, a Lapide, fice is a gift brought, and solemnly 
 in Heb. vii. 7, seema to allow this offered by a priest, ordinary or ex- 
 maxim, when he says, ' In omni traordinary, according to the rites 
 sacrificio sacerdos major est sua vie- and observances of any religion, in, 
 tima quatn offert.' before, at, or upon any place, unto 
 d Hickes's Christian Priesthood, any God, to honour and worship 
 p. 74. ed. 2. A.D. 1707. 'A sacrifice him, and thereby to acknowledge 
 is a material thing solemnly brought, him to be God and Lord.' 
 or presented, and offered to any God, f Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 according to the rites of any reli- part i. p. 5. ed. J7MJ r P- 6. 
 gion,' &c. ed. 1724.
 
 44* The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 when given, or by whom 1 Not by the penmen of the Old or New 
 Testament ; not by the Christian Fathers, or Pagan Platonists, 
 in their times : not by the Schoolmen down to the Reformation, 
 nor by the Papists themselves, generally, before the Council of 
 Trent : not by any considerable number of Protestants, till fifty 
 years after, or more ; never by the Divines of our Church, with- 
 out contradiction and opposition from other Divines as wise and 
 as learned as any we have had : not given for granted, even by 
 Dr. Hickes, of the material side, in 1697 g; no, nor in 1711, as 
 hath been already hinted. To be short then, that important 
 point was rather taken than given for granted, by one writer 
 who wanted a foundation to build a new system upon : and as 
 the foundation itself was weak, the superstructure, of course, 
 must fall, however curiously wrought, or aptly compacted, had 
 it really been so. 
 
 But it is time for me now, my Reverend Brethren, to relieve 
 your patience, by drawing to a conclusion. I have pointed out 
 (so far as I have been able to judge, upon very serious and dili- 
 gent inquiry) the original ground and source of all the confusion 
 which has arisen in this argument. The changing the old defini- 
 tions for new ones has perplexed us : and now again, the chang- 
 ing the new ones for the old may set us right. Return we but 
 to the ancient ideas of spiritual sacrifice, and then all will be clear, 
 just, and uniform. We need not then be vainly searching for a 
 sacrifice (as the Romanists have been before us) among texts that 
 speak nothing of one, from Melchizedek in Genesis down to He- 
 brews the thirteenth. Our proofs will be found to lie where the 
 
 8 His words are : ' Vocal sacri- tian sacrifice (though he called it 
 
 fices are commonly called spiritual, material) really meant no more than 
 
 ... These are true, real sacrifices. . . an oblation of the material elements 
 
 and therefore our Saviour is said to for consecration, (which certainly is 
 
 have offered them up, Heb. v. 7. no sacrifice,) and a commemorative 
 
 and they are expressly called sacri- service performed by the material 
 
 fices, Heb. xiii. 15. and i Pet. ii. 5.' elements, an external, manual ser- 
 
 Two Disc. p. 53. 'The sacrifice of vice, as opposed to mere mental 
 
 praises and prayers unto God ... is or vocal : both which points might 
 
 a proper, but spiritual sacrifice.' have been granted him, as not 
 
 p. 6 r. amounting to the sacrifice of any 
 
 X.B. It appears to me, that Dr. material substance, the point in 
 
 Hickes's original scheme of the Chris- question.
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 443 
 
 spiritual services lie, and where they are called sacrifices. The 
 Eucharist contains many of them, and must therefore be a proper 
 sacrifice, in the strength of those texts, and cannot be otherwise. 
 Here the primitive Fathers rested that matter; and here may 
 we rest it, as upon firm ground. Let us not presume to offer 
 the Almighty any dead sacrifice in the Eucharist ; he does not 
 offer us empty signs : but as he conveys to us the choicest of his 
 blessings by those signs, so by the same signs (not sacrifices) ought 
 we to convey our choicest gifts, the Gospel services, the true 
 sacrifices, which he has commanded. So will the federal league 
 of amity be mutually kept up and perfected. Our sacrifices will 
 then be magnificent, and our priesthood glorious ; our altar high 
 and heavenly, and our Eucharist a constant lesson of good life ; 
 every way fitted to draw down from above those inestimable 
 blessings which we so justly expect from it. Let but the work 
 or service be esteemed the sacrifice, rather than the material ele- 
 ments, and then there will be no pretence or colour left for ab- 
 surdly supposing, that any sacrifice of ours can be expiatory, or 
 more valuable than ourselves ; or that our hopes of pardon, grace, 
 and salvation can depend upon any sacrifice extrinsic, save only 
 the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ. When once those foreign 
 fictions, or fancies, of other extrinsic sin offerings or expiations 
 are removed, there will be no error in asserting a proper eucha- 
 ristic sacrifice ; but many good practical uses will be served 
 by it. 
 
 Under the legal economy, bulls and goats, sheep and turtle- 
 doves, bread offerings and wine offerings were really sacrifices : 
 they had legal expiations (shadows of true) annexed to them ; to 
 intimate, that true expiation then, and always, must depend solely 
 on the true sacrifice of atonement, the sacrifice of the cross. The 
 shadows have since disappeared ; and now it is our great Gospel 
 privilege to have immediate access to the true sacrifice, and to the 
 true expiations, without the intervention of any legal expiation 
 or legal sacrifice. To imagine any expiatory sacrifice now to 
 stand between us and the great sacrifice, is to keep us still at a 
 distance, when we are allowed to draw near : it is dishonouring 
 the grace of the Gospel ; and, in short, is a flat contradiction to
 
 The Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 both Testaments. For the rule of both is, and the very nature 
 of things shews that so it must be, that all true expiation must 
 resolve solely, directly, and immediately, into the one true sacri- 
 fice of expiation, namely, the grand sacrifice. If, indeed, we had 
 now any legal or typical offences to expiate, then might bread 
 and wine be to us an expiatory typical sacrifice, as before to the 
 Jews ; and that would be all. If we look for anything higher, 
 they have it not in them, neither by their own virtue, nor by any 
 they can borrow : for it is no more possible that the blood of the 
 grape, representing Christ's blood, should purge the conscience, 
 and take away sins now, than that the blood of bulls or of goats, 
 representing the same blood of Christ, could do it aforetime. 
 The utmost that any material sacrifices, by virtue of the grand 
 sacrifice, could ever do, was only to make some legal or temporal 
 atonement : they cannot do so much now, because the legal 
 economy is out of doors, and all things are become new. In a 
 word, our expiations now are either spiritual or none : and there- 
 fore such of course must our sacrifices also be, either spiritual or 
 none at all.
 
 THE APPENDIX. 
 
 As I have hinted something above a of the strange lengths which 
 have been run, and of the unwarrantable excesses which some 
 late systems of the eucharistic sacrifice manifestly abound with ; 
 it may reasonably be expected that I should here give some 
 account of what I there intimated. I must own, it is the most 
 unwelcome part of my employ, and what I least wished to be 
 concerned in. It can never be any pleasure to a good mind to 
 be exposing failings, even when there is a necessity for it ; but it 
 is rather an abatement of the solid satisfaction arising from the 
 maintaining of the truth, that it cannot ordinarily be done with- 
 out some kind of rebuke, open or tacit, upon every gainsayer. 
 When I first engaged in the subject of the Eucharist, I saw 
 what necessity there was for throwing off the material hypothesis, 
 (being unscriptural, and uncatholic, and many ways unreasonable,) 
 lest it should hang like a millstone upon the neck of the main 
 cause. Nevertheless, I endeavoured to remove that weight with 
 all imaginable tenderness towards persons, living or dead ; de- 
 signing only to rectify mistakes, in a manner the most respectful, 
 so as not to betray the cause of truth. What I could not approve 
 of, in a late learned writer, I expressed my dislike of, where 
 necessary, in the softest terms ; scarce noting the deformities of 
 his system in any explicit way, but wrapping them up in generals, 
 and throwing the kindest shade over them. But by what has 
 appeared since, I find, that every degree of tenderness and 
 every token of respect must be looked upon as nothing, unless I 
 could have commended the same writer, as a person of sound 
 judgment b , in the very things wherein he certainly judged amiss, 
 
 a Page 440. view, p. 97, and compare pp. I, 121, 
 
 b See Dr. Brett's Remarks on Re- 123, 156.
 
 446 Appendix to 
 
 and much to the prejudice of those important truths which I had 
 undertaken to defend. A very particular stress is laid upon that 
 gentleman's solid learning and judgment in this very question : 
 he was, it seems, visibly superior in learning and argument to 
 all opposers c ; insomuch that a most eminent person, in 1716, 
 had not the courage to contradict him, however disposed to it, 
 in the article of the sacrifice d . I have no inclination to detract 
 from that gentleman's talents : though the proper glory of a man 
 lies not in the possession, hut in the right use of them. Admi- 
 ration of persons has often been found a false guide in our 
 searches after truth. Very great men have frequently been 
 observed to run into great excesses : and I doubt not but to 
 make it appear that he did so in the article now before us. Men 
 must, at last, be tried by truth, (which is above everything,) 
 and not truth by men, or by names e . That I may observe some 
 method, I shall point out the excesses which that learned 
 writer appears to have run into, under the heads here follow- 
 ing : 
 
 1. In depreciating spiritual sacrifices beyond what was decent 
 or just. 
 
 2. In overvaluing material sacrifices. 
 
 3. In overstraining many things relating to our Lord's sup- 
 posed sacrifice in the Eucharist. 
 
 4. In overturning or undermining the sacrifice of the cross. 
 
 5. In the wrong stating our sacrifice in the Eucharist. 
 
 c ' Mr. Johnson's books had given pected to favour the doctrine of the 
 great offence to many in the highest sacrifice, had not the courage to 
 stations in this Church. Dr. Han- deny it to be one.' Brett, ibid, 
 cock, Dr. Wise, and Dr. Turner, and The design, I suppose, of that 
 some others were encouraged to an- eminent person, was not to enter 
 swer him ; but they were all found into the debate at all, but only to 
 to be too weak to be any of them, suggest an healing thought, viz. that 
 or all together, a match for a man since every thing of moment was 
 of his solid learning and judgment : perfectly secure without the ma- 
 he was visibly their superior in terial hypothesis, there could be no 
 learning and argument, and their good reason left for the warmth that 
 faint essays served but to raise his was shewn in it. A wise reflection : 
 reputation.' Brett's Remarks on which ought to have been thank- 
 Review, p. 122. fully received, and seriously at- 
 
 d ' This eminent person, whoever tended to. 
 
 he was, (for Mr. Johnson does not e See my Importance, &c. Works, 
 
 name him,) and who was least ex- vol. iii. p. 667.
 
 the Christian Sacrifice explained. 447 
 
 6. In giving erroneous accounts of the Evangelical or Christian 
 priesthood. 
 
 These several heads may furnish out so many distinct chap- 
 ters : I shall take them in the order as they lie, and shall pro- 
 ceed as far in them as necessity may seem to require, or my 
 present leisure may permit; reserving the rest for any future 
 occasion, according as circumstances may appear. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Shewing some Excesses of the new Scheme, in depreciating 
 spiritual Sacrifices. 
 
 I. I MADE mention before of Mr. Johnson's taking it for 
 granted, that spiritual sacrifice cannot be sacrifice properly so 
 called *" : which was throwing off a very important question too 
 negligently, and forbidding it a fair hearing. 
 
 II. Elsewhere he maintains, that 'it is impossible in the 
 nature of things, that prayer and praise without sacrifice' (he 
 meant material sacrifice) ' can be better than with it ?.' I pass 
 by the pretence offered in support of this paradox ; because it 
 is an old one, borrowed from the Romanists : and it was solidly 
 confuted long ago, by our very learned and judicious Mr. Mason h . 
 I shall only note further, that the author might as justly have 
 said, that it is impossible for uncircumcision to be better than 
 circumcision, because he who receives circumcision as he ought 
 must of course have the true circumcision of the heart, and both 
 must needs be better than one. 
 
 III. Another the like paradox is, that ' prayer and praise are 
 absurdly preferred to material sacrifices '.' Much might be said 
 in confutation of this assertion, both from Scripture and anti- 
 quity : but I consult brevity ; besides that the bare mentioning 
 
 f See above, p. 441. I forgot to Deus nobis redditur propitius." Grot, 
 
 take Grotius into my list above ; Vot. pro Pace, p. 670. Cp. 7*5- 
 
 who says, ' Eleemosynae et jejunia * Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 et res similes sunt sacrae actiones, et part ii. p. 123. 
 
 quidem externae; ideoque cum fiunt h Mason de Min. Anglic, p. 585. 
 
 ex fide in Christum, sunt sacrificia i Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 novi foederis, etiam talia per quae part ii. p. 127.
 
 448 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 such things is sufficient to expose them. I shall only ask, 
 how came material incense to be laid aside, and naked prayer to 
 be preferred before it, as proper to the saints, under the Gospel M 
 Incense was symbolical prayer ; prayer is the evangelical incense, 
 and as much preferable to the other, as truth is to shadow, or 
 thing signified to the sign or figure of it. 
 
 IV. To disparage spiritual sacrifice yet further, he says, 'A 
 contrite spirit is called a sacrifice by David, though it be no 
 more than a disposition of mind fitting us for devotion and 
 humiliation, and may prevail with God when no real [viz. ma- 
 terial] sacrifice is to be had V An unseemly reflection upon what 
 are emphatically called the sacrifices of God, in that very place m , 
 as vastly preferable to material sacrifices. The Psalmist did not 
 mean, when material sacrifice was not to be had : for in the verse 
 immediately preceding he says, ' Thou desirest not sacrifice, else 
 would I give it : thou delightest not in burnt offering n .' What 
 could be said plainer, to shew the preference of the spiritual 
 sacrifices above all other ] 
 
 V. The author goes on in the same strain : ' Whatever is now 
 said of prayer without sacrifice, it is certain, that it is but 
 mere synagogue worship / It is certain that such prayer is 
 the worship of the saints, under the Gospel, as I before noted. 
 But, I presume, this ingenious turn was thought on to anticipate 
 or to retort the charge of Judaism ; which may justly be ob- 
 jected to material sacrifices, and frequently has been. It is odd 
 to speak of public prayer without sacrifice, when such prayer is 
 itself a Christian sacrifice : but he meant prayer without a mate- 
 rial sacrifice ; that, in his account, is mere synagogue worship. 
 He forgot, that it runs in Christ's name. 
 
 VI. Another position is, that 'a sacrifice of righteousness 
 signifies a noble or rich sacrifice, such as it was proper for King 
 David to offer P.' But learned men have well shewn, that 
 
 k Revel, v. 8. Cp. Irenaeus, lib. the sense, (p. 131,) appear so forced 
 
 iv. c. 17. p. 249. and unnatural, as not to deserve a 
 
 1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, serious confutation, 
 
 part ii. p. 128. Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 m Psalm li. 17. part ii. p. 128. 
 
 n The pretences made for chang- f Johnson, ibid. p. 130. 
 ing the translation, in order to elude
 
 i. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 449 
 
 it signifies true and spiritual sacrifice 1, as opposed to material, 
 typical, symbolical : and such spiritual sacrifice is really richer 
 and nobler than an hecatomb. I am aware that something may 
 be speciously pleaded from Psalm li. 19 : and Mr. Johnson makes 
 his use of it r . But the learned Vitringa seems to me to have 
 given a just account of that whole matter s . 
 
 VII. To disparage spiritual sacrifices yet more, and to give 
 the reader as low and contemptible an idea of them as possible, 
 they are compared with the wood offerings * mentioned in Nehe- 
 miah u ; the fuel brought for the use of the sacrifices : and it is 
 thereupon observed, that ' the Jews of old hoped, as well as other 
 people, by their sweet-scented cane and wood, to render their 
 sacrifice a more agreeable service w .' A coarse comparison ! 
 Had not the author otherwise bore the character of a grave 
 and serious writer, one could not have taken this extraordinary 
 thought to proceed from any reverent regard towards spiritual 
 sacrifices, the sacrifices of God. However, we may perceive from 
 hence, that as often as any one should have objected the mean- 
 ness of a loaf offering, or a wine offering, he was provided with 
 an answer, and prepared to retort. 
 
 VIII. I shall take notice but of one article more, under this 
 head. It was a famous topic among the Christian Fathers, when 
 arguing for spiritual sacrifices, that spiritual offerings were most 
 agreeable to spiritual beings x , such as God, and the souls of men : 
 the same argument has been as justly urged by learned moderns. 
 But in order to break the force of it, it is observed, that Por- 
 phyry of old, and the Quakers of late days, have carried those 
 reasonings too far, in the spiritualizing way 7. Be it so : may 
 not wise men know where to stop? Has not external religion 
 been oftener and more grievously perverted, and carried into 
 
 i See Vitringa, de Vet. Synagog. u Nehem. x. 34; xiii. 31. 
 
 p. 65. Observat. Sacr. torn. ii. p. w Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 499. in Isa. torn. ii. pp. 56, 733. part ii. p. 225. 
 
 829. x Tertullian. de Orat. c. xxvii. 
 
 r Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, xxviii. See Review, above, p. 331. 
 
 part ii. p. 130. Lactantii Epit. c. Iviii. p. 169. De 
 
 5 Vitringa in Isa. torn. ii. p. 733. ver. Cult. lib. vi. c. 24, 25. 
 
 1 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, >' Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifica, 
 
 part ii. p. 225. part ii. p. 127.
 
 45 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 extremes ? We know what superstitions and dangerous deceits 
 arose from the use of material incense in the Eucharist z , by the 
 making it an offering for sin a : neither have we reason to expect 
 anything better from the bringing in a material mincha, for the 
 like purposes, into the Christian Church. 
 
 However, this way of depreciating internal religion and spi- 
 ritual sacrifice is not the way to promote the prime uses, the 
 practical ends and purposes of the holy Communion. It is 
 indeed said on the other hand, in the way of apology, that they 
 ' do not at all lessen the value of any internal grace, or the 
 necessity of a pious life,' but the contrary b . They do not 
 mean it, I easily believe : but in fact they do it. For every cool, 
 considering man must see, that those low notions of spiritual 
 sacrifice (very different from the elevated ideas which Scripture 
 and Catholic antiquity everywhere inculcate) can have no good 
 aspect upon practical religion. As to the pretence of ' raising 
 the dignity of the Sacrament 6 / by a material sacrifice, it is 
 marvellous that any man of moderate discernment can entertain 
 such a thought : for the reverse is the certain truth. The dig- 
 nity of the holy Sacrament must infallibly suffer, if so mean, so 
 uuprimitive a sacrifice should ever be admitted into it. The 
 ancients constantly preserved the dignity of the Eucharist, by 
 supporting the dignity of spiritual sacrifices : if moderns will 
 submit to learn of them, they will use the same effectual methods, 
 often proved and tried. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Shewing the EXCESSES of the new Scheme, in OVERVALUING 
 
 material Sacrifices. 
 
 I. IT is alleged, that ' there is more intrinsic value in a loaf 
 of bread and a flagon of wine, than in all the gold and silver 
 
 1 Vid. Renaudotius, Collect. Li- dent. Pontif. ibid. 528. Maysacens. 
 
 turg. torn. i. 201. Missal, ibid. 538. Compare, 591, 
 
 Jacob. Liturg. pp. 38, 53. ed. 601. 
 
 Fabric. Marci Liturg. 261. 273. b Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 Ordo Commun. Renaud. torn. ii. part. i. p. 283, alias p. 288. Brett's 
 
 pp. 4, 6, 18, 19. Mozarab. Miss. Remarks on Review, p. 139. 
 
 in Martene, torn. i. pp. 470, 498. c Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 Dionys. Missal, ibid. p. 519. Pru- parti, p. 283.
 
 ii. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 451 
 
 in the Indies ; because the former will for some time support 
 our lives, the other cannot do it of itself, but only as by the 
 consent of men, it has a value set upon it d .' Upon which I 
 observe, i. That the argument proves too much : for, by the 
 same argument, a flask of air would have more intrinsic value 
 
 O * 
 
 than all the rest put together; since air is absolutely necessary 
 to support life, which none of the rest are. 2. The author 
 observes elsewhere, that bloody sacrifices, in themselves, are of 
 the nobler sort e ; that is, have more intrinsic value : and yet 
 David (a very wise and good man) disdained to offer even such 
 to God, if they were to cost him nothing f . He measured the 
 value of the sacrifice by the self-denial, the respect, and the 
 affection of the offerer, shewn in part by the costliness of the 
 offering. And indeed, when God did require material sacrifices 
 at all, he required costly ones, of as many as could afford it. 
 But what do our bread and wine cost a whole congregation 1 ? 
 What the communicants, who, perhaps, are not one half of the 
 whole 1 What does the quota of any single communicant amount 
 to 1 Besides that, in reality, we give God nothing : we take all 
 to ourselves, though not all of it provided at our own proper 
 cost or charge. Was there ever such a sacrifice known or thought 
 on, either among Jews or Gentiles, since the world stood 1 Or 
 were the primitive Christians ever charged with anything of 
 this kind ? 
 
 II. It is pretended further, that this material oblation is of 
 ' greater value than ourselves .' Impossible, if we ourselves are 
 the offerers h : for it is a clear and uncontestable maxim, (as 1 
 
 d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, Qtpoptv croi, we offer,' &c. Christian 
 
 part ii. p. 62. Priesth. vol. i. pref. Account, pp. 
 
 e Johnson, Propit. Oblat. p. 10. 22, 23. 
 
 f 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. The Romanists themselves allowed 
 
 B Johnson, Propit. Oblat. p. 107. it, a few years before the Council of 
 
 h That we are the offerers (and Trent ; as appears from Alphonsus 
 
 not Christ, as the Romanists ab- a Castro. Haeres. lib. x. fol. 214. 
 
 surdly pretend) is allowed by Dr. ed. A.D. 1549. 
 
 Hickes, who says, ' As the congre- ' Sacerdos, in persona Ecclesiae, 
 
 gation offered, so it consecrated and praesentat Deo Patri oblationem 
 
 performed the whole eucharistical factam per Filium in ara crucie.' 
 
 service, by the ministration of the Cp. Field, p. 210. and Spalatensis, 
 
 priest; who therefore always admin- lib. v. c. 6. p. 282. 
 istered in the plural number . . . irpoer- 
 
 Gg 2
 
 452 Appendix to CHA.P. 
 
 have hinted above,) that the value of a sacrifice can never rise 
 higher than the value of the sacrificers. Upon the strength of 
 which maxim our very learned and judicious Dean Field did not 
 scruple to intimate, that if a man could be supposed to sacrifice 
 even Christ our Lord, it would not be so valuable as the sacrifice 
 of himself'. The same principle is confirmed by the united voices 
 of the ancients, who always looked upon self-sacrifice as the most 
 valuable of any k . They had good reason to think so, if either 
 our Lord's example, or St. Paul's authority \ or the nature of the 
 thing itself can be of any weight. 
 
 III. It is pretended, that the bread and wine are the most 
 excellent and valuable sacrifice, because ' they are in mystery 
 and inward power, though not in substance, the body and blood 
 of Christ, and therefore the most sublime and divine sacrifice 
 that men or angels can offer m :' they are enriched, replenished, 
 overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and by such Divine influence 
 rendered the body and blood in efficacy and virtue, receiving by 
 the Spirit a life-giving power n . 
 
 To which I answer, i. That it is certainly a valuable Sacra- 
 ment : and what the author here enumerates may shew the value 
 of what God gives to us, not the value of what we give to him in 
 it. The Spirit, which is supposed to make all the value, is what 
 God gives to us in the Eucharist, not what we give to God : for 
 it cannot be supposed that we sacrifice the Holy Spirit. So that 
 all that the author has here said, however pertinent to the sacra- 
 
 i Field on the Church, p. 209. part. ii. p. 60: compare 67, 141. 
 
 k Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. pp.836, n Johnson, ibid. p. 171. Note, 
 
 848, 849, 860. Origen, torn. ii. p. That overshadowing is peculiar to 
 
 364. ed. Bened. Cyprian, Ep. 76. Baptism : for because it is said, that 
 
 p. 232, alias Ep. 77. p. 159. Euseb. a man must be born of water and 
 
 Demonst. p. 40. Basil, torn. iii. p. of the Spirit, the Fathers sometimes 
 
 207. ed. Bened. Nazianzen, torn. i. followed the figure, in describing 
 
 p. 38. Hilarius, p. 154. ed. Bened. the new birth. The Spirit is quasi 
 
 Chrysost. torn. v. pp. 20, 231, 316, maritus ; the water is marita, and 
 
 503. toia. vii. p. 216. ed. Bened. foecundata, and therefore styled un- 
 
 Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. xix. da genitalis. The Holy Ghost over- 
 
 c. 23. lib. x. c. 20. ed. Bened. Pro- shadows; the water brings forth; 
 
 copius, in Isa. p. 22. Gregor. M. and the holy thing born is the new 
 
 Dial. iv. c. 59. Christian. How to adapt the sante 
 
 1 Rom. xii. I. Phil. ii. 17. i Tim. figure to the Eucharist, I see not ; 
 
 iv. 6. nor how to apply it to the purpose 
 
 ra Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, of sacrifice.
 
 ii. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 453 
 
 mental part of the Eucharist, is foreign to the sacrificial, and can 
 add little to the value of it. It is but consecrated bread and 
 wine still that we are supposed to sacrifice ; unless we take in 
 Christ's natural body to enrich the sacrifice, which would be 
 Popeiy ; or else the Divine Spirit, which is worse. 2. Besides, 
 it is certain, that the baptismal waters are as much enriched, 
 replenished, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and have the same 
 (if not greater) life-giving power, and yet they are no sacrifice at 
 all. 3. I have before hinted, that no sacrifice which we can 
 offer can be more valuable than ourselves; and therefore all this 
 pompous train of words must come to nothing. 4. The notion 
 of the Spirit's coming upon the elements, to make them abso- 
 lutely the body, is a gross notion ; arising only from a popular 
 form of speech , and not consistent with the true and ancient 
 doctrine, that the unworthy eat not the body nor drink the blood 
 of Christ in the Eucharist P : neither have they the communion 
 or fellowship of the Holy Spirit. It is not sufficient here to say, 
 that they do receive the Spirit, but receive no benefit, because 
 they resist or quench the Spirit : for being ' guilty of the body 
 and blood of the Lord,' in the very act, (i Cor. xi. 27,) there is 
 no room to suppose that in that very act they receive motions of 
 grace : and if they receive none, there are none to be quenched. 
 Or if, on the contrary, they were certain to receive the kindly 
 motions of the Spirit in the very act, who should forbid the 
 unworthy coming to receive motions of grace? This evasion 
 therefore will not answer the purpose. The Spirit deserts ill men 
 in their sinful acts: therefore the unworthy do not receive the 
 Spirit, but the elements only : therefore again, they receive not 
 the body ; because without the Spirit, the elements, ex hypothesi, 
 are not the body and blood, but bare elements, having a relative 
 holiness, because before consecrated, and that is all. 5. If the 
 bread and wine once consecrated were absolutely the body and 
 blood, by means of the Spirit, there is no reason why the bap- 
 
 See my Review, above, pp. 83, desse quod sumitur, quando gra- 
 
 164, 174, 254, 257, 263. tia salutaris in cinerem, sanctitate 
 
 P Above, p. 140. ' Ostensum est fugiente, mutetur.' Cyprian, de Laps. 
 
 Dominum recedere cum negatur, p. 214. ed. Bened, 
 nee immerentibus ad salutem pro-
 
 454 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 tismal waters should not be thought Christ's blood absolutely, by 
 means of the same Spirit. It is certain, from the nature of the 
 thing, and it is confirmed by the concurring verdict of anti- 
 quity <*, that we are as properly dipped in the blood of Christ in 
 Baptism, as we eat the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. 
 Therefore the baptismal water is as valuable as the eucharistical 
 wine, and as fit to make a sacrifice of; and it is also comme- 
 morative of the death and passion : consequently the elements 
 in either Sacrament, being blessed with like privileges, and 
 having the like dignity, have all of them, in that view, the 
 same title, and ought all of them to be sacrifices, as much 
 as any. 
 
 IV. It is further pretended, that the consecrated bread and 
 wine are changed, if not in their substance, yet in their inward 
 qualities r : which appears to be sound only, without meaning ; 
 or words without ideas. When water is said to have been mira- 
 culously changed into wine, the words carry some idea of an 
 internal change of qualities : but when wine remains wine still, 
 not changed as to colour, or taste, or smell, or any other perceiv- 
 able quality, it is hard to say what that inward change means, 
 or what idea it carries with it. Outward relations, adventitious 
 uses or offices, are easily understood; and relative holiness 
 carries some sense in it s : but the inward change, the inhering, 
 intrinsic holiness, supposed in this case, will not comport either 
 with true philosophy or sound theology. Whatever it means, or 
 whatever it is conceived to be, certain it is, that it belongs as 
 much to the consecrated waters of Baptism* as to the consecrated 
 elements of the Eucharist : and so let it pass. 
 
 V. The most important paradox of all, relating to this head, 
 is, that the consecrated elements are the substitutes of the body 
 and blood ; are sacrificed first, and afterwards taken by the com- 
 municants in lieu of the natural body and blood, or of the 
 
 i See my Review, above, p. 271. 20, 85, 91. Johnson's Unbloody 
 
 and to the references in the margin Sacrifice, part i. pp. 254, 255, alias 
 
 add, Salmasius contr. Grot. pp. 186, pp. 258, 259, 163, 181, 183, 244. 
 
 191, 394. and Patrk-k's Full View first ed. 
 of the Eucharist, p. 82. See my Review, above, p. 80. 
 
 r Grabe, Defens. Eccl. pp. 75, 87, 4 Above, pp. 269, 270.
 
 ii. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 455 
 
 sacrifice of the cross u . ' The eucharistical bread and wine are made 
 the most perfect and consummate representatives of the body 
 and blood . . . They are not only substituted, but they are, by the 
 power of the Spirit which is communicated to them, . . . made the 
 lively, efficacious Sacrament of his body and blood. . . . The visible 
 material substitutes . . . are the bread and wine : and when the 
 Holy Spirit, which is his invisible representative, communicates 
 its power and presence to the symbols, which are his visible 
 representatives, they do thereby become as full and authentic 
 substitutes, as it is possible for them to be x . The sacramental 
 body and blood of Christ are substituted instead of the natural, 
 and are therefore first to be presented to the most worthy party 
 in the covenant, the infinite grantor of all mercies, and then, in 
 the next place, to the least worthy persons, or the grantees, the 
 whole body of Christian people y.' How to make any clear sense 
 or consistency of these or the like positions, I know not ; but 
 they seem to be embarrassed with insuperable perplexities, i. The 
 notion of substitute, as here applied, appears unaccountable. The 
 sacramental body is supposed to be substituted for the natural, 
 so as to be exclusively an equivalent for it, made such consum- 
 mate proxy, substitute, representative, by the power and presence 
 of the Holy Spirit with it and in it. This is the notion, if I can 
 understand it. And if this be the notion, it is very different 
 from the old notion of instruments of investiture, or deeds of 
 conveyance, supposed to convey instrumentally some other thing 2 , 
 but not to be so given in lieu of it, as to exclude it, or supersede 
 it, or to supply the want of it a . The rights, privileges, honours, 
 
 u Johnson, Propit. Oblat. pp. 29, with the Spirit, it would be more 
 
 30, 44, 76. properly the body of the Spirit, than 
 
 * Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, our Lord's body, from which it is 
 
 part i. p. 183, alias p. 186. Compare supposed distinct : and in this way, 
 
 p. 344, alias 349, and p. 176, alias the very idea of our mystical union 
 
 1 79. with Christ's glorified body would 
 
 >' Ibid. Pref. to second edit. be obscured or lost, and we should 
 
 z See my Review, above, pp. 131, be but as aliens from his proper 
 
 132. body; unless two bodies of Christ 
 
 a For were it so, then the inward (not sign and thing, but absolutely 
 
 part, or thing signified, would not two bodies, for the sacramental is 
 
 be our Lord's bod}', but a fictitious said to be absolutely the body) were 
 
 body given in its room : and if made given at once in the Eucharist, 
 such body absolutely, by an union
 
 456 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 offices, so conveyed, are supposed to go with the pledges, and 
 not to be made up to the grantee by an equivalent The pledges 
 (a ring, suppose, or book, or parchment, or staff) are worthless 
 things in themselves, and are valuable only for what accompanies 
 them, not for what they really inclose or contain. In a word, 
 such pledges are not exclusively given in lieu of the things which 
 they are pledges of, (for then the party would be no richer for 
 them than the bare pledges amount to,) but such a manner of 
 delivery is made in lieu of another manner ; and the pledge and 
 thing go together *>. In the Eucharist, for example, Christ's 
 crucified body and blood shed (that is, his atonement and sacri- 
 fice) are spiritually eaten and drank, under the pledges of corpo- 
 ral refreshment : and even the glorified body is received into 
 real, but mystical union, under the same symbols. Those sym- 
 bols, with what they contain, are not substitutes, in the sense of 
 equivalents for the things, to supersede them ; but they are 
 instruments to convey them, and to bring them in effect to us. 
 2. It is not easy to explain how the supposed substitutes can be 
 any sacrifice at all to God. The elements are not conceived sub- 
 stitutes of the body and blood, any otherwise than by the power 
 and presence of the Spirit. The elements, with the Spirit, (not 
 separate from the Spirit, which alone renders them so valuable,) 
 are supposed the substitutes. Is the Spirit then sacrificed along 
 with the elements 1 That is absurd. But if the Spirit makes no 
 part of the thing sacrificed, the value departs from it, yea, and 
 
 b See my Review, above, pp. 131, said to be given in lieu of another 
 132. N.B. A thing may be said to be thing, in an inclusive or accumu- 
 given in lieu, or instead of another lative sense ; as when deeds are de- 
 thing, two ways : I . In a sense ex- livered instead of an estate, which 
 elusive ; as when a stone, suppose, is given with them and by them, 
 is given instead of bread, or a ser- Here, in strictness, the deeds are 
 pent instead of fish : where neither not substitutes or equivalents for 
 the fish nor the bread are supposed the estate : but one form of deli- 
 to be given, nor anything equiva- very, which is practicable and easy, 
 lent. To the same exclusive sense is substituted and accepted, instead 
 belongs the giving value for kind ; of another form, which the princi- 
 as money, suppose, instead of house pal thing given is not capable of. 
 or land : where again neither the In this latter inclusive sense, the 
 house nor the land is supposed to symbols of the Eucharist may be 
 be given, but an equivalent in called substitutes, but not in the 
 money. 2. But one thing is also former.
 
 ii. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 457 
 
 the essence of the substitutes ; for the body and blood, that is, 
 the substitutes, are not sacrificed, but the elements only. If 
 it be said, that grace or virtue accompanies the elements, in the 
 presenting them to God, like as in the presenting the same 
 elements to man ; this again is perfectly unintelligible. We 
 can understand that pardon and sanctification are presented to 
 the communicants along with the symbols : but how pardon and 
 sanctification should be presented, in the way of sacrifice, to God, 
 is not easy to explain. 3. I must here also observe, that what- 
 ever those substitutes mean, the baptismal waters have as clear 
 a claim, in that case, as the eucharistical elements can have : 
 they are as certainly substituted in the sense of pledges, and in 
 a sacramental Avay, as the other can be supposed to be. But it 
 never was the intention of either Sacrament, that we should, in 
 a sacrificial way, present to God as much or the same that God 
 gives to us c . I see not the sense or the modesty of pretending 
 to it. Spirit, pardon, grace, we may be glad to receive ; but 
 we have no right, no pretence, no power to offer the same 
 in sacrifice. It is neither practicable nor conceivable ; it is 
 mere confusion : which confusion arises, partly, from the want 
 of distinguishing between what is in the elements, from what 
 comes with them ; and partly, from the not distinguishing 
 between the sacramental view of the Eucharist and the 'sacri- 
 ficial ; or between the gifts of God to man, and the gifts of man 
 to God. The elements are in effect the body to us, because God 
 gives us the body by and with the elements : but they are not 
 in effect the body to God ; because we do not give to God the 
 fruits of the body crucified, or the privileges of the body glorified. 
 A man must have very confused sentiments, who can argue from 
 what we receive, in this case, to what we give as a sacrifice. 
 
 c Some such confuse notion ap- Brevint takes notice of the like con- 
 pears more than once in the Pro- fusion in the conception of some Ro- 
 pitiatory Oblation, pp. 27, 43. Comp. manists upon this article. Depth 
 Preface to second edit, of Unbloody and Myst. p. 20. 
 Sacrifice, and Advertisement, p. 498.
 
 458 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Pointing out some EXCESSES in relation to our Lord's supposed 
 Sacrifice in the Eucharist. 
 
 I. IT is pretended, that our blessed Lord offered up his 
 sacramental body, that is, the consecrated elements, as a material 
 sacrifice in the Eucharist d . Now, in the first place, I find no 
 Scripture proof of this position. The Romanists, in support of 
 the general point of a material or sensible sacrifice, have often 
 taken their toUr from Melchizedek in Genesis down to Hebrews 
 xiii. 10. And they have as often been pursued, in like order, 
 by the best-learned Protestants 6 , and forced out of all their 
 intrenchments. 
 
 The plea from ' hoc facite,' when first set up, was abundantly 
 answered by a very learned Romanist : I mean the excellent 
 Picherell f , who wrote about 1562, and died in 1590. Protest- 
 ants alsos have often confuted it; and the Papists themselves, 
 several of them, have long ago given it up. The other boasted 
 plea, drawn from the use of the present tense, in the words of 
 the institution, has been so often refuted and exposed h, that I 
 cannot think it needful to call that matter over again, in an age 
 of so -much light and learning. The fairest pretences from 
 antiquity have likewise been again and again fully answered, 
 mostly by the same hands. Wherefore, let that be my apology 
 for not taking distinct notice of every particular advanced by the 
 late learned Mr. Johnson ; who has but little of moment, which 
 had not been completely obviated on one side (as it had been 
 
 d Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 444. Albertinus, pp. 498, 509. 
 part i. pp. 85, 90, 92, edit. 2nd, Morton, b. vi. ch. i. p. 390. Tow- 
 part ii. pp. i, 3, 6, 7, 178, 246, erson, p. 276. Brevint, Depth and 
 242, et passim. Myst. p. 128. Payne, p. 9, &c. 
 
 9 Chemnitius, Rainoldes, Bilson, Pfaffius, pp. 186, 220, 259, 269. 
 
 Hospinian, Duplessis, Mason, Spa- h Picherellus, pp. 62, 138. Spa- 
 
 latensis, Montague, Morton, Alber- latensis, p. 278. Mason, p. 614. 
 
 tinus, Joan. Forbesius, Brevint, Morton, b. vi. ch. i. p. 394. Alber- 
 
 Towerson, Kidder, Payne. tinus, pp. 74, 76, 78, 119. Joan. 
 
 f Picherellus, pp. 63, 136. Forbesius, p. 617. Brevint, p. 128. 
 
 * Joan. Forbesius, p. 616. Mor- Kidder and Payne. Pfaffius, pp. 
 
 naeus, p. 212. Salmasius contr. Grot. 232, 233.
 
 in. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 459 
 
 anticipated on the other side) long before he wrote in this cause. 
 He was indeed a stranger to what had been done ; because he 
 had resolved and determined from the first so to be, and held to 
 his resolution all along; as he frankly declared in 1714, and 
 again in 1724'. I commend not his rule nor his conduct in that 
 particular. Wise men will be always glad to see what wise men 
 have said before them, in any point of controversy, and will not 
 think themselves so perfectly secure against mistaking the sense 
 either of Scripture or Fathers, as to need no counsellors to assist 
 them, nor any eyes but their own k . It was not right to imagine, 
 that in 200 years time, or nearly, (in a question very frequently 
 canvassed by the best-learned men,) nothing had been thought 
 on, nothing done, towards clearing the point ; more than what 
 a single writer might do at once, with a Bible only and some 
 Fathers before him. I should not wonder if the strongest genius, 
 walking by such a rule, should commit abundance of mistakes in 
 the management of a controversy of any considerable compass or 
 delicacy, such as this is. But I pass on. 
 
 It is certainly of some moment, that so learned and judicious 
 a man as Picherellus (critically skilled in Scripture and Fathers, 
 and under no bias, except it were to the Romish Church, in 
 which he lived and died,) should so expressly and fully declare 
 against our Lord's offering any expiatory sacrifice in the Eucha- 
 rist l. It is also of some moment, that the current opinion before 
 the Council of Trent was against the first Eucharist's being 
 an expiatory sacrifice ; and that the divines of Trent were almost 
 equally divided upon that question ; and that it was chiefly fear 
 
 ' ' It was my resolution from the second edit. 
 
 beginning, to take my measures k Of the use and necessity of con- 
 
 and information from antiquity only, suiting moderns, (as well as an- 
 
 and therefore not to look into any cients,) see Review, above, pp. 6 
 
 of those books that had been writ- 8. To neglect moderns, in such 
 
 ten, either by those of the Church cases, is really nothing else but pre- 
 
 of Rome for their corrupted sacri- ferring one modern to all the rest, 
 
 fice, or by the Protestants against and claiming to be heard as an in- 
 
 it : and I can truly say, I have terprcter of Scripture and Fathers, 
 
 most firmly and religiously observed at the same time refusing the favour 
 
 this rule, which I at first proposed of an hearing to every interpreter 
 
 to myself." Johnson's Unbloody Sa- besides, 
 orifice, pref. epist. p. 39, first and ' Picherell, p. 134.
 
 460 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 of the consequences, obvious to Protestants, which obliged the 
 Council to controvert the then current persuasion m . It is not 
 without its weight, that Jansenius, Bishop of Ghent, who died 
 fourteen years after, was content to take in spiritual sacrifice, in 
 order to make out some sacrifice in the first Eucharist n : as to 
 which he judged very right ; for undoubtedly our Lord so 
 sacrificed in the Eucharist, and we do it now. But no proof 
 has been given, nor ever can be given, of our Lord's sacrificing 
 the elements. He might, yea, and did offer the elements for 
 consecration, (which is very different from sacrificing, being 
 done also in Baptism,) or he might present them as signs and 
 figures of a real sacrifice, being also signs and figures of real 
 body and blood : but as they were not the real body and blood 
 which they represented, so neither were they the real sacrifice : 
 neither can it be made appear that they were any sacrifice 
 at all. 
 
 As the point now in question has not been proved, there is 
 the less occasion to disprove it. Want of proof is sufficient 
 reason for rejecting a position, according to the old rule, that 
 the proof lies upon him that affirms. However, I may, ' ex 
 abundanti,' throw in one reason against it, which may be as 
 good as a thousand, because it is decisive. If the elements were 
 a sacrifice in the first Eucharist, as upon the principles lately 
 advanced, then they were given for remission of sins ; conse- 
 quently were a sin offering and an expiatory sacrifice : which is 
 directly repugnant to the whole tenor of the New Testament, 
 everywhere ascribing true expiation solely to the death of 
 Christ. It is in vain to plead, that this other scacrifice expiated 
 in virtue of what it represented. The blood of bulls and of 
 
 m See Jurieu, Hist, of the Coun- diceretur Eucharistia. Igitur cum 
 
 cil of Trent, p. 380. gratiarum actio est sacrificium, et 
 
 n ' Dicendum est, quod, Christum Sacramentum hoc dicatur et sit Eu- 
 
 in Coena et Eucbaristiae instituti- charistia, (quod est gratiarum actio,) 
 
 one sacrificium obtulisse, primum consequitur ex Christi actione, et 
 
 quidem satis est significatum, cum nomine a Christi actione imposito, 
 
 dicitur gratias egisse. Gratiarum Sacramentum hoc esse sacrificium. 
 
 actio enim est quoddam sacrificium : Unde in canone dicitur sacrificium 
 
 a qua Christi actione Sacramentum laudis : de quo Psalmista, immola 
 
 corporis et sanguinis Domini habuit sacrificium laudis/ &c. Jansenius, 
 
 nomen illud ab initio Ecclesiae, ut Comm. in Concord. Evang. p. 904.
 
 in. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 461 
 
 goats represented Christ's sacrifice, and expiated, so far as they 
 did expiate, in virtue of it : yet St. Paul plainly teaches, that it 
 was not possible, in the very nature of the thing, for those 
 secondary sacrifices to 'take away sins ,' that is, to make true 
 and spiritual expiation. They might atone (and that in virtue 
 of the grand atonement) for legal offences, or typical sins, and 
 might sanctify to the ' purifying of the flesh P,' procuring some 
 temporal blessings, which were figures and shadows of eternal : 
 but more than that they could not do. True expiation always 
 rested immediately and solely in the prime sacrifice. And the 
 secondary sacrifices could avail no further, by any virtue what- 
 ever, than to secondary, that is, typical and temporal expiation. 
 Now, as we have no typical expiation at all under the Gospel, 
 nor look for any remission but what is spiritual, and ' pertaining 
 to the conscience Q ;' it is exceeding plain, that the remission of 
 the Eucharist resolves immediately and entirely into the prime 
 and grand sacrifice, and not into any supposed elemental sin 
 offering. Neither indeed is there any such thing under the 
 Gospel ; it being one of the great Gospel privileges to have 
 immediate access to the true expiation, and not to be kept, 
 as it were, at a distance from it, by the intervention of secondary 
 sacrifices, or secondary expiations r . 
 
 Such most certainly is the doctrine of Scripture and of all 
 antiquity : and our own excellent Liturgy was altogether formed 
 upon it. Accordingly we never ask remission on account of 
 any expiatory sacrifice but Christ's alone ; never conclude our 
 prayers (no, not even in the Communion service) through the sin 
 offering of the Eucharist, but through Jesus Christ our Lord : 
 that is, through his merits, solely and immediately, and his 
 sacrifice, not through any sacrifice of our own : which would be 
 both superstitious and profane. 
 
 If the reader would see the sense of the ancients, with respect 
 to the words of institution, ' body given and blood shed for 
 remission of sins,' he may turn to Albertinus 3 , who produces 
 
 Heb. x. 4. Albertinus, p. 78. Compare 74, 
 
 P Heb. ix. 13. 119. And Bishop Morton, b. i. 
 
 'i Heb. ix. 9. part 3. p. 112 ; b. vi. ch. i. p. 394, 
 
 r See above, pp. 443, 444. &c. ; ch. viii. p. 475, &e.
 
 462 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 a long list of ancients *-, (besides a multitude of moderns, School- 
 men and Romanists u ,) all interpreting the words, not of the 
 sacramental body and blood given in the Eucharist, but of the 
 real body and blood which were to be given upon the cross. I 
 may add one more, older than any of them, namely, Tertullian ; 
 who does not only so interpret the words, but occasionally men- 
 tions it as a very great absurdity, to interpret the ' body given 
 for you,' of the ' bread given :' inasmuch as it would amount 
 to saying, that the bread was to be crucified for us x . These 
 things considered, we may take leave to conclude, that the no- 
 tion of Christ's offering the consecrated elements as a sacrifice, 
 may justly be numbered among the unwarrantable excesses of 
 some few moderns, who did not well consider what they were 
 doing. 
 
 II. It is pretended further, that such sacrifice of the conse- 
 crated elements, or sacramental body and blood, was our Lord's 
 most solemn act of his Melchizedekian priesthood. Indeed, to 
 make out this Melchizedekian offering, sometimes our Lord's 
 sacrificing himself along with the symbols is taken in y : but I 
 wave the consideration of that additional part at present, design- 
 ing to treat of it separately in the next article. The sacrifice of 
 the consecrated symbols by itself, must, upon the foot of the new 
 scheme, be reckoned Melchizedekian ; as well because our eucha- 
 ristical sacrifice (which is not of the natural body, but of the 
 sacramental only) is reputed Melchizedekian z , as also because it 
 is self-evident, that Melchizedek did not sacrifice the natural 
 
 * Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Je- faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut 
 
 rome, Pelagius, Theodorit, Fulgen- panis crucifigeretur.' Tertull. contr. 
 
 tius, Ferrandus, Primasius, Pseud- Marc. lib. iv. cap. 40. p. 571. 
 Ambrose, Hesychius, Remigius, Se- y 'The Spirit by which they wrote 
 
 dulius, Bede, Isidorus, Claudius directed them ... to represent our 
 
 Taurinensis, Haymo, Euthymius, Saviour, as now performing 1 the most 
 
 Theophylactus, Anselm. solemn act of his Melchizedekian 
 
 u Aquinas, Hugo Cardinalis, Car- priesthood, and therefore as offering 
 
 thusianus, Titelmannus, Valentia, his body and blood to God, under 
 
 Salmeron, Sk, Jansenius, Cajetan, the symbols of bread and wine.' 
 
 Vasquez, Maldonate, Barradas, Sua- Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part 
 
 rez, &c. i. p. 83, alias 86. 
 
 r ' Si propterea panem corpus sibi * Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 finxit, quia corporis carebat veritate; part i. p. 317, alias 322. 
 ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis :
 
 in. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 463 
 
 body of Christ, which was not then in being, but the sacramental 
 only, if either. If therefore our Lord's sacrifice of himself in 
 the first Eucharist be taken in to complete the most solemn act, 
 then it must be said, that he offered two sacrifices in the Eucha- 
 rist, and both of them Melchizedekian ; of which I shall say 
 more below, in the place proper for it. Our present concern is 
 only with the sacrifice of the consecrated elements, considered as 
 a Melchizedekian sacrifice by itself. 
 
 I apprehend that it has not, and that it cannot be proved, that 
 Melchizedek (so far as his priesthood, or the acts of it are 
 recorded in Scripture) made any expiatory, or any material 
 sacrifice at all. His sacerdotal function was described but in 
 part, to make it the fitter type of part of our Lord's priesthood. 
 Other parts of our Lord's priesthood were sufficiently typified by 
 the Aaronical priesthood : but some further type was still want- 
 ing, to typify what Aaron's priesthood could not do. Aaron's 
 typified the transient part, the atoning part ; which was to be 
 performed once for all by our Lord : but the abiding or ever- 
 lasting part (viz. the distributing the subsequent or permanent 
 benefits of that atonement) was not provided for in Aaron's 
 priesthood, considered as typical of our Lord's, but was to be 
 typified another way ; namely, by the priesthood of Melchizedek, 
 represented no further in Scripture than the reason of such 
 type required. Melchizedek therefore was introduced, not as 
 offering any sacrifice of atonement, (that was to be considered as 
 previously executed,) but as conveying or applying, instrument- 
 ally, the subsequent blessings of that atonement. This was part 
 of the sacerdotal office : and in respect of this part only, Melchi- 
 zedek was introduced as a priest ; to typify, as I said, the 
 permanent part of our Lord's priesthood. Types, at the best, 
 are but imperfect resemblances of their antitypes or archetypes : 
 and therefore it is no wonder, if our Lord's priesthood (a com- 
 plicated office) could not sufficiently be represented, whole and 
 entire, by any single type, but might require several, and of 
 different kinds, to represent it distinctly, as branched out into 
 its several distinct particulars. 
 
 Whoever well considers in what manner Melchizedek is in-
 
 464 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 troduced in Genesis a , and what is further said of him by the 
 Psalmist b and by St. Paul c , will easily perceive the truth of 
 what I say. Melchizedek, therefore, so far as he is brought in 
 for a type, did not sacrifice at all, (except it were in the spiritual 
 way of lauds,) but he instrumentally conveyed to Abraham the 
 blessings of the grand sacrifice ; like as Christian ministers now 
 do to the children of Abraham, that is, to all the faithful. 
 
 The ancient Fathers, who have often been wrongfully appealed 
 to in this matter, by Papists in general, and by some Protest- 
 ants, meant no more than what I have here said : though it 
 would be tedious to enter into a detail of them d . They meant, 
 that Melchizedek, by a divine instinct 6 , foreseeing the sacrifice 
 of the cross, offered to God, by way of thanksgiving, a mental, 
 vocal, manual representation or figuration of it, by the symbols 
 of bread and wine ; and by the same symbols, instrumentally 
 conveyed to Abraham the spiritual blessings of it. This I observe 
 of those Fathers who make the most of what Melchizedek did : 
 but the Fathers of the first two centuries and a half say nothing 
 expressly of his offering to God anything, (whether in a spiritual 
 way or otherwise,) but only of his feasting Abraham and his 
 family. As to the later Fathers, some of them speak with the 
 same reserve as the more ancient Fathers did ; others are more 
 explicit : but none of them, I conceive, went further than what 
 I have mentioned. Upon the whole therefore, their testimonies 
 are altogether foreign to the point of sacrificing the elements, 
 being that they were not considered as sacrifices, but as figures of 
 a sacrifice, and instruments of a thanksgiving service. 
 
 What Mr. Johnson has pleaded in favour of his notion had 
 been sufficiently obviated by Picherell f , among the Romanists, 
 
 a Gen. xiv. 18. dorit, Leo Maguus, Arnobius junior, 
 b Psalm ex. 4. Caesarius of Aries, Cassiodorus, Pri- 
 c Heb. v. 6, 10, n; vi. 20; vii. masius, Isidorus Hispalensis, Da- 
 i 24. mascene, Pseud- Athanasius, Pseudo- 
 d The ancients referred to on this Cyprianus, Paeud-Ambrosius, Pas- 
 article are, Clemens Alexandrinus, chasius Radbertus, Oecumenius, 
 Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Euse- Theophylact, Euthymius, Potho 
 bius, Julius Firmicus, Epiphanius, Prumiensis ; and perhaps more. 
 Philastrius, Ambrosius, Chrysostom, e Vid. Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. 
 Jerome, Pelagius, Austin, Isidorus lib. v. cap. 3. p. 243. 
 Pelusiota, Cyril of Alexandria, Theo- f Picherell, pp. 116. 135, 333,&c.
 
 in. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 465 
 
 long before ; and by many judicious Protestants s after him. 
 The same has been confuted by the learned Pfaffius h since ; as 
 also by the reverend and learned Mr. Lewis, in a small tract ', 
 containing much in a little ; close, clear, and judicious, published 
 in 1714. 
 
 The sum then is, that if our Lord's performances in the first 
 Eucharist were such as Melchizedek performed, (by the accounts 
 which Scripture and antiquity give of them,) they amounted only 
 to a spiritual sacrifice of lauds, a representation of the sacrifice 
 to be made upon the cross, and a distribution of the benefits and 
 blessings of that sacrifice to his disciples. 
 
 III. It is pretended, that our Lord did not only sacrifice his 
 sacramental body in the Eucharist, but his natural body besides, 
 sacrificed both in the same act k . This refinement of the material 
 scheme was not thought on (so far as appears) before 1714, and 
 then hardly submitted to, after much reluctance, by the learned 
 Dr. Hickes ; and not well relished by others on the material side, 
 whom Mr. Johnson complained of in 1720!. However, the 
 ' strength of the cause' was now made to ' depend in a great 
 measure,' upon that ' matter of fact,' (as it is called m ,) advanced 
 without proof, or so much as appearance of proof ; excepting the 
 precarious argument drawn from the present tense, mentioned 
 above ; and except another as slight an argument drawn from 
 John xvii. 20, taken with some obscure testimonies of Fathers ; 
 which at most prove only that our Lord devoted himself in the 
 Eucharist or elsewhere, before his passion, to be an expiatory 
 sacrifice on the cross : not that he sacrificed himself, in the 
 expiatory sense, before. A person's devoting himself in order to 
 be such a sacrifice, is not performing the sacrifice, any more than 
 
 Jewel, Answ. to Harding, p 42.5. h Pfaffius, pp. 196, 278, 321, 323. 
 
 Peter Martyr, Loc. Comm. p. 895. ' Lewis, Answ. to Unbloody Sac- 
 
 Bilson, p. 702. Spalatensis, p. 272. rifice, pp. 18-23. 
 
 Mason, p. 557. Gul. Forbesius, p. k Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 672, second edit. Jackson, vol. ii. part i. pp. 49, 83, 118, first edit, 
 
 p. 955. vol. iii. p. 305, Morton, alias 51, 86, 122, second edit, part ii. 
 
 b. vi. Brevint, Depth and Myst. pp. 6-10. 
 
 p. 107, &c. 135. Outram, p. 228. ' Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref. p. 56. 
 
 Kidder and Payne. Albertinus, pp. m Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 199, 200. part ii. p. 272. 
 
 Hh
 
 466 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 engaging to do a thing is actually doing it n . So slender are the 
 proofs of this new notion. But let us see what self-contradictions 
 and other absurdities it contains in it, or carries with it. 
 
 1. It is supposed to be the most solemn act of the Melchize- 
 dekian priesthood ; though it is certain that Melchizedek neither 
 so sacrificed himself, nor our Lord's natural body or blood, not 
 then existing. 
 
 2. It supposes two expiatory sacrifices made by our Lord in 
 the Eucharist; one of the sacramental body, and the other of 
 the real : this the author seems to own, thinking he has some 
 colour for it in Hebrews ix. 23, where St. Paul (lie says) calls' 
 the offering made by Christ sacrifices, in the plural number . 
 As to the construction of that text, I am content ^o refer to 
 commentators, not suspecting that so forced and strange a sense 
 is at all likely to gain many followers : the hypothesis itself must 
 be better supported, before any such odd meaning of that text 
 can be admitted. But what shall we do with those two sacrifices 
 of our Lord's in the Eucharist 1 They agree not with the words 
 of institution, ' This is my body :' which should rather have 
 run, This is my two bodies, my sacramental one, and my natural : 
 and so likewise the words, ' This is my blood.' Then again, 
 those two sacrifices, being both expiatory, both given for the ' life 
 of the world,' there would be two propitiations, two expiations ; 
 and we shall want to know what was the precise value of this, 
 and what of that, and whether they differed in value as finite and 
 infinite ; or whether they were of equal worth. 
 
 It is pleaded^ that they were both but one oblation : which is 
 resembled to a deed of gift, where, by delivery of a parchment, 
 lands or houses are conveyed ; and it is further likened to a 
 man's presenting to God houses, &c., by a piece of money, or a 
 
 n Of th : s see Dr. Turner's Christ- ficed, had been so hindered by some- 
 
 ian Eucharist no Proper Sacrifice, p. thing interposing itself, that he could 
 
 19, &c. Field's words in the like not slay the same, he had offered no 
 
 case are very applicable here : ' This sacrifice, but endeavoured only so to 
 
 proveth not a real sacrifice of Christ, do, so is it here.' Field, p. 207. 
 .. For his blood is not poured out, Put ' engaged' for 'endeavoured,' 
 
 neither is he slain indeed. As in and the argument is much the same, 
 the time of the old Law, if the priest Johnson's Unbloody Saciifiee, 
 
 reaching forth his hand to slay the part ii. pref. p. 5. 
 beast that was brought to be sacri-
 
 Hi. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 467 
 
 pair of gloves P. But this account will not tally, because the 
 sacramental body is supposed to be a complete substitute % 
 made so by the Holy Spirit ; which therefore must be a great 
 deal more than a pledge or earnest of the natural, being itself 
 absolutely Christ's body, and invested with the like power and 
 efficacy. So here Avere two sacrifices of li'te power and efficacy, 
 and therefore of like value, as it seems : there were principal and 
 proxy, the thing itself and the equivalent, both together, though 
 they mutually superseded each other r . The first of them seems 
 to be advanced, in order to make our Lord's two sacrifices look 
 like one sacrifice ; and the second, to the end that ours, which is 
 but one of the two, and infinitely slighter, may yet look as con- 
 siderable to us now, as both his then were to his disciples 9 . But 
 if the elemental sacrifice be considered only as gloves or parch- 
 ment in comparison, notwithstanding all its inherent virtues and 
 enrichings of the Spirit, then it is not a substitute in the sense 
 contended for, nor of any considerable value ; so that instead of 
 calling it a substitute or a sacrifice, we may better call it a sign 
 or figure of our Lord's sacrifice, or at most a pledge, earnest, or 
 token of our own. I here take it for granted, that our Lord's 
 elemental sacrifice was at least as good as ours can be supposed 
 to be : and if even his was but as gloves or parchment, (compa- 
 ratively speaking,) ours, at this day, can be no more ; and if so, 
 it does not appear worth the contending for, while we have an in- 
 finitely better sacrifice to trust to, and to rest our expiation upon. 
 
 P Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref. 57. be proved, that Christ offered his 
 
 i See above, p. 454. natural body besides, then the rea- 
 
 * Ibid. son why the elements are called his 
 
 * N. B. As there are two incon- body is quite another reason, viz. 
 sistent accounts here tacked to- because he offered his natural body 
 gether, in order to serve two differ- a sacrifice by and under the ele- 
 ent purposes, so it is observable, ments, as symbols or pledges. See 
 that different reasons, in different part ii. pref. p. 2. I may note, that 
 places, have been assigned for call- if the last reason were a true one, 
 ing the elements the body : for when we could have no pretence now for 
 they are to be made substitutes, then calling the elements his body ; be- 
 the reason given for the name of cause it is not our intention to offer, 
 body is, that they are in power and under the symbols, our Lord's natu- 
 effect, by the Spirit, the same with ral body as a sacrifice for the sins of 
 the archetypes, the very body and men : we cannot sacrifice Christ our 
 blood which they represent. Part Lord. 
 
 ' PP 177-212. But when it is to 
 
 H h 2
 
 468 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 3. There is no more proof made that our Lord in the Eucha- 
 rist consigned his natural body to be broken, and his natural 
 blood to be shed, than that he consigned the same to be then 
 and there eaten and drank. It is allowed, that what was given 
 for them in the Eucharist, was also given to them ; and what 
 was given to them, that they received l . If therefore our Lord 
 then and there gave his natural body and blood for them, they 
 then and there received the same natural body and blood : but 
 if he gave them not, no transfer, no sacrifice was yet made of 
 them. It is argued, ' if the bread and wine were' [in the Eucharist] 
 ' given to God, so were Christ's natural body and blood too u :' 
 by the same way of reasoning, if the bread and wine were in the 
 Eucharist given to the disciples, so were Christ's natural body 
 and blood too. 
 
 I know it is denied that Christ gave his natural body, in such 
 a sense, to the disciples, because of the glaring absurdity ; and 
 it is pleaded in that case, that our Saviour, in the institution, 
 ' said not one word of his natural body x .' But why then is it 
 pretended, from the same institution, that he consigned his 
 natural body to God as a sacrifice y ? If our Lord's silence, as to 
 his natural body, is an argument that it was not then given to 
 the Disciples, the same silence is as good an argument to prove 
 that it was not then given for them to God : or if any words of 
 the institution prove that the natural body was then given for 
 them, the same words will equally prove, that it was also then 
 given to them and received by them ; and orally too, according 
 to the hypothesis which I am here examining. To be short, 
 upon the principles advanced to support the material sacrifice, 
 it most evidently follows, either that the natural body was not 
 given to God in the first Eucharist ; or if it was, that it was 
 literally given to the disciples also, and orally received by them. 
 
 IV. Another paradox relating to this head is, 'that our Sa- 
 viour laid down his life, when, by a free act of his will, he did 
 
 * Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, Plain Account, p. 41. Johnson, Pro- 
 
 p. 87, alias 91. part ii. p. II. pit. Oblat. p. 33. 
 
 u Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref. 57. f See Johnson, part i. pp. 64, 83. 
 
 x See Brett's Discourse on the part ii. pp. 4, 6, 7, 9, 272, 273. 
 Eucharist, pref. p. 16. Answer to
 
 in. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 469 
 
 give his body and blood to God, in the Eucharist 2 .' Tt might 
 as justly and with as much propriety be said, that he was cruci- 
 fied at the table, or died at his last Supper. But the author, I 
 presume, being sensible, that where our Lord 'laid down his 
 life,' there he sacrificed himself, and having conceived that the 
 sacrifice of himself should be performed in the Eucharist, and 
 there only, he was under a kind of necessity of maintaining, 
 (pursuant to his other principles,) that our Lord ' laid down his 
 life' in the Eucharist. The love of Christ towards us is some- 
 times expressed by his ' laying down his life' for us a ; and 
 oftener by his ' dying b ' for us : which (besides the general use of 
 the phrase of ' laying down one's life') is a more special argument 
 with respect to this case, that the phrases are here equivalent. 
 Let it be said then, that Christ was crucified, slain, gave up the 
 ghost, or resigned his spirit in the Eucharist : indeed, they may 
 any of them be as reasonably asserted, as that he literally sacri- 
 ficed himself in the Eucharist. 
 
 Another learned writer, on the same side, chooses rather to 
 say, that our Lord 'laid down his life,' when he surrendered 
 himself to the band of soldiers c ; which was after his last Sup- 
 per : but if any person would undertake to justify such new con- 
 struction of the phrase, he should produce some example to shew, 
 that any one has ever been said to have 'laid down his life' 
 without dying, or before he died. And yet if any such example 
 could be produced, it would not fully come up to this particular 
 case, because our blessed Lord, at the very last moment, when 
 he resigned his soul, had it in his power to rescue himself from 
 death, as well as he had power to raise the dead. His life no 
 man could wrest from him at any time : neither was it taken 
 till the very instant when he 'laid it down of himself*,' condes- 
 cending to suspend his Divine power, or the exercise of it. But 
 I shall have another occasion to say more of this matter under 
 the following chapter. 
 
 z Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, viii. II ; xv. 3. 2 Cor. v. 15. 
 
 part ii. p. 69. I Thess. v. 10. 
 
 John x. 15, 17, 18. I John iii. c Brett's Answ. to Plain Account, 
 
 16. pp. 62, 75. 
 
 b Eom. v, 6, 8 ; xiv. 9. i Cor. d John x. l8
 
 47 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Pointing out some EXCESSES in relation to the SACRIFICE 
 OF THE CROSS. 
 
 THE sacrifice of the cross is so momentous an article of the 
 Christian religion, that we have great reason to be jealous of any 
 attempt either to overturn it, or to undermine it. No such 
 thing was ever formally attempted, that I know of, by any 
 Divines of our Church, before 1718, when the second part of 
 Unbloody Sacrifice appeared. The author himself, in his first 
 part, had owned the sacrifice of the cross more than once 6 , in 
 words at least ; though he then seems to have scrupled, in some 
 measure, the use of the phrase, and to have been looking out for 
 some evasive construction to put upon it. Afterwards, in some 
 places, he ordered mactation to be read for sacrifice f , or for 
 oblation : and mactation at length became his usual expression 
 for what we call the sacrifice of the cross. Let us examine his 
 reasons or motives for this so important a change in Christian 
 theology. 
 
 i. His first scruple seems to have been what he had hinted in 
 the first edition of his first part, where he says, ' By sacrificed 
 on the cross, we must then mean, that he was slain as an expi- 
 atory victim, and not that he offered himself as a Melchizede- 
 kian priest ; for he declares that he did this in the Eucharist. 
 For this, says he, is my body given to God for you ?.' He adds 
 afterwards, ' It cannot be proved,' that the Melchizedek in Ge- 
 nesis did offer bloody sacrifice h . This pretence is very slight ; 
 because it cannot be proved, by anything said in Genesis, or 
 any other part of Scripture, or by antiquity, universality, and 
 consent, that Melchizedek sacrificed bread at all, or that he did 
 
 e Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, late as 1713, which appears by his 
 
 part. i. pp. 12, 66, 68, 95, first edit. Sermon on the Christian Altar, &c. 
 
 Propit. Oblat. p. 106. pp. 18, 19. Though he adopted 
 
 N.B. Dr. Hickea all along owned Mr. Johnson's new notions in or 
 
 the sacrifice of the cross. (Christ, before 1720. Discourse, &c. p. 39. 
 
 Priesth. vol. i. p. 165.) So like- f See Johnson, part ii. p 267. 
 
 wise Mr. Leslie, and Mr. Scandret, f Ibid. p. 95. 
 
 pp. 4, 8, 157. Dr. Brett also, as h Ibid. p. 472.
 
 iv. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 471 
 
 anything more (so far as he is brought in for a type) than what 
 amounted to the prefiguration of the grand sacrifice, and an in- 
 strumental conveyance of the blessings of it i. However, as it is 
 certain from Scripture, confirmed by antiquity, universality, and 
 consent, that our Lord did offer himself a sacrifice on the cross, 
 and that our Lord was not a priest of any other order but the 
 order of Melchizedek, it most evidently follows, that such his 
 sacrifice was so far Melchizedekian, was an act of that priesthood 
 which was altogether Melchizedekian, and not AaronicalK In 
 the strictest sense, no material sacrifice, bloody or unbloody, no 
 active sacrifice at all, (excepting the sacrifice of lauds,) can be 
 Melchizedekian ; for Melchizedek, as a type, offered nothing but 
 lauds to God, and blessings to Abraham under visible signs : but 
 as our Lord's priesthood was entirely Melchizedekian, and con- 
 tained the atoning as well as benedictory part, it is manifest, 
 that even the atonement, so considered, was Melchizedekian, as 
 opposed to Aaronical. In short then, it must not be said that 
 our Lord's sacrifice was bloody, and therefore not Melchizede- 
 kian ; but it was Melchizedekian, though bloody ', because it was 
 our Lord's, who was of no other priestly order but the order 
 of Melchizedek. It is a poor thought of the Komanists, and it 
 is well exposed by Dean Brevint m , that bread and wine are 
 necessary to every act or exercise of the Melchizedekian priest- 
 hood : for as the notion is founded in error, so it terminates in 
 absurdity. Our Lord had no bread to offer on the cross : nei- 
 ther has he any bread or wine to offer in heaven, where he 
 intercedes as a priest in virtue of his sacrifice once offered, and 
 blesses as a priest, and 'abideth a priest continually 11 .' But I 
 proceed. 
 
 2. The first and main scruple against the sacrifice of the cross 
 being thus considered and confuted, there will be less difficulty 
 
 ' See above, p. 463, &c. ' mention it, since the benedictory 
 
 k Heb. vii. u, 13, 14, 16, 17. part of his priesthood was all that 
 
 1 N. B. It cannot be reasonably the type intended was concerned in, 
 
 doubted but that Melchizedek of- as I before intimated. 
 
 fered bloody sacrifices, after the way m Brevint, Depth and Mystery, 
 
 of the ancient Patriarchs : only, that &c. pp. 116-118. 
 
 part of his priesthood was not men- n Heb. vii. 3. 
 
 tioned ; as there was no need to
 
 473 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 with the rest, which are slighter, and which appear to have been 
 invented purely to wait upon the other. A second scruple is, 
 that our Lord could not, while alive, offer (unless it were under 
 symbols) his body and blood, as substantially separated ; because 
 it appears not that any blood flowed from him till the soldier 
 pierced him ; but it is probable, that the ' nails so filled the ori- 
 fices,' that ' no blood could issue thence .' I shall venture to 
 leave this ingenious speculation with the reader. 
 
 3. Against the sacrifice of the cross, it is pleaded, that to sup- 
 pose it, ' is to render the sacrifice of Christ a bloody one indeed ; 
 so bloody, as that it cannot be reconciled to purity of any sort, 
 till killing one's self be esteemed a virtue P.' The same argu- 
 ment, as lately revived by another gentleman, runs thus : ' He 
 could not offer himself a sacrifice in any other manner than by 
 symbols or representatives : for had he in any manner put him- 
 self to death, he might have been too justly accused of self- 
 murder q.' Sorry I am, that anything of this kind, though 
 only in the way of argument, should drop from serious and reli- 
 gious persons : and I was in some doubt with myself, whether I 
 could prudently or reverently repeat it, though in order only to 
 confute it. But who can any longer bear to have that most pre- 
 cious sacrifice, upon which all our hopes and all our comforts 
 depend, treated in a manner far from becoming it ? Why must 
 Christ's laying down his life be so invidiously, so injuriously 
 called putting himself to death ? To resign his life, or voluntarily 
 to submit to death, is one thing : to put himself to death is 
 quite another, differing as active disobedience from passive 
 obedience. But though he was passively obedient, in submitting 
 to suffer, bleed, and die for us, it does not therefore follow, that 
 he exercised no act of offering, or that he made no active sacri- 
 fice on the cross. It was his own choice to submit to the will 
 
 Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, -made for himself a body of bread, 
 pref. pp. 4, 5. to be sacrificed, because he could 
 
 P Ibid, part ii. p. 70. not ofler himself in any other man- 
 
 1 Brett's Answ. to Plain Ace. p. ner than by symbols, then was bread 
 66. One might here make use of given for the life of the world, and 
 Tertullian's argument against Mar- bread should have been crucified 
 cion, (cited above, p. 462,) with a for ua.' 
 
 very little change. ' If our Lord
 
 IV. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 473 
 
 of his enemies, and his choosing so to suffer, so to be passive, 
 for the honour of God and the salvation of men, was the divinest 
 act and exercise of true piety and philanthropy. It was active 
 virtue, as all choice (whether to do or to suffer) is equally active, 
 an act of the will, and a work r . He thus actively offered on 
 the cross his body, his blood, his soul, his life to God ; choosing 
 not to kill, but to be killed ; not to slay, but to be slain : and 
 by such act of submission and resignation to the will of God, he 
 made himself a voluntary sacrifice, in his death, for the sins of 
 mankind. This is the plain doctrine of the Gospel, which every 
 one that runs may read : and it is confirmed by as early, as 
 universal, and as constant, a tradition for fifteen centuries or 
 more, as any point of Christian doctrine whatsoever ; from 
 Barnabas, Clemens, and Ignatius s , down even to Socinus of the 
 sixteenth century. It would be tedious to enter into the detail 
 of authorities ; neither can it, I presume, be necessary. I shall 
 only hint further, that from the third century and downwards, 
 ' altar of the cross l> has been the current language : one certain 
 argument, among many, that the sacrifice was supposed to be 
 made upon the cross. And such also is the language of the 
 Greek and Oriental liturgies u . 
 
 It is very wrong to suggest that our Lord was merely passive 
 in laying down his life, because nature was spent, and because 
 he had been half dead before, and the like x ; as if any violence 
 of death could have wrested his soul from him, the Lord of life, 
 
 r Aquinas understood 'active' and torn. ii. part. 2. 167. torn. iii. 384. 
 
 'passive' as well as most can pretend ed. Bened. Ambrosius, torn. i. 995, 
 
 to : and he scrupled not to call our 1002. torn. ii. 1054. ed. Bened. Chry- 
 
 Lord's passive obedience, a work : sostom, torn. ii. 403, 404. ed. Bened. 
 
 ' Hoc ipsum opus, quod voluntarie in Heb. 839. Augustinus, torn. iv. 
 
 passionem sustinuit,' &c. See above, 211, 1565. torn. v. Append. 273. 
 
 p. 448. The argument from the torn. viii. 820. Leo Magn. torn. i. 
 
 word 'patient,' or 'passive,' in this 251, 261, 264, 267, 276, 293. Quen. 
 
 case, is only playing upon an equi- Tenant. Fortunat. Hymn, de Pass. 
 
 vocal name, and committing a fal- Christi, p. 695. 
 
 lacy. u Jacob. Liturg. p. 35. Fabric. 
 
 8 Barnabas, Ep. ch. vii. p. 21. Basil. Liturg. Copt. p. 24. Renaud. 
 
 Coteler. Clem. Rom. Epist. i. c. 49. Gregorii Liturg. Copt. 36. 37. cp. 46. 
 
 Ignatius ad Ephes. c. ii. Basilii Liturg. Alex. p. 83. Gregorii 
 
 6 Orig. torn. ii. p. 220. cp. 187, 83, Liturg. pp. 120, 121, 123. Ordo 
 
 362. ed. Bened. Eusebius de Laud. Commun. Syr. Jacob, p. 22. 
 
 Constant. 765. ed. Cant. Hieronym. * Johnson, part ii. pp. 69, 70.
 
 474 Appendix to CHAP. 
 
 as it may ours. Our older and better divinity may be seen in the 
 learned and judicious Bishop Bilson, who confirmed the same 
 both by Scripture and Fathers. It ran thus : ' The conjunction 
 of the human nature with the Divine, in the person of Christ, 
 was so fast and sure, that neither sin, death, nor hell, assaulting 
 our Saviour, could make any separation, no not of his body : 
 but he himself, of his own accord, must put off his earthly 
 tabernacle, that dying for a season, he might conquer death for 
 ever. And so the laying down his life was no imposed punish- 
 ment, nor forcible invasion of death upon him, but a voluntary 
 sacrifice for sin, rendered unto God for our sakes 7.' This doc- 
 trine Bishop Bilson defended against some rigid Calvinists of 
 his time, who maintained the contrary z for the support of some 
 other false principles. But I return. 
 
 The author of Unbloody Sacrifice, though he had argued be- 
 fore, several ways, against the sacrifice of the cross, yet retreated 
 at length to this: 'I do not, nor ever did deny, that Christ 
 offered himself on the cross; but I declare, I cannot prove it 
 from Scripture ; so that if it be true, I leave it to be proved by 
 tradition a .' How hard of belief in this high article, when it is 
 undeniable that Scripture (taken in the sense of the Fathers of 
 the first, second, and following centuries) does prove it; and 
 when, in other cases, he conceived, that 'that man ought to 
 suspect his own judgment and orthodoxy, whose opinions sink 
 below the standard of the second age after Christ b .' But we 
 need not Fathers in this point, nor indeed anything but Scrip- 
 ture texts, and unprejudiced reason. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah represents our Lord as ' wounded for our 
 transgressions,' and 'bruised for our iniquities,' and 'making 
 his soul an offering for sin c .' Where but on the cross 1 Not 
 at his last Supper, where he was neither wounded nor bruised, 
 except it were in effigy, nor offered his soul, so much as in effigy, 
 whether \ve interpret it of soul or of life. His ' pouring out his 
 
 r Bishop Bilson, Full Redemption, pref. p. 58. 
 
 &c. p. 8. b Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 
 * Ibid. p. 229. part i. p. 212, alias 215. 
 
 * Johnson, Saxon Laws, vol. i. c Isa. liii. 5, 10.
 
 iv. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 475 
 
 soul unto death,' (not his pouring out wine, or pouring out 
 promises or engagements,) is by the same prophet made the one 
 thing considerable* 1 . 
 
 Where our Loi'd ' bare our sins, ' (a sacrificial phrase,) there 
 most certainly he made his sacrifice : now St. Peter expressly 
 tells us, that 'he bare our sins in his own body on the tree 6 ;' 
 not in his sacramental body, or at the Communion table. Besides 
 that it is manifest from the same text, that he had not made the 
 expiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist : for if he had, he could 
 have had none of our sins to bear in his body on the cross ; 
 neither indeed would his death have been necessary to our re- 
 demption, being superseded by the eucharistical remission, and 
 by the atonement then made. 
 
 Where peace was purchased, where redemption and reconcilia- 
 tion were perfected, there may we look for the sacrifice of peace, 
 redemption, and reconcilement. Now St. Paul says plainly, that 
 he ' made peace through the blood of his cross/ (not through the 
 blood of his holy table, whether sacramental or natural,) 'to 
 reconcile all things f ,' &c. Again, 'we were reconciled to God 
 by the death of his Son?,' and reconciled 'unto God by the 
 cross h :' not by the Eucharist of his Son, not by the Communion 
 table. We were ' redeemed by his blood i ;' and ' made nigh by 
 the blood of Christ k ,' and ' sanctified also by his blood ! :' not in 
 the Eucharist, where no blood was shed, except it were in effigy; 
 neither will such sacramental shedding answer St. Paul's meaning, 
 where he says, that 'without shedding of blood there is no remis- 
 sion 111 .' Again, it is said, Christ 'appeared to put away sin by 
 the SACRIFICE of HIMSELF: and as it is appointed unto men ONCE 
 TO DIE so Christ was ONCE OFFERED to bear the sins of many 11 ,' 
 &c. Where it is plain, that he was to put away sin by sacrificing 
 himself, and that, by dying ; as appears by the similitude imme- 
 diately following ; ' As it is appointed unto men once to die, so 
 Christ was once offered,' viz. in his death : otherwise the parallel 
 
 d Isa. liii. 12. k Eph. ii. 13. 
 
 e i Pet. ii. 24. Compare Isa. liii. ' Heb. xiii. 12, x. 79, ix. 12, 13, 
 
 4, 6, 1 1, 12. 14. 
 
 f Coloss. i. 20. s Rom. v. 10. ra Heb. ix. 12. 
 
 h Eph. ii. 16. ' Revel, v. 9. n Ibid. 27, 28. *
 
 476 Appendix to CHAK 
 
 will not answer. It is in vain to say, that the offering was pre- 
 vious to his bearing our sins : for the prophet Isaiah expounds 
 his ' making his soul an offering for sin,' by his ' pouring out 
 his soul unto death .' So that his being offered to bear, must 
 mean, that he was offered on the cross, where he was to pour out 
 his soul, that upon the same cross he might bear our sins, &c. 
 
 More might be added, but I forbear to proceed further in so 
 plain a point, so firmly grounded on Scripture, and so fully 
 established by antiquity, universality, and consent ; consent of 
 the Christian churches from the beginning down to this day. 
 
 4. It was going great lengths, to say, ' I must humbly declare 
 my opinion, that it is impossible to establish the doctrine of 
 Christ's body and blood being a real sacrifice, by any other 
 arguments but those by which we prove the Eucharist to have 
 been instituted a sacrifice by our blessed Saviour P.' Whatever 
 might be the fate of this particular much disputed notion of the 
 eucharistic sacrifice, one thing is certain, and will be readily 
 allowed by every considerate man, that the general and unques- 
 tionable doctrine of the real sacrifice ought never to be put upon 
 a level with it: neither ought it to have been so much as 
 suggested, that there is any ground for so strange a comparison. 
 It was obliging Socinians too far, to raise any doubt or question 
 about the certainty of the sacrifice of the cross : but to throw out 
 broad innuendoes besides, that it stands upon no better, or no 
 other foundation, than the material sacrifice, the material and 
 expiatory sacrifice of the Eucharist ; what is it but betraying the 
 Christian cause into the hands of the adversaries ] For if they 
 may reasonably urge, (or cannot reasonably be confuted, if they 
 do urge,) that such material and expiatory sacrifice is a novelty 
 of yesterday, scarce thought on before the dark ages of super- 
 stition, which made use of material incense for like purposes ; 
 scarce ever seriously maintained by any of the West before the 
 sixteenth century, and then only by the Romanists ; never 
 admitted, in either part, by Protestants before the seventeenth 
 century, nor then by many of them ; never taught (as now 
 
 Isa. liii. 10, 12. 54. Unbloody Sacrifice, part. ii. 
 
 P Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref. p. pref. pp. i, 2.
 
 iv. the Christian Sacrifice explained. 477 
 
 taught) before the eighteenth century, and then by a single 
 writer only, for some time : I say, if the Socinians may reason- 
 ably urge the premises, the conclusion which they aim at is 
 given them into their hands : and so at length this indiscreet 
 zeal for an imaginary sacrifice of the Eucharist (not capable of 
 support) can serve only to perplex, darken, or destroy, the real 
 one of the cross Q. 
 
 I thought to go on to two chapters, further, pointing out 
 more excesses and inconsistencies of the new scheme. There 
 is one which particularly deserved to be mentioned ; the pre- 
 carious consequence drawn from our Lord's supposed sacrifice 
 in the first Eucharist to our sacrifice in the rest, built only upon 
 this, that we are to do what Christ did r : an argument, which, 
 if it proves anything, proves that we are to do all that Christ is 
 supposed to have done by way of sacrifice ; that is, to sacrifice 
 his sacramental body and his natural also, (which is absurd,) 
 or else to sacrifice ourselves under symbols, as our Lord sacri- 
 ficed himself, which will not serve the purpose of the material 
 scheme. One way the argument proves too much, and the 
 other way too little ; and so neither way will it answer the end 
 designed. I am aware, that some will tell us what the argu- 
 ment shall prove, and what it shall not prove 8 . But who will 
 
 i The chief advocate for the new only to this : we are to do what 
 
 system says, ' It is no small satisfac- Christ did, so far as serves the new 
 
 tion to me, that the sacrifice of the 8} T stem : but we are not to do what 
 
 Eucharist, and the personal sacrifice Christ did, so far as disserves it. 
 
 of Christ, do rest upon the same 'Do this 'shall be an argument, when 
 
 foundation, and stand or fall to- and where it makes for it : 'do this' 
 
 gether.' Johnson's Unbloody Sacri- shall be no argument, when or where 
 
 fice, partii. pref. pp. i, 2. To which it it makes against it. It is observ- 
 
 is sufficient to say, God forbid ! The able, that the words 'this do," in the 
 
 personal sacrifice of Christ stands institution, come after the words 
 
 upon the rock of ages : the other ' take, eat, this is my body,' and there- 
 
 (in his sense of it) is built upon fore manifestly relate, not merely 
 
 the sand. to the sacerdotal ministration, but 
 
 r Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, to the whole action or actions both 
 
 part i. pp. 50, 91, alias 51, 94. of priest and people. The blessing, 
 
 Johnson, part ii. p. 10. the breaking, the pouring out, the 
 
 s Johnson, part i. pp. 96, 122, distributing, the receiving, the eat- 
 alias 99, 126. ing, and the drinking, are all com- 
 
 Dr. Brett on Liturgies, p. 135. prehended in the words 'this do.' 
 
 N. B. The sum of what is pleaded All those actions are shewing forth 
 
 on that side, when carefully ex- the Lord's death, (i Cor. xi. 26,) for 
 
 amiued, will be found to amount a remembrance or memorial of him.
 
 478 Appendix to 
 
 give a disputant leave to draw consequences arbitrarily, not 
 regulated by the premises, but by an hypothesis, which itself 
 wants to be regulated by reason and truth 1 
 
 I have not here room to enter further into this matter : these 
 papers are already drawn out into a length beyond what I at 
 first suspected. I hope my readers will excuse my stopping 
 short in this fourth chapter, and saving both myself and them 
 the trouble (perhaps unnecessary trouble) of two more. It is 
 of use in any controverted points, to observe what exit they are 
 found to have, when pursued to the utmost. There were suffi- 
 cient reasons before against a material sacrifice, considered in 
 its best light, as purely gratulatory, or eucharistical : and there 
 were more and stronger against the same considered as expi- 
 atory, or propitiatory ; reasons, I mean, from Scripture and 
 antiquity, and from the nature of things : but the managers 
 for the material cause have now lately furnished us with a 
 new argument against it, by shewing us, that, after all that 
 can be done for it, it has really no exit, or such as is worse 
 than none ; while it terminates in various inconsistencies and 
 incongruities ; and not only so, but is contradictory also to 
 sound doctrine, particularly to the momentous doctrine of the 
 sacrifice of the cross.
 
 the Christian Sacrifice explained. 479 
 
 A brief Analysis of Mr. Johnson's System, shewing what it 
 is, and by ivhat Steps he might be led into it. 
 
 1. THE first thing in intention, last in execution, was to 
 prove, that the Gospel ministers are proper priests* 
 
 2. Proper priests must have a proper sacrifice : thei'efore 
 some medium Avas to be thought on, to prove a proper sacri- 
 fice, particularly in the Eucharist. 
 
 3. A prevailing notion, or vulgar prejudice, had spread among 
 many, for a century or more, that no sacrifice could be proper, 
 but a material one : therefore pains were to be taken to prove 
 the Eucharist a material sacrifice. 
 
 4. But as material sacrifice carried no appearance of dignity 
 in it, looking too low and mean for an evangelical priesthood 
 to stand upon ; therefore ways and means were to be used 
 to raise some esteem of it : spiritual sacrifice was to be depre- 
 ciated, and material to be magnified. Hence, as it seems, arose 
 the thought of enriching the elements with the Spirit ; borrow- 
 ing from the sacramental part of the Eucharist, to augment and 
 advance the sacrificial. And now the scheme appeared with a 
 better face. 
 
 5. Nevertheless, if our Lord in the original Eucharist did not 
 sacrifice the elements, it could not reasonably be supposed that 
 we do it now, and so things would not tally : therefore it was 
 found necessary to assert, that he also sacrificed the elements, 
 as his sacramental body ; and thereupon reasons and authoi-i- 
 ties were to be searched out for that purpose. 
 
 6. Still there was a weighty objection remaining, viz. that 
 Scripture speaks often of Christ's offering himself, but never 
 once of his offering in sacrifice the symbols : to remove which 
 difficulty, it was thought best to say, that he offered himself 
 in the Eucharist, but by and with the symbols. An after- 
 thought, and not well comporting with former parts of the 
 scheme. : 
 
 7. But there was still another difficulty, a very great one j 
 namely, that our Lord, according to the accounts of the New
 
 480 Appendix to 
 
 Testament, sacrificed himself but once * : therefore, either he 
 did it not in the Eucharist, or not upon the cross. To re- 
 move this difficulty, it seems to have been resolved to give 
 up the sacrifice of the cross, and to retain only the sacrifice 
 of the Eucharist : and so the scheme was complete. 
 
 Having thus given a sketch of the system in the analytical 
 way, it may now be easy to throw it into the synthetic, thus : 
 
 1. Christ our Lord made a personal sacrifice of himself once ; 
 either in the Eucharist or on the cross. 
 
 2. It cannot be proved to have been on the cross, but there 
 are divers reasons against the supposition ; therefore it must 
 have been in the Eucharist. 
 
 3. He sacrificed himself in the Eucharist, under symbols, 
 sacrificing the symbols together with himself : otherwise we 
 could have no pretence now for sacrificing the same symbols. 
 
 4. The Christian Church, after his example, saci'ifices the 
 symbols, but not him. 
 
 5. Therefore the Church has a material sacrifice. 
 
 6. Therefore the Church offers a proper sacrifice. 
 
 7. Therefore the Gospel ministers are proper priests, sacri- 
 ficing priests : which was to be proved. 
 
 Now my humble opinion upon the whole is, that if the 
 learned author had taken spiritual sacrifice for his medium, 
 instead of material, he might not only have avoided many per- 
 plexities, and no small number of mistakes, but might also have 
 come at his main point justly and regularly, in conformity with 
 Scripture and antiquity. He might have proved that Christian 
 ministers are priests in as high and as proper a sense as any 
 before them have been, (Christ only excepted,) authorized to 
 stand and minister between God and his people, and to bless 
 in God's name, and to execute all other sacerdotal functions, 
 but in a more spiritual and heavenly way than other priests had 
 done : which detracts not at all from the propriety of the 
 Christian priesthood, but adds very much to its value and 
 excellency, and shews it to be of superior dignity to any real 
 or pretended priesthood, either of Jews or Pagans. 
 * Propit. Oblat. p. 97.
 
 the Christian Sacrifice explained. 48 [ 
 
 A distinct summary View of the several OBLATIONS in tfa 
 Eucharist, previous to CONSECRATION or subsequent. 
 
 What is previous, goes under the name of Ante-oblation : what 
 is subsequent, falls under the name of Post-oblation. 
 
 I. Of the Ante-oblation. 
 
 THE ante-oblation has three parts, or three views, as here 
 follows : 
 
 1. There is a presenting to God alms for the poor, and obla- 
 tions for the use of the Church. The material things are gifts 
 to men : the benevolent act, or work, is a gift, or sacrifice unto 
 God. St. Paul points out this distinction where he teaches, 
 ' To do good and to communicate' are ' such sacrifices' as 
 ' God is well pleased with u .' The benevolent services are the 
 sacrifice ; not the material money, or goods. This distinction 
 is further confirmed by the common custom of speech ; which 
 shews what the common ideas are. Alms (that is, alms-deeds) 
 make an atonement for sin : a true and a proper expression, 
 understanding atonement in a qualified sense. But who would 
 say, that money makes an atonement 1 By bounty and charity 
 God is appeased : the proposition is true, and the expression 
 proper. But can we say, that by silver and gold God is 
 appeased ] No, certainly. And why cannot we 1 Because it 
 would be confounding ideas : for, even in common language, 
 expressive of the common ideas, the service is the gift to God, 
 not the material thing. 
 
 2. There is in the Eucharist a presenting to God (virtually at 
 least) an acknowledgment of God's being Creator and Giver of 
 all good things ; as Irenaeus intimates x . Tertullian extends it 
 to both Sacraments y : inasmuch as the religious use of water in 
 
 u Heb. xiii. 16. The like distinc- tKtlvcp 8e evxapitrrovs OVTO.S Sia \6yov 
 
 tion is clearly laid down in Justin iro^Tras KO.\ Suvovs irefnirfiv. 
 Martyr. Apol. ii. p. 60, ed. Paris, x Iren. lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251. 
 1636. Ta vir' litflvov fls 8iaTpo<j>V f Tertull. contr. Marc. lib. i. cap. 
 
 yff6/J.ffa, oil irvpl Sairavav, d\\' eat/- 14, 23. 
 ToTs KO.I roii SeoueVois irpoiTtytpfiv, 
 
 I i
 
 482 Appendix to 
 
 Baptism carries in it a tacit acknowledgment that water is a 
 creature of God. 
 
 3. There is also a presenting of the elements to God for 
 consecration : which is common to both Sacraments. For in 
 Baptism the waters are so presented, and for the same or like 
 spiritual purposes. 
 
 II. Of the Post-OUatwn. 
 
 The post -oblation, otherwise called commemoration, may like- 
 wise be considered under three views, or as containing three 
 parts. 
 
 1. The first is, the offering to view, viz. of God, angels, and 
 men, under certain symbols, the death, passion, or sacrifice of 
 Christ. We do the like (not precisely the same) in Baptism 
 also : for there we represent and commemorate mentally, vocally, 
 and manually, (in mind, and by mouth, and by significant 
 actions,) the death and burial of Christ our Lord. 
 
 2. The second is, the offering, as it were, to Divine consider- 
 ation, with our praises and thanksgivings, Christ and his sacri- 
 fice, pleading the merit of it, in behalf of ourselves and others. 
 We do something near akin to this in Baptism likewise, plead- 
 ing the same sacrifice of atonement, with the merits thereof, in 
 behalf of the persons baptized ; offering the same to Divine con- 
 sideration. 
 
 3. The third is, the offering up Christ's mystical body, the 
 Church, or ourselves a part of it z , as an holy, lively, reasonable 
 
 1 Fulgentius's doctrine on this aliud postulari mihi videtur, nisi ut 
 
 head is well worth the noting, as per ' gratiam salutarem in corpore 
 
 making the Church to be the sacri- Christi (quod est Ecclesia) caritatis 
 
 fice offered, and likewise as inter- unitas jugiter indisrupta servetur. . . 
 
 preting the illapse of the Spirit, Dum itaque Ecclesia Spiritum sanc- 
 
 conformably, of the Spirit's sancti- turn sibi caelitus postulat mitti, do- 
 
 fying that mystical body, viz. the num sibi caritatis et unanimitatis 
 
 Church. He flourished about 510, postulat a Deo conferri. Quando 
 
 and is of greater antiquity and au- autem congruentius quam ad conse- 
 
 thority than most of the Greek, crandum sacrificium corporis Christi 
 
 Latin, or Oriental liturgies now sancta Ecclesia (quae corpus est 
 
 extant. Christi) Spiritus sancti deposcat ad- 
 
 ' Quum ergo sancti Spiritus ad veiitum ? quae ipsum caput suum 
 
 sanctificandum totius Ecclesiae sa- secundum carnem de Spiritu sancto 
 
 crificium postulatur adventus, nihil noverit natum. . . , Hoc ergo factum
 
 the Christian Sacrifice explained. 
 
 sacrifice unto God : a sacrifice represented by the outward signs, 
 and conveyed, as it were, under the symbols of bread and wine. 
 
 This third article of the post-oblation is seen also in Baptism : 
 for we are therein supposed to be dedicated, consecrated, devoted, 
 through Christ, to God. On which account Baptism has been 
 looked upon as a kind of sacrifice among the ancients a . 
 
 Nevertheless, the Sacrament of the Eucharist has more par- 
 ticularly obtained the name of sacrifice : partly, on account of 
 the offerings to church and poor in the ante-oblation, which 
 are peculiar to that Sacrament ; and partly, on account of the 
 commemorated sacrifice in the post-oblation. For though Bap- 
 tism commemorates the death and burial, and indirectly the 
 grand sacrifice ; yet it does not so precisely, formally, and 
 directly represent or commemorate the sacrifice of the cross, 
 as the Eucharist does. 
 
 est caritate divina, ut ex ipso Spiritu 
 corpus illius capitis esset renatum, 
 de quo ipsum caput est natum. . . . 
 Haec itaque spiritalis aedificatio cor- 
 poris Christi, quae fit in caritate, 
 (cum scilicet secundum B. Petri ser- 
 monem, lapides vivi aedificantur in 
 domum spiritalem, in sacerdotium 
 sanctum, offerentes spiritales hostias, 
 acceptabiles, Deo per Jesum Christ- 
 um) nunquam opportunius petitur, 
 quam quum ab ipso Christi corpore 
 (quod est Ecclesia) in Sacramento 
 panis et calicis ipsum Christi corpus 
 et sanguis offertur. Calix enim 
 quern bibimus,' &c. i Cor. x. 16, 17. 
 Fulgent, ad Monim. lib. ii. pp. 34- 
 37-ed. Paris. Cp. Fragment, p. 641. 
 
 a ' Cum venis ad gratiam Bap- 
 tismi, vitulum obtulisti, quia in 
 mortem Christi baptizaris.' Origen. 
 in Levit. Horn. ii. p. 191. ed. 
 Bened. 
 
 "' Holocausto dominicae passionis, 
 quod eo tempore offert quisque pio 
 peccatis suis, quo ejusdem passionis 
 fide dedicatur, et Christian orum fide- 
 lium nomine baptizatus . imbuitur.' 
 Augustin. ad Rom. Expos, cap. xix. 
 p 937. ed. Bened. 
 
 ' Ipse homo, Dei nomini conse- 
 cratus, et Deo devotus, in quantum 
 mundo moritur ut Deo vivat, sacri- 
 ficium est.' Augustin. de Civit. Dei, 
 lib. x. cap, 6. p. 242. 
 
 I l 2
 
 THE 
 
 SACRAMENTAL PART 
 
 OF 
 
 THE EUCHAKIST 
 
 EXPLAINED, 
 
 IN 
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVERED IN PART TO 
 
 THE CLERGY OF MIDDLESEX 
 
 At the Easter Visitation, 1739.
 
 REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 IN a former discourse a , upon the like occasion, I endeavoured 
 to explain the sacrificial part of the Eucharist more minutely 
 than I had before done, for the removing of scruples and the 
 obviating mistakes. I would now do something of like kind 
 with respect to the sacramental part of the same, so far as 
 it appears to be affected by the sacrificial; that so both parts 
 may aptly suit with each other, and hang naturally together. 
 As truth is uniform, so just notions of one part will of course 
 tend to preserve just ideas of the other part also : and as error 
 is apt to lead to error, so any erroneous tenets there, will 
 naturally bring in erroneous positions here. 
 
 It is matter of fact, that for the sake of advancing a new 
 kind of sacrifice, new doctrines have been offered, time after 
 time, with regard even to the sacramental part of the Eucharist : 
 which in truth is as much superior to the sacrificial, as God's 
 part in that holy rite is superior to man's ; and which there- 
 fore calls for our more especial caution and circumspection. 
 
 Great stress has, by some amongst us since 1702, been laid 
 upon the invocation and illapse of the Holy Ghost upon the 
 elements : not barely to make them sacred signs and pledges, 
 or exhibitive symbols of Christ's body and blood to every 
 faithful communicant, (which might reasonably be admitted,) 
 but even to make them the very body, or verily the body of 
 Christ : not the natural body, but another true body, called 
 a spiritual body, consisting, as is presumed, of elements changed 
 in their inward qualities, and replenished either with the Holy 
 Spirit himself, or with the graces, or virtues, or energies of 
 
 a The Christian Sacrifice explained, in the preceding Charge.
 
 488 The Sacramental Part 
 
 the Spirit b ; supposed to be intrinsic to them, inherent in them, 
 permanent with them, and received both by worthy and un- 
 worthy communicants. It is said, that the ' Holy Spirit being 
 invited and called down by the prayer of the priest, (according 
 to the ancients,) descended upon the bread and wine on the 
 altar, and enriched them with all the virtues and graces with 
 which the personal body and blood of Christ did abound, and 
 so made them in this, and perhaps in a yet more mysterious 
 and incomprehensible manner, to be verily the body and blood 
 of Christ ; as the Holy Ghost did formerly come upon the 
 blessed Virgin, and formed in her womb the personal body 
 and blood of Christ c . That the consecrated symbols are sancti- 
 fied, and altered, if not in their substance, yet in their internal 
 qualities, and that the eucharistical symbols themselves are 
 verily made, in a mysterious manner, the body and blood of our 
 crucified Saviour d . That this sacramental flesh and blood of 
 Christ is taken by a corporeal eating and drinking of the 
 unworthy, as well as worthy, communicants : of these, namely, 
 to their justification and eternal salvation both of flesh and 
 
 b ' Spiritu Sancto, qui, ad invoca- turalem quandam vim infundere.' 
 
 tionem sacerdotis descendens, panem Allix. in notis ad Nectarium, p. 429. 
 
 sanctificat, et omni divina ac vivifica N.B. The question of inherent vir- 
 
 virtute corporis et sanguinis Christi tues had been thoroughly discussed 
 
 eundem replet. . . . Ita ut Eucharistia by the best-learned Protestants, and 
 
 duabus constet rebus, terrena, quae the notion generally exploded, here 
 
 est materia panis, et caelesti, quae and abroad, long before Dr. Grabe 
 
 est gratia ac virtus Spiritus Sancti undertook (inadvertently perhaps, or 
 
 pani indita. . . . Divina illius virtus however unadvisedly) to revive it. 
 
 et gratia pani communicata ac in- [' Grabium cujus ingerium nova- 
 
 haerens, uti jam paucis probabo.' rum et portentosarum opinionum 
 
 Grabe. Ad Iren. lib. iv. cap. 34. tenax nemini ignotum est.' Dey- 
 
 pp. 327, 328. ling. Observat. Miscell. p. 177. 
 
 In the same year, Dr. Allix, ' Nee tamen id dissimulamus, ip- 
 
 who saw deeper, condemned those sum, antequam ad Anglos abiret, 
 
 notions, in very plain terms, while ad ecclesiam Romanam transire om- 
 
 speaking of the modern Greeks, nino voluisse, et quidem hanc prae- 
 
 whose tenets those are. cipue ob rationem, quod crediderat, 
 
 ' Ad tales autem miraculosos effec- successionem episcopatus ministerii- 
 
 tus, quos jactant tarn Graeci quam que apostolici in ea sola inveniri.' 
 
 Latini, credendos, aliquid nobis vide- Pfaffius, p. 500.] 
 
 tur deesse, soil. Christi promissip, c Grabe's Defence of the Greek 
 
 aut mandatum. De his miraculis Church, p. 88. 
 
 fama orta videtur ex absurda qua- d Grabe, ibid. pp. 75, 87. Cp. pp. 
 
 dam credulitate, Spiritum Sanctum 20, 35, 90, 91. 
 in elementorum naturam superna-
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 489 
 
 spirit ; but of those to their condemnation and destruction of 
 soul and body e .' 
 
 Whoever looks into Scripture, or genuine antiquity, will there 
 find but very little ground or colour for these or the like specu- 
 lations ; which appear rather to have been borrowed from 
 Damascen of the eighth century, or from the more modern 
 Greeks, or the Pseudo-primitive liturgies. There was indeed, 
 as early as the second century, some mention made of the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost in Baptism f : and there was also 
 a prevailing notion of some concurrence of the Holy Spirit with 
 water, to the conception and birth of a Christian; which con- 
 currence, by way of illustration, or to render the idea of it 
 more lively and affecting, was sometimes compared to a conjugal 
 unions. But it was never understood, that such similitudes 
 were to be scanned with a scrupulous exactness ; or that every 
 affecting or popular expression should be strained with the 
 utmost rigour : for that would be using the ancient writers 
 in much such a way as the Anthropomorphites and others have 
 interpreted Scripture, contrary to the true meaning and intent 
 of it. The Fathers very well knew how to distinguish between 
 a power adsistant to, or concurrent with the element 11 , and 
 a power infused into it, or lodged in it : and they were well 
 aware of the difference between the virtue of Baptism (meaning 
 the whole solemnity, in which God bears a part*) and the 
 inherent virtue of the consecrated water, which means quite 
 
 e Grabe's Defence of the Greek sostora. in Ephes. Horn. xx. p. 147. 
 
 Church, p. 87. Leo I. Serm. 23, 24, pp. 155, 160. 
 
 N.B. The Leipsic Acts, in their Quesnell. Pseud-Ambros. de Myst. 
 
 censure upon that posthumous piece, cap. lix. p. 243. See more testimo- 
 
 first published in 1721, have left this nies in Vossius, Opp. torn. vi. pp. 
 
 note : 233, 274. Cp. Albertinus, pp. 465, 
 
 4 Ex his vero patet, quod licet in 466, and my Appendix, pp. 452, 453. 
 
 articulo de coena, alienam a ponti- h AJTT)) coJ rj KaBapffis, Si' ttSaros 
 
 ficiorum transubstantiatione senten- rt, 4>i?jul, nal irt>evfj.aros' TOV /jLft> 6to- 
 
 tiam habuerit Grabius, tamen in prjTaij KOI ffu/LiaTiKtas \an^avofj.(vov, 
 
 eodem ab Anglicana etiam. . .Eccle- TOV 8e affw^drtas nai a.6ttap-firus trvv- 
 
 sia haud parum discrepaverit.' Act rpexovrot. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 
 
 Lips. p. 281. A.D. 1722. 641. Compare Review, above pp. 
 
 f See my Review, above pp. 250 257 260. 
 
 260. > See my Review, above p. n, 
 
 6 Tertullian. de Baptismo. Chry- &c.
 
 49 Tfa Sacramental Part 
 
 another thing, and is a late invention of dark and ignorant 
 ages k . 
 
 As to the Eucharist, for the three first centuries, and part 
 of the fourth, nothing at all was said, so far as appears, of 
 any descent of the third Person upon the elements 1 ; nothing 
 of his forming them into Christ's body ; no, nor of his form- 
 ing the natural body in the womb : but the ancients inter- 
 preted Luke i. 35, of our Lord's own Divine Spirit, namely, 
 of the Logos, and supposed that the same Logos formed for 
 himself a body in the womb m . So little foundation is there, 
 within the three first and purest ages, for the pretended simili- 
 tude between the Holy Ghost's forming the natural body in 
 the womb, and his forming the spiritual body in the Eucharist u . 
 The similitude made use of anciently with respect to the Eucha- 
 rist, was that of the incarnation , intended only in a confuse, 
 general way, and not for any rigorous exactness. For like 
 as our Lord, in his incarnation, made and fitted for himself 
 a natural body to dwell in ; so, in regard to the Eucharist, 
 he has appointed and fitted for himself a symbolical body to 
 
 k ' Sacramenta continere grati- tenditur?' p. 406. ed. Colon. 1617.] 
 am nunquam oliin dictum : itaque J See my Review, above p. 261, 
 
 Thomas, parte tertia quaestionis &c. 
 
 sexagesimae secundae, articulo ter- m Hennas, lib. iii. Simil. 5. Just, 
 
 tio, non potuit altius arcessere quam Apol. i. p. 54. Dial. 354. Irenaeus, 
 
 ab Hugone de Sancto Victore.' lib. v. cap. i. p. 293. Clem. Alex. 
 
 Chamier. Panstrat. torn. iv. p. 52. p. 654. Tertullian, contr. Prax. cap. 
 
 N.B. Hugo flourished about A.D. xxvi. de Cam. Cbristi, p. 18. Hip- 
 
 ii 20, [or 1130.] polytus, contr. Noet. cap. iv. p. 9. 
 
 [' Hugo de S. Victore dicit, quod cap. xvii. p. 18. Novatian, cap. xix. 
 
 Sacramentum ex sanctificatione in- [xxiv.] Cyprian, de Idol. Vanit. p. 
 
 visibilem gratiam continet.' Aquin. 228. Lactant. lib. iv. cap. 12. Hila- 
 
 par. 3. q. 62. art. 3. p. 138. rius, de Trin. ion, 1044, 1047. Gre- 
 
 ' Sacramentum est corporale vel gorius Boeticus, apud Ambros. torn, 
 
 materiale elementum . . .ex sanctifi- ii. pp. 354, 356, [KaQdirtp yap rb <ru>fj.a. 
 
 catione contineiis invisibilem et spi- fxt'iva ^vwrai T<f XpiaT<, ovrta na.1 
 
 ritualem gratiam. 1 Hugo de S. Viet, rintis avrif Sta rov &prov TOVTOV evov- 
 
 t. iii. de Sacramentis, par. 9. c. i. neOa. Chrysost. in I Cor. Horn. 24. 
 
 p. 405. p. 213.] 
 
 ' Dona enim gratiae spiritualia n [Abp. Cranmer, pp. 338, 340, 
 
 quasi quaedam invisibilia antidota 341, 355.] 
 
 sunt, quae dum in sacramentis vLsi- Justin. Apol. xcvi. Dial. p. 290. 
 
 bilibus, quasi quibusdam vasculis, Compare my Doctrinal Use, &c. p. 
 
 homini porriguntur, quid aliud quam 405, and Review, above pp. 144, 
 
 ex patenti specie virtus occulta os- 145, and Albertinus, pp. 296, 664.
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 491 
 
 concur with, in the distributing his graces and blessings to 
 the faithful receivers. As to the third Person, his more im- 
 mediate presence and energy was by the ancients assigned to 
 Baptism, correspondently to the figure of the conjugal union, 
 as before hinted : while to the Eucharist was assigned the more 
 immediate presence and energy of the Logos, as the figure of 
 the incarnation, made use of in that case, justly required. It 
 would be a kind of solecism in ancient language, to speak of 
 the Holy Ghost in this matter, as some late writers have done ; 
 because it would be confounding the analogy which the truly 
 ancient Doctors went upon in their doctrine of the two Sacra- 
 ments. The very learned and judicious Bishop Bull gives a 
 reasonable account of what was taught concerning the Eucha- 
 rist in the early, days of Justin and Irenaeus : 
 
 ' By or upon the sacerdotal benediction, the Spirit of Christ, 
 or a Divine virtue from Christ, descends upon the elements, 
 and accompanies them to all worthy communicants : and there- 
 fore they are said to be, and are, the body and blood of Christ, 
 the same Divinity which is hypostatically united to the body 
 of Christ in heaven, being virtually united to the elements of 
 bread and wine P.' Here it is observable, that by Spirit of 
 Christ Bishop Bull could not mean the third Person, but the 
 Logos <i, which only is hypostatically united to the humanity 
 of Christ ; and that that Spirit is not said to reside in the 
 elements, but to accompany them, and to the worthy only : so 
 that the virtual union can amount only to an union of con- 
 currence, (not of infusion or inherence,) whereby Christ is 
 
 P Bull's Answer to the Bishop of upon the bread and wine in the 
 
 Meaux, pp. 21, 22. How different Eucharist, p. 22, alias 246. Cp. 
 
 Bishop Bull's account is from Dr. Spalatens. 1. v. c. 6. p. 85. Salmas. 
 
 Grabe's in his notes on Irenaeus, p. 395.] 
 
 will be obvious to every one who 1 How common and familiar such 
 
 will be at the pains to compare use of the name Spirit, or Holy Spi- 
 
 them : though at the same time rit, anciently was, may be under- 
 
 Bishop Bull very respectfully refers stood from the interpretation of Luke 
 
 to Dr. Grabe (p. 23) for clearing i. 35, as before mentioned, and from 
 
 the point against the Romanists. the testimonies collected to that pur- 
 
 [On earth. Which also seems to pose by learned men. Grotius in 
 
 be the meaning of all the ancient Marc. ii. 8. Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. 
 
 Liturgies, in which it is prayed, cap. ii. sect. 5. Constant, in Hilar. 
 
 that God would send down his Spirit praefat. p. 19.
 
 492 
 
 The Sacramental Part 
 
 conceived to concur with the elements, in the due use of them 
 to produce the effects in persons fitly disposed. All which is 
 true and ancient doctrine. 
 
 In the fourth century, some illapse r of the third Person upon 
 the elements was commonly taught, and that justly, provided it 
 be but as justly understood. Not so as to make the sacramental 
 body a compound of element and spirit, after the way of the 
 modern Greeks ; nor so as to make the third Person the proper 
 food of the Eucharist, or the ' res Sacramenti ;' for the Logos was 
 always considered as the food there spiritually given and re- 
 ceived 8 ; yea it was the incarnate Logos *, and therein stands 
 our mystical union with Christ as improved and strengthened 
 in that Sacrament. But the work of the Holy Ghost upon the 
 elements 11 was to translate or change them from common to 
 
 r [The illapse of the second Per- 
 son was prayed for likewise. ' Sacer- 
 dotes quoque qui dant baptismum, 
 et ad Eucharistiam Domini impre- 
 cantur adventum, faciunt oleum 
 chrismatis, manum imponunt.' Hie- 
 ron. in Sophon. iii. p. 1673. ' Crede 
 adesse Dominum Jesum, invocatum 
 precibus sacerdotum.' Pseud. Ambr. 
 de iis qui mysteriis initiantur. c. 5. 
 But vid. Missal. Gallican. in Pfaffio 
 383. This relates to baptism. 
 
 The whole Trinity sometimes in- 
 voked. Vid. Justin. Apol. 96. Cyrill. 
 Mystag. i. t. vii. p. 308. Cp. Pfaf- 
 fius, 384, 385, 399. ' 
 
 ' Improprie ergo, in Sacramentis 
 participants, verbo carne vesci dici- 
 mur, cum carne tantum per verbum 
 facta vivificante vescamur. Sed nee 
 ipsam camera proprie sumimus, quae 
 in pane sanctificato sub sacramento 
 nobis communicatur.' Salmasius, 
 contra Grot. p. 156.] 
 
 8 Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 38. p. 284. 
 Clemens Alex. 123, 125, 126, 177, 
 1 78. Tertullian. de Orat. cap. 6. De 
 Resurr. Carn. cap. 38. Origen. in 
 Levit. Horn. xvi. p. 266. in Matt. 
 p. 254. Novat. cap. 14, 16. Hila- 
 rius de Trin. lib. viii. p. 954. Na- 
 zianzen, Orat. iii. p. 70. 
 
 * Tertullian. de Resurr. Cam. cap. 
 
 37. Origen. in Matt. p. 254. Au- 
 gustin. in Psal. xxxiii. p. 211. cxx. 
 p. 1381. Compare Jewel's Answer 
 to Hard. art. viii. p. 293, and Alber- 
 tinus, pp. 341, 758. 
 
 u [' i. Papists say, the Holy Ghost 
 transubstantiates the elements. 
 
 4 2. Lutherans, that he unites them 
 with the natural body locally pre- 
 sent. 
 
 * 3. Modern Greeks, that he fills 
 them with himself, or with his grace 
 or energy. 
 
 '4. Ancients, that he makes them 
 exhibit! ve symbols of Christ's body 
 locally absent, and of all the bene- 
 fits accruing from it, conveying them 
 to the communicants in the use of 
 the symbols. They are changed 
 They have a dignity and pre-eminence 
 which they had not before They 
 are not now common bread or com- 
 mon wine, but the Sacrament of the 
 body and blood of Christ. A holy 
 mystery a covenant a testimony 
 a perfect seal and sufficient war- 
 rant of God's promises,' &c. Jewel, 
 Treatise of the Sacraments, p. 274. 
 ed. 1611. 
 
 ' Consecratio nullam pani et vino 
 mutationem inducit nisi ut ex his 
 fiat per earn sacramentum. Fides 
 deinde sacramentum digne accipi-
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 493 
 
 sacred, from elements to sacraments, from their natural state 
 and condition to supernatural ends and uses, that they might 
 become holy signs, certain pledges, or exhibitive symbols of our 
 Lord's own natural body and blood in a mystical and spiritual 
 way. Not that any change was presumed, either as to the 
 substance or the inward qualities of the elements, but only 
 as to their outward state, condition, uses, or offices. For like 
 as when a commoner is advanced into a peer, or a subject into 
 a prince, or an house into a church, or a laic into a priest or 
 prelate, there is a change of outward state, condition, circum- 
 stances, and there are new uses and offices, new prerogatives, 
 new glories, but no change of substance, no, nor of inward 
 qualities implied : such also is the case (only in a more eminent 
 degree) with respect to the elements of the Eucharist ; when 
 they are consecrated by the priest, when they are sanctified 
 by the Holy Ghost, when they are rendered relatively holy, 
 when they are transferred from common to sacred x , when they 
 are exalted from mean and low uses, in comparison, to the 
 highest and holiest purposes that such poor things could ever 
 be advanced to. Such a change, or transmutation, as I have 
 now mentioned, frequently occurs in the primitive writers : 
 more than this (I am competently assured) will not be found 
 in any certain and undoubted monuments of Catholic writers, 
 within the first six centuries 7. 
 
 entis facit ut spiritaliter illud perci- \ ' When Gelasius speaks of the 
 
 piat : id est, ut spiritali ejus virtuti going of the sacraments into the 
 
 cominunicet, et Spiritus Dei parti- divine substance, he meaneth not 
 
 ceps existat. Nee huic veritati ob- that the substances of the sacra- 
 
 stat, quod Patres saepe Swafj.iv &prov rnents go into the substance of God, 
 
 appellent, &c. Non enim intelligunt but that in the action of that mys- 
 
 eam esse panis virtutem, aut pani tery, to them that worthily receive 
 
 inesse, sed quia cum pane sirnul ac- the sacraments, to them they be 
 
 cipitur ab eo qui digne earn accipit.' turned into the Divine substance, 
 
 Salmasius, p. 429.] through the working of the Holy 
 
 * ' Accedat verbum ad elemen- Ghost, who maketh the godly re- 
 turn, et fit Sacramentum.' Augus- ceivers to be partakers of the Divine 
 tin. in Joann. Tract. 80. nature and substance.' Cranmer, 
 
 n Compare Jewel's Def. of Apol. 356. cp. 358. N.B. The outward 
 
 part ii. pp. 243, 244. Albertinus, pp. change as to relative holiness, be- 
 
 425, 509. Cosin. Histor. Transubst. longs to the elements, but the in- 
 
 pp. 109, 113, 124. Covel. Account of ward change to the persons only.] 
 Gr. Church, pp. 47, 53, &c. 67, 68, 72.
 
 494 
 
 The Sacramental Part 
 
 So long as symbolical language was well remembered and 
 rightly understood, and men knew how to distinguish between 
 figure and verity, between signs and things : while due care 
 and judgment was made use of, to interpret the literal ex- 
 pressions of Scripture and Fathers literally, and figurative 
 expressions according to the figure : I say, while these things 
 were so, there could be no room for imagining any change 
 in the elements, either as to substance or internal qualities, 
 nor for supposing that our Lord's words, ' This is my" body,' 
 were to be otherwise interpreted than those parallel words of 
 the Apostle, ' that rock was Christ z .' For as the word ' Christ,' 
 which is the predicate in one proposition, is to be literally 
 understood, and the trope lies in the verb 'was,' put for 'signified,' 
 or exhibitively signified ; so the word ' body,' which is the pre- 
 dicate in the other proposition, is to be literally interpreted 
 of the natural or personal body of Christ, and the trope lies 
 in the verb ' is a ,' put for ' represents,' or exhibitively signifies. 
 And as it would not be right to say that the rock was a spiri- 
 tual Christ, distinct from the real Christ, making two Christs ; 
 so neither can it be right to say or conceive that the bread 
 in the Eucharist is a spiritual body of Christ, making two true 
 bodies of Christ. But as the rock was a symbol of the one 
 true Christ, so is the sacramental bread a symbol exhibitive 
 of the one true body of Christ, viz. the natural or personal 
 body, given and received in the Eucharist : I say, given and 
 
 1 I Cor. x. 4. ' Solet autem res usitata loquendi ratio postulare vi- 
 
 quae significat, ejus rei nomine detur, ut symbolis non solum nomina, 
 
 quam significat nuncupari. . . . Hinc sed et eorum proprietates, imo effecta 
 
 est quod dictum est, petra erat tribuantur." Cosin. Histor. Tran- 
 
 Christus. Non enini dixit, petra subst. p. 3. 
 
 significat, sed tanquam hoc esset ; a See this proved at large in Cha- 
 
 quod utique per substantiam hoc mier's Fanstrat. torn. iv. pp. 528, 
 
 non erat, sed per significationem. 529, &-. Albertinus. pp. 525, 526, 
 
 Sic et sanguis, quoniam animam 686. Jewel's Def. of Apol. p. 209. 
 
 significat in Sacramentis, anima die- Answ. to Hard. pp. 238, 239, 255, 
 
 tus est.' Augustin. in Levit. q. Ivii. 267.' Spalatensis, lib. v. cap. 6. n. 73. 
 
 p. 516. torn. 3. Cp. Epist. xcviii. 169. Cosin. Histor. Transubstant. 
 
 ad Bonifac. p. 268. torn. 2. and my pp. 10, 24, 30, 41, 43, 44. Compare 
 
 Review, above chap. 7. pp. 129 my Review, above pp. 105 107, 
 
 148. 151, 152, 164. 
 
 ' Sacramentorum enim natura et
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 495 
 
 received spiritually b , but truly and really ; and the more truly, 
 because spiritually, as the spiritual sense, and not the literal, 
 is the true sense c . 
 
 The ancient notion of this matter might easily be cleared 
 from Father to Father, through the earlier centuries ; and, 
 I presume, I have competently done it elsewhere d . Therefore 
 I shall here content myself with a single passage of Macarius, 
 of the fourth century, which very briefly, but fully, expresses 
 what all the rest mean. He observes, ' that bread and wine 
 are offered in the Church as symbols (or antitypes) of our 
 Lord's body and blood, and that they who partake of the visible 
 bread, do spiritually eat the flesh of our Lord 6 .' He is to be 
 understood of worthy partaking ; as Albertinus has shewn f , and 
 as reason requires. And when he speaks of the Lord's flesh, 
 he cannot be understood of any spiritual flesh locally present 
 in the Eucharist, but of the natural body and blood spiritually 
 given and received, whereof the sacramental body and blood 
 are the symbols, or antitypes, in his account. Such was the 
 doctrine prevailing in his time, and three centuries, at least, 
 longer P. 
 
 But in the declension of the seventh century, some began to 
 speak very oddly of the elements, as being literally made, by 
 consecration, the very body and blood of Christ, not images 
 
 b [The doctrine of eating spiritu- the old English or Saxon Church 
 
 ally was preserved even in Pasch. down to the loth or nth century, 
 
 Radbert. Opp. pp. 1567, 1570, 1571, as appears from Aelfric, who thus 
 
 1583, 1626.] speaks in his Saxon Homily on 
 
 c Compare my Review, above Easter-day : 
 
 pp. 170, 273. Jewel's Answer to ' We do now spiritually (ga)"Cllce) 
 
 Hard. pp. 238, 241, 251, 256, 292. receive or eat Christ's body, and 
 
 Bilson's Christian Subject, p. 631. drink his blood, when we receive 
 
 d Review, above chap. 6, and 7. (or eat) with true belief, that holy 
 
 "On lv rjj tKK\r)(ria -rrpocrcpepfTai housel (hurel).' p. 3. ed. Lisle. 
 
 &pros na.1 o?ios avri-rvirov TTJS aapicbs ' Non sit tameii sacramentum cor- 
 
 avrov, Hal cu/uaros, Kal '6ri ot fj.ra- pus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis, 
 
 \a.u.fidvovrts K rov fycuvofitvov &prov, nee sanguis ejus quern pro nobis 
 
 irvfv[j.a.TiK(as rrjv ffdpKo. rov Kvpiov effudit, sed spiritualiter corpus ejus 
 
 eadiov<rt. Macar. Homil. xxvii. p. efficitur et sanguis, sicut manna quod 
 
 164. Cp. Albertin. pp. 437, 438, de caelo pluit, et aqua quae de petra 
 
 439. fluxit.' Aelfric. Ep. ad Wulstan. 
 
 1 Albertinus, p. 440. Wanley. 58. ann. circiter 950 et 
 
 ? [That .doctrine was preserved in 941.]
 
 496 The Sacramental Part 
 
 or antitypes at all h , as used to be taught aforetime. From 
 thence we may reasonably date all the confusion and perplexity 
 which has since so clouded and embarrassed the theory of this 
 Sacrament. 
 
 When learning, language, and taste fell to decay, and men 
 became as much strangers to the sublime of their forefathers, 
 as to the symbolical majesty of the sacred style, then came up 
 a lean, dry, sapless kind of theology, mightily degenerated from 
 the just and elevated sentiments of former ages*. There was 
 a branch of the Eutychians, who in consequence of their main 
 principle of a confusion of the two natures of Christ, (making 
 the human and divine nature one,) thought themselves obliged 
 to maintain, that the body of Christ was, from the very moment 
 of his conception, altogether incorruptible. From this error of 
 theirs they had the Greek name of aphthartodocetae k , and 
 aphthartistae, d<p0aprt<TTal, and the Latin one of incorruptieolae, 
 and from one Gaianus, a chief leader amongst them, they had 
 some of them the name of Gaianites. Against those Gaianites, 
 one Anastasius (a monk of Mount Sinai about the year 689!) 
 happened to engage : and amongst other topics of argumenta- 
 tion, he made choice of one drawn from the Eucharist. He had 
 
 h Yet it has been thought, that rebus [quae iis significantur] acci- 
 
 \vhile they rejected the names of pere, servilis infirmitatis est.' Au- 
 
 ' figure,' ' type,' and ' image,' they or gustin. de Doctrin. Christian, lib. iii. 
 
 their followers admitted of the names c. 9. p. 49. 
 
 of 'symbol 'and 'representation.' See k 'AQOaproSoK-firai. Vide Darna- 
 
 Claude, book iv. chap. 10. pp. 341, seen. Haeres. Ixxxiv. p. 107. 
 344. Which, if true, shews only ' Between 677 and 686. Fabric, 
 
 how confused those men were, both Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. pp. 313, [685. 
 
 in language and notion. Oudin. t. i. p. 1663.] 
 
 [But they seem to have used ' type' [In the nth century arose another 
 
 and ' symbol ' promiscuously, and dispute, namely, whether the conse- 
 
 to have rejected them both. Owe crated elements were themselves cor- 
 
 elirf, Tovr6 tffri rb ffv^o\ov rov ruptible. So that the very premises 
 
 (Tcbfj.ar6s nov, Kal rovro rov alfiards on which Anastasius built his argu- 
 
 fj.ov, oAAa rovr6 fffn rb ffH-ud pov, ment for the corruptible nature of 
 
 Kal rb cupd juou' SiSdffKvv r)fj.as fj^t the thing signified was disputed. 
 
 irpbs TT]V tyvffiv 6pav rov TrpoKftfj.tvov, For since our Lord's body was held 
 
 oAAa 8ia TTJS ytvo^fv^s wxapiarrlas incorruptible, it was now pretended 
 
 eiy ffdpica Kal aTfia neTaf)d\\tff6ai. that the eucharistical body, being 
 
 Theodor. Mopsuest. in Possini Ca- the same, was incorruptible also, 
 
 tena in Matt. xxvi. 26. p. 350.] Vide Salmasius, p. 344, the natural 
 
 ' ' Literam sequi, et signa pro consequence of transubstautiation.]
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 497 
 
 learned, or might have learned from Catholic teachers, that by 
 the operation of the Holy Spirit the elements are changed into 
 the body of Christ, meaning the symbolical body ; that is, 
 changed into sacraments, or holy signs : and he had learned 
 also, that the worthy communicants do partake of the natural 
 body of Christ, the thing signified ; that is, spiritually, mysti- 
 cally, symbolically, partake of it. These two propositions he 
 confusedly remembered, or rather ignorantly misunderstood, and 
 so he blended them both into this one ; that the elements 
 themselves upon consecration become, not in signification, but 
 in reality, the natural body of Christ : which amounted to 
 saying, that, instead of exhibitive signs, they become the very 
 things signified. Under such confusion of thought, he formed 
 his argument against the Gaianites m in this manner : ' The 
 consecrated elements are no types or figures, but they are the 
 very body and blood of our Lord ; and they are corruptible, 
 as will appear upon experiment : therefore our Lord's body, 
 before his resurrection, was also corruptible n ,' which was to 
 be proved . To confirm his notion that the elements are no 
 types or figures, but the very body, he pleaded, that our Lord, 
 in the institution, said not, This is the figure [antitype] of my 
 body, but ' This is my body P.' An argument by which he 
 
 m [ ' Videntur isti homines ere- avrb rt> cru/j.a ai af/ua 
 
 didiase omnem panem communem arov rov vlov rov 0eou fj.era\a/j.l3dvo- 
 
 esse antitypum corporis Christi, quia /uep, rov ffapKiuOevros Kal -yfvvijdtvros 
 
 Christus in pane sacramenta consti- TTJS ayias 6eor6Kov Kal a.fiirap6evov 
 
 tuit sui corporis : at post consecrati- Mapioy. 
 
 onem, cum desinat esse communis [' Frivolum et ineptum est argu- 
 
 panis et simplex, desinere esse anti- mentum : ex re sequeretur imaginem 
 
 typum corporis, quia jam sit ipsum cujuslibet rei aut personae iisdem 
 
 corpus.' Salinas, pp. 340, 341.] vitiis plane esse obnoxiam ut ipsum 
 
 n 'O 6p0d5o|os. flirt /JLOI, irapa.Ka.\S> architypum, vel ipsa res cujus est 
 
 ... avr^i 7] Koivuvia Kal Bvcr'ta TOV travel- imago. . . . At illi negant panem eu- 
 
 yiov crw/j.aros Kal a'tparos Xptcrrov fy charistiae, quern corruptibilem asse- 
 
 Tcpoo-(pfpeis Kal /j.fra\a/j.fidi>fis, trai/uo verant, esse avrirvrrov corporis Christi. 
 
 Kal alu.a. a.\ti8ivov fffn Xpicrrov, rov Sed quod negant, res ipsa, velint 
 
 vlov rov soC, v) 4/tAbs apros cbj o nolint, ostendit.' Salmasius, p. 343.] 
 
 Tri-KpaiTK.6ij.tvos Ka-r' olKov, Kal avri-rv- P 'O 6pQ65oos. ovrca ino-Tfvofj.tv, Kal 
 
 TTOS rov 0-us/j.aros Xpiffrov, a>s rj 6v<rla ovrtas 6fj.o\oyovfj.(v, Kara rriv <p<av$)v 
 
 rov rpdyov fy 'lovoatoi irpoffdyovo-iv ; avrov Xpio-rov . . . rovr6 fiov tffrl rb 
 
 'O roiOf/TTJS' /J.TI y4voi.ro TIUM.S flirelv ff!i>u.a.. . . . OVK ffae, rovr6 tan rb avri- 
 
 avrirvirov rov o~ta^aros Kpto'Tov r^v rvirov o"(t>varos Kal rov al/j.ar6s u.ov. 
 
 a.-yiav KOivoivlav, v) tyiKbv aprov, oAA.' Anastas. Hodeg.c. xxiii. pp.349, 3^0. 
 
 Kk
 
 498 The Sacramental Part 
 
 might as easily have proved, that the rock in the wilderness 
 was the very Christ : for St. Paul said not that the rock signi- 
 fied Christ, or was a symbol of Christ ; but he declared in 
 express words, that ' that rock was Christ <i.' It is hard to 
 say what precise ideas that author had of the Sacrament of 
 the Eucharist, or what he really meant ; , if indeed he went 
 further than the sound of words. Albertinus conjectures, from 
 his occasionally mentioning the descent of the Holy Spirit, that 
 he conceived the consecrated elements to become the very body, 
 because the same Spirit was imparted to them as to the natural 
 body of our Lord; a notion not falling in with transubstanti- 
 ation or con substantiation, but amounting to some kind of im- 
 panation 1 ". If so, he may be looked upon, according to what 
 appears, as the first inventor of the spiritual bread-body, or 
 first founder of that system. But I much question whether 
 that notion can claim so early a date. Whatever conception 
 the author had of the elements, as made the very body and 
 blood of Christ, yet (so far as we may judge from some passages 
 of another work of the same author, first published by Dr. Allix 
 in 1682 s ,) he did not conceive that the elements were enriched, 
 either with the Spirit himself, or with the graces of the Spirit : 
 
 N.B. That weak way of reasoning Spiritus qui proprio Domini corpori 
 has been since fathered upon several et sanguini inest, se pani et vino si- 
 older writers ; as Origen, Magnes, militer communicat : qui certe mo- 
 Theodorus Heracleotes, Theodoras nachi hujus conceptus nihil habet 
 Mopsuestenus, Cyrillus Alexandri- commune cum transubstantiatione, 
 nus, and others : but those and the aut consubstantiatione, seel impana- 
 like passages appear to be all ficti- tionis cujusdam, ab aliis post clarius 
 tious, imposed upon those earlier expositae, speciem quandam habet.' 
 writers by some later Greeks. See Albertin. p. 906. Cp. Claude, lib. 
 Albertinus, pp. 367, 420, 769, 770, iv. c. 9. pp. 331 336. 
 &c. 893. [N.B. After that transubstanti- 
 
 [The Greeks that came later, Nice- ation took place, many denied that 
 
 phorus, Theodoras Graptus, Samo- the consecrated elements were cor- 
 
 nas, Marcus Ephesius, Theophylac- ruptible. This happened in the nth 
 
 tus, Miletius, &c., followed the same century, near four hundred years 
 
 scent. See Pfaffius, pp. 141, 142. after Anastasius. 1066. Vid. Guit- 
 
 And so Pasch. Radbert. in Matth. mund. t. ii. p. 447] 
 
 p. 1626.] ' S. Anastasii Sinaitae Anagogi- 
 
 i i Cor. x. 4. carum contemplationum in Hexae- 
 
 r ' Mens ipsius videtur esse, panem meron, liber xii. hactenus desidera- 
 
 et vinum eatenus esse verum Christi tus.' Lond. 1682. Cp. Fabric. Bibl. 
 
 corpus et sanguinem, quatenus idem Gr. vol. ix. p. 328.
 
 of tlie Eucharist explained. 499 
 
 for he distinguished between the bread from heaven, viz. the 
 Logos, given to the worthy only, and carrying eternal life with 
 it, and the earth-born flesh of Christ, viz. the consecrated ele- 
 ments, common both to worthy and unworthy, and having no 
 such promise of eternal life annexed to it*, in John vi. 51. 
 I will not answer for the acuteness, much less for the soundness 
 of his distinction. He found himself entangled presently, only 
 by reading a few verses further in the same chapter, where 
 eternal life is annexed to the eating of the flesh and drinking 
 the blood, as well as before to the manducation of the bread 
 from heaven, which he had interpreted of the Divine nature 
 of Christ. Here he was in straits, and retired in confusion, 
 leaving his readers in the dark ; but referring them for in- 
 struction to men more knowing, and more equal to the difficulty 
 than he pretended to be : only he seemed to aim at some 
 blind distinction between the earth-born visible flesh u which 
 the unworthy partake of, and the mystical flesh x which be- 
 longed to the worthy only, and which it was very difficulty 
 to make any sense or consistency of, upon his principles. He 
 had discarded signs as such, and had resolved all into the things 
 signified, viz. the real flesh and blood of Christ : and now he 
 
 * 'O IK rov ovpavov Ka.Ta.fias, TOUT' 709 rov ffu^nros Kal rov a(fj.a,ros TTJS 
 
 fffriv 6 @(bs Aoyos' Kal tav ns <pdyri fvx.apto'rias, rov aprov Kal rov ^TOTTJ- 
 
 IK rov &prov rovrov, i)<rfrai els rov piov. Anastas. ibid. p. 19. 
 altava. . . . axovfis iff pi 5<a<f>ofmy /3pco- x Tis 5f Iffrlv T] oA.7j(Mjs ffpwffts TTJS 
 
 ffeais' fK rov aprov rov | ovpavov [ivariKrjs o~apKbs rov Xpiffrov, Kal ri 
 
 KaraSalvovros rovs faOiovras tlnty rb tv avrrj Kptfirrofj-tvov air6ppriroi> af^ta 
 
 fX fl " C u >)l t ' alibviov iiri 5f rys o-apxbs, avrov, Ka.ra.\ifjLTra.vo^fv Tots iKavoirt- 
 
 ov rfOr]Kf rovro. . . . Sirrus fterf\ofj.fv pots Kal yvuffriniarfpots, oTs XP^I M Ta " 
 
 rSiv u.v<m)p(tav. Ol fj-tv &^ioi fKfivwv StSovcrw. p. 19. 
 
 etjro\a/3oi/<ri ToC &prov rov Ka.ra.l3ai- y [ ' L T t quotidie de novo creetur 
 
 vovros aid tK rov ovpavov, rovr'' tart infinitis in locis corpus Christ! cor- 
 
 TTJS fVoiKTjcreaix Kal ^xAd/u^tws rov ruptibile, cum sanguine pariter cor- 
 
 iravayiov irarpbs rrjs 6t6rr)ros rov ruptibili, et separate a proprio cor- 
 
 Xpiffrov, tbs ra Oela Kal ovpdvta </>po- pore, ut effusus est ex latere ejus 
 
 vovvrts- ol STJ ybtvoi Kal ra yf)iva in cruce, id vero nullo modo credi- 
 
 (ppovovvres, rrjs yriyfvovs Kal HOVQS bile dictu est, nee possibile factu. . . . 
 
 ffapKbs rov Xpio-rov /j.era\a/j.Bdvouffiv Non mirum est porro Graeculos istos 
 
 ToAjurjpij Kal avai<s. Anastas. neotericos doctores in re obscure 
 
 Hexaera. lib. xii. p. 18. exponenda, variis semetipsos impli- 
 
 u Ov irepl rys opu>/j.(vr)s avroj [fort, casse contradictionibus.' Salraas. 
 
 auToC] ffapKbs Kal a'l/jLaros \eyfi' /uTf- pp. 345, 346.] 
 Aae yap Kal 'louSas, al ~S.ifji.tav & Ma- 
 
 K k 2
 
 5QO . The Sacramental Part 
 
 wanted a distinction, in order to explain what was received by 
 the unworthy, and what by the worthy, but found none ; except 
 it, were this, that the unworthy received the corruptible flesh 
 and blood of Christ, separate from his Divinity, while the worthy 
 received both together. This is all the sense I can make of his 
 notion z : and I pretend not to be certain even of this a . Neither 
 would I have dwelt so long upon so obscure and unintelligible a 
 writer, had he not been the first, or among the first, that threw 
 off the old distinctions between the symbolical and true body, 
 thereby destroying, in a great measure, the very idea of a Sacra- 
 ment. Hitherto the new notion of the elements being made 
 the real body, as opposed to image or figure, had been used 
 only for the support of true doctrine as to other points. But 
 it is always wrong policy (to say no worse) to endeavour to sup- 
 port sound doctrine by any thing unsound, or to defend truth 
 by any thing but truth. Error, first or last, will infallibly turn 
 on the side of error, and cannot naturally serve for any other 
 purpose. So it proved in this case : for the next time that this 
 new doctrine appeared upon the stage was in the service of 
 image-worship, then creeping into the Church. They who 
 
 2 [See the weakness and incon- of symbolical, viz. the sacrament of 
 
 sistency of the notion fully exposed the true body, 
 in Salmasius, p. 345, &c. 2. He had learned that the natu- 
 
 ' Isti volunt ex pane, corruptionis ral body is given and received : he 
 
 omnia labi obnoxio, confici corpus interpreted it literally, instead of 
 
 Christi frangendum, similiter ut in mystically, or spiritually, 
 cruce ipse fractus est, et multis aliis 3. He had learned that the natu- 
 
 praeterea vitiis mucoris, putrefacti- ral body eaten, is considered as cor- 
 
 onis, verminationis corrumpendum, mptible, crucified and dead, and not 
 
 quae non sensit turn corpus Christi : as glorified : that he retained, and 
 
 . . . Quod non solum est aroTrtararof, justly. 
 
 sed etiam maxime impium cogitatu. 4. He had learned, that the flesh 
 
 Non mirum est porro Graeculos profiteth not, and that the unworthy 
 
 istos,' &c. Ibid. pp. 345, 346.] partake not either of the 'Logos,' or 
 
 a As errors commonly are the Holy Ghost, but that the worthy 
 
 corruption of truth, and retain some partake of both : and those also he 
 
 of the original features ; so one may appears to have retained, 
 see in Anastasius's notion some re- Upon the whole, he blundered 
 
 semblances of the ancient doctrines, only in two of the propositions : but 
 
 miserably perverted or misunder- those two mistakes, like the flies in 
 
 stood. the ointment, marred the composi- 
 
 i . He had learned that the Spirit tion, and corrupted his whole system 
 
 makes the body of Christ : he inter- of the Eucharist, 
 preted it of the natural body, instead
 
 of Ike Eucharist explained. 501 
 
 opposed that innovation, kept up the ancient principle with 
 regard to the elements of the Eucharist, as symbols, figures, 
 images ; pleading that our Lord had left no visible image of 
 himself, his incarnation, passion, sacrifice, &c. but that of the 
 Eucharist. In reply to that plea, the innovators remonstrated 
 against the symbolical nature of the Eucharist, contending that 
 the consecrated elements were no images, types, or figures, but 
 the very body and blood of Christ, literally so. 
 
 John Damascen, surnamed Mansur, the father of the modern 
 Greeks, and their great oracle, was in this sentiment ; a very 
 considerable man otherwise, and worthy of better times b . He 
 had read the Fathers, who were pointed against him ; which 
 however signified little to a person already embarked in a wrong 
 cause : for it is certain, and might be proved by many instances, 
 that men who have any affection stronger than their love of 
 truth, will never want evasions against any evidence whatever. 
 He pretended that the ancients c had called the elements types, 
 or figures, only before consecration, never after d . A plea noto- 
 rioxisly false in fact, as all learned men know 6 : and had he 
 said just the reverse, viz. that the Fathers had never so called 
 them before consecration, but always after, he had come much 
 nearer to the truth. The elements, before they are consecrated, 
 are common things : and it is their consecration only that 
 renders them figures, signs, symbols, sacraments. To pretend 
 therefore that they are signs or symbols before consecration, is 
 making them sacraments before they are sacraments, and carries 
 a contradiction in the very terms f . If the Fathers have ever 
 so called them, which is questioned, it could amount only to 
 
 b Damascen flourished abcmt A.D. c See Albertinus, pp. 904, 907, 
 
 740. Died about A.D. 756. Vid. 911, 912, 915. Jewel's Answer to 
 
 Fabric. Bibl. Grace, torn. viii. p. 774. Hard. art. xii. p. 335. Def. of Apol. 
 
 c ['Locutiones figurae, imaginis, p. 243. Bilson's Christian Subject, 
 
 et antitypi, aliquid mutationis octavo pp. 594, 595- L'Arroque's Hist, of 
 
 saeculo apud Graecos accepisse facile the Euch. part ii. p. 213, &c. 368, &c. 
 conceperim." Simon, not. ad Gabr. [Salmasius de Transubst. contra 
 
 Sever. 230.] Grot. pp. 338, 339, &c. Simon, not. 
 
 d Damascen. de Rect. Fid. lib. iv. in Gabr. Philadelph. p. 230. Pfaifius 
 
 c. 13. pp. 271, 273, edit. Lequ. [Cf. in Iren. Fragm. p. 140.] 
 Cone. Nicen. ii. Act. vi. p. 370. f [ 'Vid. Jewel, Answer to Hard. 
 
 Hard.] p. 335. Salmasius, pp. 341, 445.]
 
 502 The Sacramental Part 
 
 some chance expression, contrary to their customary language, 
 and to be accounted for by the figure called a prolepsis, as done 
 by way of anticipation. 
 
 However, Damascen persisted in his error, that the conse- 
 crated elements are no type or figure, but the very 'deified 
 body of our Lord ?.' If you ask, who makes them so ? he 
 sometimes tells you, the second Person does it, like as he 
 formed for himself a personal body in the womb h : and some- 
 times { he says, that the third Person does it, like as he also, 
 overshadowing the Virgin, formed the same body in the womb k . 
 Thus he drew together the two constructions of Luke i. 35, one 
 prevailing principally before the fourth century ', and the other 
 after m : and he reconciled the two positions handsomely enough, 
 by observing, that the second Person operates by the third. 
 
 But still he was well aware, that whatever person should be 
 supposed to make the body in the womb, yet nothing could 
 make that body properly our Lord's body, but our Lord's 
 assuming it into an union with himself : the forming an human 
 and a sanctified body would not be making that body Christ's 
 body : and, for the like reason, the Holy Ghost's so forming 
 
 s OVK f<rn rtiiros 6 Upros Kal 6 olvos crat. dist. 2. Paulus Diaconus in 
 
 rov (7co/uoToj KO! alfjiaros rov Xpurrov, "Vit. Gregor. I. A.D. 734. Missal. 
 
 /j.)] jfvoiro, aXA.' avrb rb ffwpa rov K.V Goth, in Missa Leudegarii A.D. 780. 
 
 ptov Tf6tufjLft>oi>. Damascen. de Rect. Steph. Advers. A.D. 1113.] 
 
 Fid. lib. iv. c. 13. p. 871. ' See above, p. 490. 
 
 h Damascen, ibid. p. 268. m It may be noted, that when 
 
 1 [ ' Paulus Diaconus Aquileiensis wef/aa ayiov, in that verse came 
 
 A.D. 785. Praescius conditor noster at length to be interpreted of the 
 
 infirmitatis nostrae, ea potestate qua third Person, yet Svvunis fyiffrov 
 
 cuncta fecit ex nihilo, et corpus sibi continued to be interpreted of the 
 
 ex carne semper-virginis, operaute second, namely of the Arf-yos. Atha- 
 
 Sancto Spiritu, fabricavit, panem et nasius, Orat. iv. pp. 642, 695. Basil, 
 
 vinum aqua mixturn, manente pro- contr. Eunorn. lib. v. p. 318. Am- 
 
 pria specie, in carnem et sanguinem bros. de Sp. Sancto, lib. ii. c. 5. 
 
 suum, ad catholicam fidein, ob repa- Ruflin. in Symb. p. 20. ed. Oxon. 
 
 rationem nostram Sancti Spiritus Philastrius, cap. cl. p. 345. Au- 
 
 sanctificatione convertit.' In Vit. gustin. contr. Maxim, lib. iii. c. 15. 
 
 Gregorii M. Then Paulus reports a Leo I. Serin, xxi. p. 147. Damas- 
 
 pretended miracle of Gregory, to cen, pp. 204, 658. Theophylact in 
 
 convert a woman and to confirm loc. [Euseb. in Isai. p. 385. Cyrill. 
 
 the doctrine.] Hierosol. Catech. 17. c. 6. p. 266. 
 
 k Damascen, ibid. p. 269. Epist. Gregor. Nazianz. Or. 38, et 42. 
 
 ad Zachar. Ep. Duarorum, p. 656. Marius Victorin. contr. Arian. 1. i. 
 
 [Cp. Pasch. Radb. c. 3. p. 1563. Gregor. Moral. 1. xciii. c. 12. Homil. 
 
 iv. 1565. 1588. Gratian. de Conse- in Evang. 33. Beda in loc.]
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 503 
 
 and so sanctifying the elements would not be converting them 
 into, or making them, the body and blood of Christ, but merely 
 a sanctified body. Therefore Damascen proceeded further to 
 affirm n , that our Lord makes the elements his body and blood, 
 by joining his Divinity with them : and it is observable, that 
 while he thought the grace of the Spirit sufficient for the ele- 
 ments of oil and water, in Chrism and Baptism, yet he judged 
 that nothing less than Christ's own Divinity could make the 
 elements of the Eucharist Christ's body and blood. Had he 
 thought of this in time, he might have spared his two previous 
 considerations, about the second and the third Person's forming 
 or changing the elements into Christ's body, so improperly 
 brought in ; for it is now plain, by his own account, that the 
 elements are not made Christ's body, but by Christ's assuming 
 them into some kind of union with his Divinity ; and all that 
 was supposed previous could amount only to preparing them, 
 fitting them, sanctifying them, in order to be made the body 
 and blood of Christ. It could not amount to so much as form- 
 ing them, like the body in the womb, though he had pretended 
 that it did : for the bread and wine want no forming, (like the 
 body in the womb,) having been formed before, and all along 
 keeping their original forms. So that at length that pretended 
 previous change could resolve only into a previous sanctification 
 by the Spirit, upon his own principles : the Logos was to do 
 ^the rest, by assuming those sanctified elements, and making 
 them the body and blood of Christ. So confused and inco- 
 herent was this great man. 
 
 But what was worse still, after all these lengths of fancy, 
 there was yet a difficulty remaining, which was altogether in- 
 supei-able. The elements were to be made the very deified 
 body of Christ, like as the personal body, in the womb, had 
 been made. How could this be, without the like personal 
 union of the elements with the Divinity \ Here Damascen was 
 
 n 2t/ce'ieue r<a eXaioi Kal vSari rriv avrov df^rrjra, Kal iraroirjKfv avra 
 
 xipiv TOV irvtvuaros . . . fTrttS^ l=8os treS.uo ai al : ua avrov. Damasc. p. 
 
 -roils avdpuTfois &prov fffQiftv, vftaip re 269. 
 Kal olvov TiVtiv, irvvf^tv^ff avrols rty
 
 504 The Sacramental Part 
 
 plunged, and attempted not to get out, excepting only a few 
 short hints, at that time, or in that work. But in another 
 work, in the way of a private letter, he did endeavour to sur- 
 mount the difficulty, by suggesting and enforcing a new piece 
 of subtilty, that like as a man's body takes in daily additional 
 matter, and all becomes one and the same body ; so our Lord's 
 personal body takes in all the new-made bodies of the Eucha- 
 rist ; and thus, by a kind of growth, or augmentation, all be- 
 come one and the same personal body of Christ . A marvellous 
 thought ! But he was wedded to a new scheme, and was in no 
 disposition to return to the old principles, which might have 
 eased him of all perplexities. The heart will commonly govern 
 the head : and it is certain, that any strong passion, set the 
 wrong way, will soon infatuate even the wisest of men : there- 
 fore the first part of wisdom is to watch the affections. But I 
 pass on. 
 
 I am aware that the late learned editor of Damascen has 
 disputed the genuineness of that epistle P. But the external 
 evidences for it appear to me to outweigh the slight suspicions 
 drawn from the internal characters. And I am much mistaken, 
 if any unprejudiced examiner will find that the learned editor 
 has proved any thing more than a strong desire to fetch off 
 his author from some palpable absurdities, lest they should 
 
 Damascen. Epist. ad Zachar. pp. fected and singular, and ought to 
 655-659. N.B. There is something bear no weight against the known 
 of a like thought appearing in a work sentiments and common style of the 
 ascribed to Gregory Nyssen, Orat. Fathers in general. 
 Catechet. magn. c. xxxvii. p. 537. [Damascen had hinted this matter 
 But there are strong suspicions that before, in his book, 1. iv. p. 270, but 
 that work has been interpolated. It had not explicitly opened his mean- 
 is certain, that there is, in the close, ing : "fiffirfp (pvcnxcL-s 5<a TTJI ftpuatus 
 an addition from Theodoras Raithu, & &pros KOI 6 divos no! rb vStup Sia TTJJ 
 who flourished about A. D. 646. So vofftus tls <ro>/ua xcd a!]ua tov ftrBioirros 
 that there is no depending upon the icaJ vivovros jueTa/JaAAotrcu, xai y'tvov- 
 whole work as genuine ; but there rcu t-rtpov auua irapa rb w^rrt^ov a.1- 
 may be, and probably are interpola- TOV <rufj.a' ovrus 6 TT)S rpoOffffais &pros, 
 tions in it, perhaps of the seventh or oMs rt oi : 5i-p, Sta TTJS 6nKA.^<ra?j 
 eighth century, or later. See Alber- KO! twuponriffetas TOV ayiov fvtvfunos, 
 tinus, p. 487. Fabricius, Bibl. Grace. vvtp<pv<as /ueraTroiotWcu (Is rb uuua. 
 torn. viii. p. 153. But if Nyssen TQV yipitnov KCL\ al/ia, nal OVK elirl Svo, 
 really held any such notions, or used oAX' $v KCU rb avr6.~\ 
 any such expressions, they were af- P In Admonitions Praevia, p. 65 2.
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 55 
 
 too much impair his credit as to other points. But, however 
 that be, it is certain that Damascen's system wanted some such 
 additional succour as that epistle endeavoured to supply : and 
 whether he did the kind office himself, or some other did it for 
 him, is of no great moment with respect to the main cause. 
 One thing we may observe from the whole, that whosoever 
 once embraces any great absurdity, and resolves to abide by 
 it, must, if he will be consistent and uniform, proceed to more : 
 and though to go on is a kind of madness, yet to stop short 
 betrays more weakness and self-condemnation. 
 
 No transubstantiation (such as the Romanists hold) was yet 
 invented. Damascen's doctrine was far enough from that 1 : 
 excepting that it migh^t accidentally and gradually lead to it, 
 as indeed it did, by sapping those ancient principles which 
 otherwise were sure barriers against it, and by setting men's 
 minds afloat after new devices. 
 
 From Damascen we may pass on to the famous Council of 
 Constantinople, which consisted of three hundred and thirty- 
 eight bishops, who assembled under Constantino the Sixth, 
 surnamed Copronymus, A. D. 754. They, detesting all image- 
 worship, reestablished the ancient doctrine of the elements being 
 commemorative and exhibitive types, figures, symbols, or images 
 of the natural body and blood of Christ ; alleging that the 
 Eucharist was the only image of Christ's incarnation which 
 Christ had authorized in his Church r . They speak magnificently 
 of the consecration, and the effects of it ; the elements thereby 
 becoming an holy image, and deified, as it were, by grace s : by 
 which they appear to mean no more than divinely sanctified *, 
 
 i Vid. Albertinus, pp. 912, 913. 151; and Albertinus, p. 914; and 
 
 L'Arroque's Hist, of Euch. p. 366, Claude, book iv. chap. 10. pp. 347- 
 
 &c. Claude against A rnaud, part i. 355. 
 
 book 4. chap. 9. p. 338. [And 8 E'IKO>V avrov ayla, o>y Sid nvos 
 
 others referred to by Zornius, Histor. ayiaffpov, xdpin 9fov/j.evT}. p. 368. 
 
 Eucharist. Infant, p. 457.] * [ ' Consecrare idem est Latinis 
 
 r The whole passage may be seen scriptoribus quod deum facere : ut 
 
 in the Acts of the second Nicene de illis qui in numerum deorum refe- 
 
 Conncil, Act. vi pp. 36^, 369. Har- rebantur, quae est Graecorum O.TTO- 
 
 duin, torn. iv. Compare Dr. Covel's 0eWis.' Salmas. de Transubst. pp. 
 
 translation of it, and remarks upon 437, 439, 443.] 
 it; Account of Gr. Church, pp. 150,
 
 506 The Sacramental Part 
 
 according to the ordinary use of such phrases, at that time, and 
 before u : and they themselves explain it by its being made holy, 
 when before it was common x . And though they speak of the 
 elements being replenished y, that is, sanctified by the Holy 
 Ghost, yet they reserve the enlivening or life-giving virtue to 
 the true and proper body and blood of Christ z ; not to the 
 elements, the image of them. They distinguish between the 
 real, natural body, and the relative body, or body by institution 
 and appointments The meaning of the latter must be deter- 
 mined by what it is appointed to ; which the Council itself 
 sufficiently explains : it is appointed to be a true image, and 
 a most clear memorial of the natural body b : a true image, as 
 opposed to bare representation, as in a^ picture, not exhibitive 
 of, or accompanied with true and spiritual benefits : a very clear 
 memorial, as opposed to the faint shadows and dark intimations 
 of the legal types or figurations. Some further light perhaps 
 may be given to the true meaning of those Constantinopolitan 
 Fathers, by a short passage of the Emperor Copronymus, pre- 
 served by Nicephorus, who was Patriarch of Constantinople 
 from 806 to 815. The passage runs thus : 
 
 n Vid. Suicer's Thesaur. torn. i. et coli videretur.' Idem, p. 438. 
 
 444, 1363, I39 2 I 39 8 - Jewel's Cp. 443.] 
 
 Answer to Hard. p. 247. Alber- * Zuovoiif 6avar<p avrov . . . eiic&v 
 
 tinus, p. 886. and compare Da- rov faoirotov <r<an.arot avrov . . . avv 
 
 mascen. lib. iii. c. 17. p. 339. T$ trorijpica rov faoipopov atnaros TTJS 
 
 * TTJS fvxapio~r(as aprov, us euf/evSij irtevpas avrov. Note, that Mr. John- 
 
 tlitova TTJS <pvfftKris o-apKbs Sia TTJJ rov son, inadvertently, rendered the last 
 
 ayiov Trvtv/uiaros firi<poirrio-fus ayia6- words, ' life-giving cup of the blood 
 
 fievov, Ottov ffta/j.a tuSoKrjffe ytveffOai, which [flowed] out of his side,' (Un- 
 
 (j.fO'irfvovTos rov v fierfvfft &e rov bloody Sacrifice, p. 195 ;) he should 
 
 Kou'ov itpos rb ayiov, rrji/ a.t>a<fx>pa.v have rendered, as Dr. Covel has done, 
 
 iroirjfjifvov lepfus. P. 368. [ ' Non ' the cup of the enlivening blood of 
 
 enim Svvafj.iv aut virtutem divinam his side : ' which is different, and gives 
 
 ex verbis consecrationis inditam esse quite another idea to the main thing, 
 
 pani crediderunt, quamvis et spiri- Cp. Theodoret. Dial. ii. p. 85. 
 
 turn invocatum, de caelo descendere a "Cloirtp ovv rb Kara <pvffiv rov 
 
 dixerunt, et adesse, et praesentia sua Xpiffrov a&aa ayiov, &s QetaQev' ov- 
 
 vegetare et implere species elemen- TWS STI\OV Kal rb Oeo-fi ... p. 368. 
 
 torum in mensa dominica positas.' For the phrase, fiic&v Kara Oeffiv, 
 
 Salmas. p. 443. Cp. 446.] rid. Damascen. torn. i. p. 354. 
 
 v [ ' Simulacra consecrari dice- b *A\rjS7) TOV Xpio~rov tiicAva . , , $v 
 
 bantur, cum deus cui dedicabantur, avrbs & itport\t<rr}is KOI ebs . . . s 
 
 in ea certis carminibus eliciebatur, rinrov Kal avd^vija iv tvapytrrrarrtv rots 
 
 ut divinitate sua ilia repleret, et in avrov fjt.vffra.is irapaSfSuiKf. P. 368. 
 simulacro deus ipse praesens haberi
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 57 
 
 ' He commanded his holy disciples and apostles to deliver, 
 by what thing he pleased, a symbol [type] for his body : that 
 through the sacerdotal ministration we might receive i-eally and 
 truly, though it be by participation and designation, his very 
 body .' The meaning, as I apprehend, is, that we partake of 
 the natural body itself, in a true and reasonable sense, (that is, 
 symbolically or spiritually,) by receiving what God has insti- 
 tuted as a symbol and instrument to convey it. Copronymus 
 does not say, that the elements are really and truly that body: 
 no, that was the very position of the adverse party. But he 
 affirms that we truly and really receive that very body, though 
 symbolically, or by an appointed medium and pledge of it : 
 which I understand to be exactly the same doctrine that our 
 Church teaches, viz. that the body and blood of Christ are 
 ' verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the 
 Lord's Supper d .' This doctrine did not happen to please the 
 Nicene Fathers, who sat thirty-three years after, in the year 
 787. It was not sufficient to say, that by or with the elements 
 we do verily and indeed receive Christ's body and blood, but the 
 elements themselves must literally be the very body and the very 
 blood of Christ, and not types or pledges only of it e . Not in- 
 deed in the sense of Papal transubstantiation, (which was not 
 then thought on f ,) but in some such sense as Anastasius or 
 Damascen had before recommended. 
 
 Seven years after (viz. A.D. 794) appeared the Caroline books, 
 moderating in the dispute between the Councils of Constanti- 
 nople and Nice. The author or authors of them determine that 
 the Sacrament of our Lord's body and blood goes much beyond 
 a picture of man's device, in many respects ; which they hand- 
 
 c 'E,Kt\(v<Tfv rots ayiois avrov fiaBrj- d See my Review, above pp. 171, 
 
 Tais KOI airo<rr6\ois, irapaSovvcu 5' ov 273. 
 
 r,pd.(T0ri trpdy/j.aros rinrov els ffw/j.a av- e Of/re 6 Kvpios, oCre ol 'b.ir6<TTO\oi, 
 
 rov. "\va 5ia TTJS i'epaTi/d;s o.va.y<ay^s, 7) irarepes eiKoca flirov . . . a\\a avrb 
 
 Kav ei K jiieToxfis Kal Btati yli/rjrai, Tb <r>fj.a Kal avrb rb al/j.a. . . . /uera 5 
 
 AaySa'/xev aiirb, &s Kvpius Kal a\7)0a>s, rbv ayiafffj.bv ffa/ja nvpdas (cat aifna. 
 
 auifjio. avrov. Constantin. Copronym. Xpurrov \fyovTai, Kal tlffl, Kal triffTtv- 
 
 in Notis ad Damascen. torn. i. p. 354. ovrai. Concil. Nicen. ii. Act. vi. pp. 
 
 As to the ecclesiastical use and sense 370, 371. Harduin, torn. iv. 
 
 of the word nvplais, see Albertinus, f Vid. Albertinus, p. 915. Covel, 
 
 p. 461. Claude, part ii. p. 76. pp. 151, 152.
 
 508 The Sacramental Part 
 
 somely enumerate s : and of that no man can doubt. They 
 determine further, that the elements are not types of things 
 future, nor faint shadows, like those under the law, but that 
 they are truth and substance h ; a sacrament and mystery, com- 
 memorative of a thing performed, and not prefigurative of a 
 thing hoped for only, or promised : a sacrament directly and 
 plainly signifying and exhibiting the true expiation, and not 
 merely under the dark covers or remote innuendos of legal 
 expiations. In short, the eucharistical symbols are not prefigu- 
 rations of things expected, but evidences of things done, and 
 memorials of mercies and blessings in hand, not in prospect 
 only. Their whole meaning seems to be, that though the con- 
 secrated elements are really signs and symbols, (for so much 
 they intimate in the words sacrament, mystery, and true image,) 
 and therefore not the very body and blood, as many then taught; 
 yet they are more than types, or prefigurations, or adumbra- 
 tions, or even bare memorials, because they exhibit the things 
 signified, and that not darkly or indirectly, (which even the 
 Jewish sacraments did*,) but directly and plainly, under the 
 strongest light, and to greatest advantage. This doctrine is 
 sound and good, and well guarded, in the main, against both 
 extremes. Only, it might have been wished, that they had 
 been less scrupulous about the use of the name figure \ or 
 
 * ' Distat Sacramentum Dominici Hoc est corpus meum . . . Cum ergo, 
 
 corporis et sanguinis ab imaginibus ut praefati sumus, nee artificum opus, 
 
 pictorum arte depictis, &c.' Carel. vera Christi possit imago dici, nee 
 
 Magn. lib. ii. p. 278. corporis et sanguinis ejus mysterium, 
 
 h ' Nee nobis legis transeuntibus quod in veritate gestuni esse constat, 
 
 umbris iruaginarium quod dam indi- non in figura, merito,' &c. Carol, 
 
 cium, sed sui sanguinis et corporis Magn. de Imagin. lib. iv. p. 520. 
 
 contulit Sacramentum. Non enim Cp. Albertin. pp. 916, 917. Jewel's 
 
 sanguinis et corporis Dominici mys- Answer to Harduin, art. xii. pp. 344, 
 
 terium imago jam nunc dicendum 345. Bilson's Christian Subject, p. 
 
 est, sed veritas ; non umbra, sed cor- 593. Claude, part i. book v. chap. 9. 
 
 pus ; non exemplar futurorum, sed pp. 96, 97. L'Arroque, p. 380, &c. 
 
 id quod exemplaribus praefiguraba- * ' Idem itaque in mysterio cibus 
 
 tur. . . . Jam verus Melchizedech, et potus illorum qui noster, sed sig- 
 
 Christus videlicet, rex Justus, rex nificatione idem, non specie : quia 
 
 pacis, non pecudum victimas. sed sui idem ipse Christus illis in petra figu- 
 
 nobis corporis et sanguinis contulit ratus, nobis in carne manifestatus.' 
 
 Sacramentum. Nee ait, Haec est Augustin. in Psal. Ixxvii. p. 816. 
 
 imago corporis et sanguinis mei, sed h [ These words were kept in the
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 509 
 
 image, (so common and familiar in elder times,) and that they 
 had given less countenance to the novel and affected phrases 
 then coming into vogue : for, generally speaking, ancient doc- 
 trine is best kept up by adhering strictly to ancient language ; 
 and new phrases at any time, taken up without necessity, have 
 been observed to lead the way to a new faith. 
 
 Hitherto, however, the western parts appear to have retained 
 just ideas of the holy Eucharist \ But before the end of the 
 ninth century, the eastern innovations, introduced by Anasta- 
 sius and Damascen, and established by the Nicene Council, 
 spread wide and fai', both among Greeks and Latins. When 
 it was once resolved that the consecrated elements should be 
 no longer signs or figures at all, but the very body and blood of 
 Christ, the symbolical language of Scripture and Fathers be- 
 came neglected, and in a while forgotten ; and the old notion 
 of a sacrament, as importing a sign and a thing signified, wore 
 off apace : and now all the care was, how to make out that very 
 body and blood, by some subtile evasions or newly devised 
 theories. Many are the wanderings of human invention, after 
 men have once departed from the right way ; as sufficiently 
 appeared from the great variety of systems soon set up m , in- 
 stead of the only ancient and true system : and they were all 
 but as so many different modifications of one and the same 
 error, committed in sinking the idea of symbolical grants, and 
 thereupon confounding figure and verity, exalting signs into 
 things signified. But let us inquire more particularly what 
 ways were taken, or could be taken, to make it competently 
 appear, that the elements once consecrated are no signs, but the 
 very body and blood of Christ. They are reducible perhaps to 
 
 English-Saxon Church two hundred in 801) is an exception, in what he 
 years later, as appears by Aelfric. says in his Life of Gregory. And 
 ' This mystery is a pledge and a one may reasonably judge that tran- 
 figure : Christ's body is truth itself : substantiation was then first creep- 
 tins pledge we do hold mystically, ing in, by their feigning of miracles 
 until we come to the truth itself, to support the novelty.] 
 and then there is an end of the m [Vid. Guitmundus, de Verit. 
 pledge.' Sax. Horn, on Easter-day, Euchar. 1. I. pp. 441, 442. Bibl. 
 pp. 7. 8.] PP. torn, xviii. 1. 3. p. 460. Al- 
 1 L Yet Paulus Diaconus (who died gerus, toin. xxi. p. 351.]
 
 510 The Sacramental Part 
 
 five, as follows : i. Either the elements must literally become 
 the same personal body. 2. Or they must literally contain or 
 inclose the same personal body. 3. Or they must literally be- 
 come another personal body. 4. Or they must literally contain 
 another personal body. 5. Or they must literally be or contain 
 a true and proper body of Christ, distinct and different from a 
 personal body. 
 
 1. As to the first, it was undoubtedly the thing aimed at by 
 the first innovators ; namely, by Anastasius, and Damascen, and 
 the Nicene Fathers. And they endeavoured to make it out in 
 the way of augmentation, as has been related, joining the new- 
 made body here to the personal body above, so as to make one 
 personal body of both. Another shorter way of coming at the 
 point Avas that of transubstantiation, which crept in later, and 
 which the Latins generally fell into ; for relief, as it seems, to 
 wearied minds, fluctuating in uncertainties, and not knowing 
 how or where to rest. 
 
 2. As to the second way, which has been called consubstanti- 
 ation, some think that Paschasius Radbert (about A. D. 831) 
 took into it n : others conceive that it came in later . 
 
 3. As to the third way, some have imagined that our Lord's 
 Divinity becomes personally united with the elements, as well as 
 with his own natural body, having in that sense two personal 
 bodies. This conceit has sometimes gone under the name of 
 assumption P, as it imports the Deity's assuming the elements 
 into a personal union ; and sometimes it has been called impa- 
 nation 1, a name following the analogy of the word incarnation. 
 
 n Cosin. Histor. Transubstant. p. Sacr. torn. ii. p. 80. [' Ad hanc ipsis 
 
 86. Cp. Albertinus, p. 922. But fanaticam credulitatem praeivere 
 
 others interpret him of transubstan- veterum patrum scripta non bene 
 
 tiation. SeeCIaude, partii. p. 198, &c. intellecta, et recentiorum de realitate 
 
 Hospinian, Histor. Rei Sacram. et praesentia corporis Christi dogma, 
 
 [part ii. p. 6. about A. D. 1060.] ' Ex his duobus inonstris tertium 
 
 v N. B. Assumption has been also composuerunt de ista hypostatica 
 
 a common name for Damascen's unitate panis et divinitatis : quasi 
 
 hypothesis, wherein it is supposed divinitas assumpto pane eum faceret 
 
 that the Divinity assumes the ele- corpus Christi, non mutata tamen 
 
 ments into a personal union, but by nee destructa panis substantial Sal- 
 
 the medium of the natural and per- mas. p. 416.] 
 
 sonal body. Vid. Pfaffius de Con- I[A.D. 1070, circiter. SicGuitmun- 
 
 secrat. p. 450. Buddaeus, Miscell. dus : ' Quae insania est, ut Christum,
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 511 
 
 Rupertus Tuitiensis (about A. D. mi) has been believed to 
 espouse this notion r : and Odo Cameracensis s , who lived about 
 the same time. It is much the same notion that St. Austin 
 supposes ignorant children might be apt to conceive, in their 
 simplicity, at the first hearing of what is said of the elements, 
 and before they come to know better *. So simple were even 
 famous Divines grown in the late and dark ages. 
 
 4. As 'to the fourth way, those who have supposed some 
 spiritual and personal body from above, distinct from the natural, 
 to come upon the elements, and to abide in them and with them, 
 have had some colour for it from two very ancient passages, one 
 of Clemens Alexandrinus, and another of Jerome u . But it hath 
 been abundantly shewn, time after time, by learned and able 
 men, that that ancient distinction ought not to be understood of 
 two personal bodies of Christ, but of two distinct views or con- 
 
 ut ita dixerim, sua autoritate impa- 
 nent et invinent ? Christum incaraari 
 humanae redemptionis ratio expos- 
 cebat : at impanari vel invinari 
 Christum nulla expetit ratio.' Bibl. 
 PP. torn, xviii. p. 461. Unde nova 
 haec companatio ? Ibid. p. 461. lib. 
 iii. conf. p. 464. 1130. Algenis, p. 
 251. torn. xxi. Bibl. PP. p. 260.] 
 
 r Vid. Hospinian. p. 7. Albertinus, 
 pp. 959, 960. Pfaffius de Consecrat. 
 Euch. pp. 449, 450. Buddaeus, Mis- 
 cellaii. Sacr. torn. ii. p. 80. 
 
 1 'Fac ergo Domine, nostram obla- 
 tionem adscriptam, ut pretiosum cor- 
 pus Christ! fiat, Verbo Dei adunata, 
 et in unitate personae conjuncta.' 
 Odo. Cameracens. in Sacr. Can. 
 Exposit. Bibl. PP. torn. vi. p. 360. 
 [Paris, torn. xii. Colon, t. xxi. Lugd. 
 p. 2 a i.] 
 
 1 ' Infantes si nunquani discant 
 
 experhnento, vel suo vel aliorum, 
 et nunquam illam speciem .rerum 
 videant, nisi inter celebrationes sa- 
 cramentorum, cum offertur et datur, 
 dicaturque illis authoritate gravis- 
 sima, cujus corpus et sanguis sit, 
 niliil aliud credent, nisi omnino in 
 ilia specie Dominum oculis apparu- 
 isse mortalium, et de latere tali 
 
 percusso liquorem ilium omnino flux- 
 isse.' Augustin. deTrin. lib. iii.c. 10. 
 p. 803. Conf. Albertin. pp. 648, 649. 
 
 n Airrbv Sf rb al/j.a Kvplov rb /nfi> 
 ydp tff-nv avrov orapKiicbv, ^TTJS <(>6opas 
 ht\inptap.f6a,' "rb 5e irvevfjiaTiKbv, TOM- 
 TtffTtv y KsxplffUfQa. Clem. Alex. 
 Paedag. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 177. Compare 
 Review, above p. 149. 
 
 4 Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi, et 
 caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis ilia et 
 divina, de qua ipse dixit Caro mea 
 vere est cibus ; vel caro et sanguis, 
 quae crucifixa est, et qui militis 
 effusus est lancea.' Hieron. in Ephes. 
 p. 327. Opp. torn. iv. edit. Bened. 
 Cranmer, b. iv. p. 276. ['Quod 
 Sacramentum est Augustino,Irenaeo 
 est res terrena : quod hie res caeles- 
 tis illi est res sacramenti, sive corpus 
 Christi Haec res sacramenti et 
 virtus sacramenti, etiam veritas 
 sacramenti dicitur, et spiritus, et 
 gratia nempe spiritalis, et corpus 
 Christi, spiritale scilicet.' Salinas, 
 pp. 163, 165. The body considered 
 as corporally present in heaven, is 
 'corpus naturale et sensibile,' but 
 considered as spiritually present in 
 the Eucharist, is 'corpus spiritale, 
 intelligibile.']
 
 512 The Sacramental Part 
 
 siderations of one and the same natural and personal body x . The 
 celebrated Bertram, (that is, Ratramn,) of the ninth century, has 
 been by some supposed to be of the number of those who made 
 two such bodies of Christ. There is some appearance of it, but, 
 I think, appearance only: for upon carefully weighing and con- 
 sidering his real sentiments, it will be found, that he supposed 
 only a sacramental body received orally, and the natural body 
 received spiritually in the Eucharist v . 
 
 5. There is yet a fifth way, which prevailed with many, as 
 high as the ninth century ; which was to imagine some kind of 
 union of our Lord's Divinity with the consecrated elements, 
 short of personal, but yet presumed sufficient to denominate them 
 in a true and proper sense (as opposed to symbolical) the Lord's 
 body and blood. R-emigius 2 , who flourished about the year 890, 
 conceived, that our Lord's Divinity filling the natural body and 
 the mystical, viz. the Church, and the consecrated elements, made 
 all the three to become one body of Christ. It is observable, that 
 he admits of but one of the three to be Christ's body in the 
 personal sense : but having a confuse notion of some remote union 
 of each with the Logos, which was common to them all, he there- 
 fore called each of them singly a time body of Christ, and all 
 
 * Beza de Coena Domini, p. 93. Christi corpus sunt Tamen ilia 
 
 Jewel's Answer to Harding, art. 5. caro quam assumpsit, et iste panis, 
 
 pp. 248, 249. Albertinus, pp. 315, omiiisque Ecclesia non faciunt tria 
 
 395. Rivet in Consult, de Relig. p. corpora Christi, sed unum corpus.' 
 
 26. Chamier, torn. iv. p. 695. Spala- Remig. Antissiodorensis (alias Hay- 
 
 tensis, lib. v. c. 6. p. 103. mo) in i Cor. x. p. 132. [Conf. 
 
 >" Bertram de Corpore et Sanguine ejusdem Remigii Exposit. Missae, 
 
 Domini, pp. 16, 24, 36, 40, 96, too, Bibl. PP. torn. xvi. p. 957. sive de 
 
 114, 116. edit. Anglo-Latin. Loud, celebratione missae.] 
 
 A. D. 1686. ' Sicut caro Christi quam assumpsit 
 
 * 'Caro quam Verbum Dei Patris in utero Virginali, verum corpus ejus 
 assumpsit in utero Virginali, in uui- est, et pio nostra salute occisum, ita 
 tate suae personae, et panis qui panis quern Christus tradidit discipu- 
 
 consecratur in Ecclesia, unum corpus lis suis t quern quoticlie conse- 
 
 Christi unt. Sicut enim illo caro crant sacerdotes in Ecclesia, cum 
 
 corpus Christi est, ita iste panis virtute Divinitatis quae ilium replet 
 
 transit in corpus Christi; nee sunt panem, verum corpus Christi est; nee 
 
 duo corpora, sed unum corpus. Di- sunt duo corpora ilia caro quam as- 
 
 vinitatis enim plenitudo quae fuit in sumpsit, et iste panis, sed unum 
 
 ilia, replet et istum panem, &c verum corpus faciunt Christi.' Id 
 
 et sicut ille panis et sanguis in corpus in I Cor. xi. p. 137. Cp. Albertin. 
 
 Christi transeuiit, ita omnes qui in p. 938. 
 
 Ecclesia digne comedunt illud, unum
 
 of the Ezickarist explained. 
 
 conjunctly one true body. The like account may be seen in the 
 book De Divinis Officiis a , falsely ascribed to Alcuinus of the 
 eighth century, written probably in the eleventh century or later. 
 The sum is, that because one of the three is truly Christ's body 
 in a symbolical sense, and the other truly his body in a mystical 
 sense, and the third in a true and proper sense ; therefore all the 
 three are severally a true body of Christ, and together one true 
 body. Such were the rovings of men bewildered in their ways, 
 after they had deserted the old paths. It is however worth the 
 observing, that this author was very solicitous to avoid the 
 suspicion of making two true bodies of Christ, which Christian 
 ears could not bear : and further, that he retained so much of 
 the ancient principles, under clouds of confusion, as to suppose 
 the Logos to be the heavenly food of the Eucharist, and he re- 
 solved the formal reason of the name of Lord's body into some 
 immediate relation to the person of Christ. I do not find that 
 the third Person's filling the elements with himself, or with his 
 graces, was hitherto supposed the immediate ground or formal 
 reason of their having the name of Christ's body : or had it so 
 been, the element of Baptism, upon the analogy observed by the 
 ancients, would most certainly have had a better title to the 
 name. For the Holy Ghost was supposed more immediately to 
 preside, as it were, in that Sacrament, under the figure of a 
 conjugal union, as before mentioned : and even as low as Da- 
 mascen we find, that while the grace of the Spirit was said to 
 be joined with the oil and the water, the very Divinity of the 
 second Person was supposed to be joined with the elements of 
 the Eucharist b . 
 
 I am sensible that a great show of authorities has been pro- 
 duced, in order to persuade us, that, according to the ancients, 
 the third Person was presumed to make the elements the body 
 and blood of Christ c . But out of twenty-two authorities, seven- 
 teen, as I conceive, either must or may be understood of the 
 second Person d , the \6yos, often called Spirit : and the five 
 
 a Pseudo-Alcuinus de Divin. Off. c Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. fp. 
 cap. 40. p. 287. ed. Hittorp. 187-195. 
 
 b See above, pp. 502, 503. d i. Ignatius, t. Justin Martyr. 
 
 L 1
 
 514 The Sacramental Part 
 
 remaining authorities prove only, that the Holy Ghost 6 makes 
 the elements sacraments, or sanctified symbols, or an holy body, 
 fitting them for the uses intended, and preparing the communi- 
 cants at the same time. The Holy Ghost prepares both the 
 symbols and the guests : but still it is the Logos, the incarnate 
 Logos, who is properly the spiritual food or feast, according to 
 Scripture and all Catholic antiquity ; and that not as residing, 
 by his Divinity, in the elements, but as adsistant only, or con- 
 comitant ; and that to the worthy only f . But I pass on. 
 
 I have been observing something of the various wanderings 
 and mazes which thoughtful men fell into, after the change of 
 doctrine introduced in the seventh century. For from thence 
 came augmentation, assumption, impanation, composition, con- 
 substantiation, transubstantiation, local presence, and oral man- 
 ducation of the ' res sacramenti/ inherent virtues, bread-sacrifice %, 
 bread -worship, and the like ; all issuing from the same source, 
 all springing from the same root ; namely, from that ' servilis 
 infirmitas/ which St. Austin speaks of, the mistaking signs for 
 things, and figure for verity. 
 
 3.1renaeus.4.Clemens Alexandrinus. eo mysterio: cum alii KO.T' a.\\oltaffn> 
 5. Origen. 6. Cyprian. 7. Athanasiua. earn extitisse dicerent, alii /caret utra.- 
 8. Julius Firmicus. 9. Nazianzen. Klvnmv, alii Kara irtpiK\a(rn6t>. Huic 
 10. Epiphanius. 1 1. Gregory Nyssen. postremae pa? est Lutheranoruin 
 12. Ephrem Syrus. See Albertin. sententia.' Salinas, p. 422. 
 453- J 3- Gaudentius. 14. Cyrill. ' Non sanctiflcatur ut sit tarn mag- 
 Alex. See Albertin. 454. 15. Gelasius. num Sacramentum, nisi operante 
 16. Theodorite. 1 7. Pseud- Ambrose, invisibiliter Spiritu Dei.' Augustin. 
 [See Cranmer, p. 356 : above, p. 493. de Trin. 1. iii. c. 4.] 
 Review, above, p. 266, et seqq.] g: [' Ne forte ob hoc censeamur 
 
 6 Cyril. Hierosol., Optatus, Chry- indigni, si non satis discernimusiilud, 
 
 so.stom, Austin, and Council of Con- nee intelligimus, mysticuui Christi 
 
 stantinople. corpus et sanguis quanta polleat dig- 
 
 f [' Ei igitur communio spiritus et nitate, quantaque praeemineat vir- 
 
 panis, spiritus et vini, quam Patres tute, et discernatur a corporeo gustu, 
 
 in his sacramentis fieri dicunt, non ut sit praestantius omni sacrificio 
 
 in ipso pane fit, neque in ipso calice, veteris testamenti.' Paschal. Rad- 
 
 sed in corde sumentis per fidern.' bert. c. 2. Opp. p. 1559. Algerus, 268. 
 
 S:ilmasiu3, p. 429. See below, pp. ' Christi caro est, quae pro mundi 
 
 517, 5j8. and compare Pfaffius, pp. vita adhuc hodie offertur.' 555. When 
 
 414, 431, 432, 446. bread was once supposed to be liter- 
 
 ' Ex istis apparet totidem exortas ally that body which was sacrificed, 
 
 fuisse haereses circa praesentiam cor- it must of course be thought a sacri- 
 
 poris Christi in eucharistia quot olim fice : hence bread- sacrifice.] 
 fuere circa Verbi incarnationem in
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 
 
 The Reformation, as is well known, commenced in the sixteenth 
 century, and then this high subject came to be reconsidered, 
 and to be set in a proper light, upon the foundation of Scripture 
 and antiquity. But disputes arose even among Protestants. For 
 though the later and grosser corruptions of the Latin Church 
 were soon thrown off with general consent, yet some of the 
 older and more refined depravations of the Greeks were not 
 easily distinguished (in those infant days of criticism) from what 
 was truly ancient, but had made too deep an impression upon 
 the minds of many serious persons. The nature of symbolical 
 grants and constructional conveyances was not so well considered 
 as might have been wished. Many understood not what eating 
 could mean, unless it were conceived to be oral and literal : 
 neither could they suddenly bring their minds to comprehend 
 how a thing could be said to be given and received at the 
 supper, without being literally, locally present in the supper, in 
 the very tokens or pledges of the heavenly things there made 
 over to every faithful communicant. As if livery and seisin 
 might not be given and taken by proper instruments : or as if a 
 ring, a book, a crosier, or other tokens of investiture, might not 
 convey lands, honours, dignities, without being inwardly enriched 
 with h , or outwardly converted into the very things themselves 
 which they so convey. For as any person becomes legally 
 vested in an estate by the delivering and receiving of deeds, 
 though he does not literally take the lands and tenements into 
 
 h See Review, above, pp. 131, lum : quomodo de consensu contra - 
 
 132. ' Sicut sigillum principis vere hentium per traditionem authentic! 
 
 est non otiosum, sed efficax, nulla instrumenti confertur haereditas, 
 
 tamen sibi indita virtute, sed autho- quomodo etiam ex nummo uno fit 
 
 ritate duntaxat principis quasi comi- arrha, quae valet ad solutionem mille 
 
 tante : sic Sacramenta, quae in signis nummorum ; sic ex pacto et conven- 
 
 et signaculis esse negare nullus po- tione inter Deum et hominem, ad 
 
 test etsi nulla in rebus externis dignamsaeramentorum perception em 
 
 vi indita agant in animas hominum, gratia divina confertur, et caelestis 
 
 aut in gratiam quae in iis quaeritur, haereditatis arrha. Quae est senten- 
 
 tamen non desinunt esse instramenta tia non nostrae duntaxat ecclesiae, 
 
 efficacia, tanquam o-rj/neTa /cat crtypa-yi- sed et primorum Roman ensium, turn 
 
 8fr.' Chamier, torn. iv. p. 57. [See veterum Halensis, Gandavensis, Bo- 
 
 below, p. 536. ' Quomodo, dicente naventurae, Scoti ; turn etiam mul- 
 
 Bernardo, confertur Canonicatus per torum recentium, Cani, Vasquesii.' 
 
 dationem libri, Abbatis praefectura Ward, p. 44.] 
 per baculum, Episcopatus per annu- 
 
 L 1 2
 
 The Sacramental Part 
 
 his hands, nor grasp them in his arms ; so may a person, in con- 
 struction of Divine law, be vested in or possessed of the Lord's 
 body and blood, and whatever depends thereupon, without literally 
 receiving the same into his mouth 5 . The notion is a very plain 
 and easy notion, that one might justly wonder how it came to 
 pass, that ven Divines of good note should not hit upon it at 
 first ; or if they did, should slight it k . 
 
 Our Divines, as Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, <fec. (to do them 
 justice,) understood this matter perfectly well. Neither do I 
 know of any considerable person amongst our early Reformers 
 who missed the right thought : unless perhaps we may except 
 the great Bishop Poynet, in his exile at Strasburg, where he 
 died A. D. 1556. He drew up his Diallacticon abroad, with a 
 truly pious and pacific design, hoping to contribute something 
 towards healing the .then reigning .differences between Lutherans 
 and Calvinists, upon the subject of the Eucharist. The treatise 
 was not published till after his death ] : a short preface was 
 
 1 ['His body and "blood are by 
 this Sacrament assured to be no less 
 ours than his He hath made him- 
 self all ours. Ours his passions, ours 
 his merits, ours his victory, ours 
 his glory. And therefore he giveth 
 himself and all his in this sacrament 
 wholly up to us.' Archbishop San- 
 dys, Serm. xv. p. 134. See Review, 
 above, p. 126.] 
 
 k It is marvellous to observe, how 
 from the time of Paschasius Radbert, 
 of the ninth century, down to the 
 sixteenth, almost the whole Latin 
 Church were imposed upon them- 
 selves, or imposed upon others, by 
 confounding two very distinct pro- 
 positions with each other, as if they 
 were the same. [A. D. 890. Ratram 
 opposed transubstantiation. A.D. 1035 
 circiter, Berengarius began to oppose 
 that doctrine : condemned in several 
 Councils, 1050, 1053, 1055, 1059, 
 1078, 1079. He died A.D. 1088.] 
 They saw plainly, both in Scripture 
 and Fathers, that the natural body 
 of Christ is the thing signified, and 
 received by the faithful in the Eu- 
 charist : that is to say, received with 
 
 the elements, spiritually received. 
 Had they rested there, all had been 
 right. But by slipping a false con- 
 sequence, or false comment, upon 
 true premises, they inadvertently 
 changed that sound proposition into 
 this very unsound one : that the 
 elements literally are that very na- 
 tural body, locally present, and orally 
 received by every communicant. 
 They had lost the idea of a sym- 
 bolical and constructional reception ; 
 which requires .neither local presence 
 nor corporal contact. 
 
 [The Anglo-SaxonJChurch retained 
 the old distinctions till the close of 
 the loth century, as appears from 
 Aelfric's Saxon Homily on Easter 
 Day, .p. 7. He was Abp. of Cant. 
 993, and died A. D. soo6.J 
 
 1 ' Diallacticon vii i boni et literati, 
 de veri tate, natura, atque substantia 
 corporis e sanguinis Christi in Eu- 
 charistia." 1557. First edition, Stras- 
 burg. 1573. Second edition, Geneva. 
 At the end of Beza's Opuscula, 1576. 
 Third edition. At the end of Har- 
 chius, 1688. Fourth edition, London. 
 By Dr. Felling.
 
 of tlie Euekaiitt explained. 517 
 
 prefixed to it by the editor, supposed to be Sturmius m . I shall 
 give a brief account of the author's main principles, using the 
 octavo edition of 1576. 
 
 He was a religious admirer of the ancient Fathers : but as 
 their works were not at that time critically distinguished, he 
 was often misled, even in the main lines of his hypothesis, by 
 spurious pieces or passages ; quoting several material things 
 under the admired names of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Austin, 
 which belonged not to them, but were some of them as late as 
 the twelfth century. Many passages of Austin and others stand 
 only on the credit of Gratian, an author of the twelfth century. 
 And it is known that the piece De Coena, ascribed to Cyprian, 
 belongs to Arnaldus, who wrote about A. D. 1162. Under these 
 disadvantages, it is the less to be wondered at, if the excellent 
 author did not everywhere hit that ancient truth which he 
 sincerely sought for. 
 
 i. In the first place 11 , he appears to carry the notion of inherent 
 virtues or graces, as lodged in the elements themselves, much 
 too far . And he seems to make the conjunction of grace and 
 
 m See the French Supplement to talem gratiam, pani ipsi inseparabili- 
 
 Bayle's Dictionary, in the article ter adhaerere, sed in ipso corde ipsius 
 
 ' Poinet. ' accipientis earn unitatem effici per 
 
 n [' Invocatio ilia Dei et benedictio fidem : quam qui non praestat, is 
 
 non illigat Spiritum pani, nee in- non communicat corpori, sed sacra- 
 
 cludit ; sed panem sanctificat, ut mentum, hoe est, nudum signurn 
 
 possit ab eo qui fidem habet, et accipit, non virtutem sacrament! : 
 
 mundus est, digne et cum efficacia, signum non rem signi percipit.' 
 
 non solum sacramentaliter. sed etiam Salmasius, 427. See above, p. 513. 
 
 spiritaliter participant Salmaa. p. below, p. 538, and Pfaffius, pp. 414, 
 
 428. 431, 432>, 446.] 
 
 ' Nos non dicimus Sacramenta ' Vim vitae signis externis incl:'- 
 conferre gratiam per ullam illis in- tarn,' p. 53. 'Virtutem [veri corporis] 
 ditam aut vim aut qualitatem, sive vitalem conjunctam habet,' p. 79. 
 naturalem sive supernaturalem, quod 'Virtus ipsius curporis efficax et vivi- 
 est gratiam conferre per modum fica cum pane et vino conjungitur,' 
 causae physicae : sed dicuntur ex p. 83. 'Intus abditam et latentein 
 nostrae Ecclesiae sententia,' &c. naturalem ejusdem corporis proprie- 
 ty ard, Determ. p. 44. See below, tatem, hoc est, vivificam virtutem, 
 p. 536. secum trahat.' p. 83. 'Virtutem veri 
 
 ' Cum patres haec conjuncta esse corporis spiritualem habet,' p. 88. 
 
 asserunt, et Sacramentum a sua ' Virtus autem interna, quaevi Divini 
 
 virtute minime sejungi dicunt, non Verbi accedit,' p. 118. ' Virtute bene- 
 
 intelligunt eum spiritum, sive spiri- dictionismysticaeviminsitam.'p.i 19.
 
 518 The Sacramental Part, 
 
 element absolute and physical P. By which means, he found him- 
 self at length involved in insuperable perplexities upon the 
 point of adoration of the elements 1, and the communion of the 
 unworthy r : though he endeavoured to get off from both, as 
 handsomely as the thing would bear. Our other more cautious 
 Divines of that time, as Cranmer and Jewel, had no concern 
 with those perplexities, any more than the ancient Fathers had : 
 for they avoided the main principle from which those difficulties 
 arose ; yea, and flatly contradicted it 8 . 
 
 2. The very worthy author appears not to have guarded 
 sufficiently against the notion of two true bodies of Christ, 
 natural above, and spiritual below, in the Eucharist : which is 
 what the mild and moderate Cassander, very tenderly, charged 
 him with; intimating, that he had put the distinction wrong 
 between body and body, (as if there were two true bodies,) instead 
 of distinguishing between the different manner of exhibiting or 
 receiving one and the same natural body 1 . And so far Cassander 
 
 P ' Si gratiam et virtutem veri cor- 
 poris cum pane et vino conjungi cre- 
 damus, nimium elementis tribuere vi- 
 debimur.'p. 107. 'Divina virtus abesse 
 a signo non potest, qua Sacrametitum 
 est,' p. 112. 'Sacramenta, quarn diu 
 Sacramenta suit, suain retinere virtu- 
 tem, nee ab ea posse separari,' p. 114. 
 
 i Page 107, &c. r Page 112. 
 
 3 See Cranmer's Preface, cited in 
 Review, above, p. 165, and compare 
 Review, pp. 83, 254. Bishop Jewel 
 writes thus : ' We are taught, not to 
 seek that grace in the sign, but to 
 assure ourselves by receiving the 
 sign, that it is given us by the thing 
 
 signified It is not the creature 
 
 of bread or water, but the soul of 
 man that receiveth the grace of God. 
 These corruptible creatures need it 
 not : we have need of God's grace. 
 But this is a phrase of speaking. For 
 the power of God, the grace of God, 
 the presence of the Trinity, the 
 Holy Ghost, the gift of God, are 
 not in the water, but in us : and we 
 were not ordained because of the 
 Sacraments; but the Sacraments 
 
 were made for our sake.' Jewel's 
 Treatise of the Sacraments, p. 263. 
 fol. ed. Compare Def. of Apol. pp. 
 208, 238. [Compare Cranmer, pp. 
 
 34- 56, 5 8 , 74. 141, i7 J > '9 2 ' 2o8 > 
 211, 212, 327, 413.] 
 
 * ' Quae de duplici Christi corpore 
 (Bertramumsecutus) erudite disserit, 
 facile aliquos ofiendat, quibus ex ver- 
 bis Christi persuasum est, et quidem 
 vere, non aliud corpus in Sacramento 
 fidelibus dari. quam quod a Christo 
 pro fidelium salute in mortem tradi- 
 tum fuit. Quamvis autem hie ilistinc- 
 tione aliqua opus sit, malim tamen 
 illam ad moduinpraesentiae et exhibi- 
 tionis quam ad ipsam rem subjectam, 
 hoc est, corpus Christi, adhiberi. 
 Commodius i'aque et ad docendum 
 accommodatius, et Christi instituto 
 convenientius, et ad conciliationem 
 aptius dici videtur, ipsum Christi 
 corpus pro nobis traditurn, etiam in 
 Eucharistia fidelibus tradi ; adhibita . 
 Augustini distinctione : "Ipsum qui- 
 dem, et non ipsum ; ipsum invisibili- 
 ter, et non ipsum visibiliter,"' &c. 
 Ca?sander, Epist. p. 1084. Cp.
 
 of the Encharist explained, 519 
 
 judged very rightly, and conformably to the ancients : only as 
 he chose to distinguish between a visible and invisible manner, 
 he should rather have expressed it in the terms of literal and 
 spiritual ; which is the true distinction. 
 
 Bishop Cosin u , speaking of Bishop Poynet, represents him 
 (if there be not some .error of the press) as making that very 
 distinction which Cassander wished he had made, or which he 
 suggested, by way of correction as preferable to Poynet's. I 
 say, Bishop Cosin represents Poynet as doing the very thing 
 which Cassander required, and mostly in Cassander's own 
 words, without naming him. Yet it is plain enough, that that 
 distinction which Cosin ascribes to Poynet was not his, but 
 Cassander's : wherefore I suspect some error of the press or of 
 the editor, (as might easily happen in a posthumous piece,) and 
 that Cosin really wrote 'malim/ not 'maluit/ making Cassander's 
 censure his own. But of this let the considerate readers of both 
 judge, as they see cause. Certain however it is, that Bishop 
 Cosin (with all our other learned and judicious Divines) was 
 zealous against the notion of two true bodies of Christ x , and very 
 strongly asserted, yea, and often inculcated, in that small trea- 
 tise, where he had not much room to spare, that the natural 
 body is the thing signified, the thing spiritually given and received 
 by the faithful in the Eucharist. He was well aware, how much 
 depended upon that momentous principle y ; as well because it 
 was the safe, the only clue to lead serious Christians through all 
 the labyrinths of contending parties, as also because it was fixing 
 
 Rivet. Animadv. ad Consult, p. 30. habens, et quod in Sacramento est 
 
 Apologet. p. 102. [Discuss. Dialysis, corpus mysticum, maluit tamen dis- 
 
 p. 78.] Grotii Opp. torn. iii. 621,643, crimen illud ad modum praesentiae 
 
 660, 668. [ Here you grant that et exhibitionis, qukm ad ipsam ran 
 
 Christ's body was made of bread, subjectam, hoc est, Christ! corpus 
 
 And then it must follow, that either verum, accommodari ; quum certissi- 
 
 Christ had two bodies (the one made mum sit, non aliud corpus in Sacra- 
 
 of flesh of the Virgin Mary, the other mento fidelibus dari nisi quod a 
 
 of bread,) or else that the selfsame Christo pro fidelium salute in mortem 
 
 body was made of two diverse mat- traditum fuit.' Cosin. Hist. Tran- 
 
 ters,and at diverse and sondry times.' subst. p. 10. 
 
 Cranmer, 297.] * [See Cranmer, p. 267.] 
 
 u ' Licet discrimen ipse cum Patri- >' [See Review, above, pp. 149, 152, 
 
 bus agnoscat inter corpus Christi for- 164, 168, 170-173.] 
 mam humani corporis naturalem
 
 52O The Sacramental Part 
 
 the economy of man's salvation upon its true and firm basis, 
 which is this : that in the Sacraments we are made and con- 
 tinued members of Christ's body, of his flesh, and of his bones z . 
 Our union with the Deity rests entirely in our mystical union 
 with our Lord's humanity, which is personally united with his 
 Divine nature, which is essentially united with God the Father, 
 the head and fountain of all. So stands the economy ; which 
 shews the high importance of the principle before mentioned. 
 And it is well that Romanists, and Lutherans, and Greeks also, 
 even the whole East and West, have preserved it, and yet pre- 
 serve it : though some of them have miserably corrupted it 
 by the wood, hay, and stubble, which they have built upon it ; 
 namely, by a local presence, a literal exhibition, and an oral 
 manducation, with other the like novel additions or defalcations. 
 But I return. 
 
 Twenty years after Poynet, a very learned physician, a German, 
 building upon the same principles, and being much more sanguine 
 and self-confident, pursued them to far greater lengths in two 
 several treatises a , beai'ing different running titles b . His name 
 was Harchius. It was a vast undertaking for that time. He 
 set himself at once to oppose Romanists, Lutherans, and Cal- 
 vinists, (three sects, as he called them c ,) condemning them all 
 as guilty of great errors in the article of the Eucharist, and pro- 
 posing a fourth system, wherein they should all unite. He 
 boasted highly of the Fathers, as full and clear on his side d : he 
 
 1 Ephes. v. 3">. b The running title of the first : 
 
 a 'De Eucharistiae Mysterio, Dig- 'Concordia de Coena.' 
 
 nitate, et Usu : ex unanimi primiti- The running title of the second : 
 
 vae Ecclesiae Consensu, ad omnium 'Patrum Consensus de Eucharistia.' 
 
 eonim qui Christ! Nomen profiten- N. B. Hospinian says, this last was 
 
 tur sedandas Controversias.' Libri printed A. D. 1577. Hospin. Histor. 
 
 tres. 4to. Jodoco Harchio, Montense Sacram. part ii. p. 354. Which may 
 
 Medico, autore. Wormatiae. 1 573. be true : for I take the date 1576, not 
 
 ' Orthodoxorum Patrum. . Fides de from the title-page, (which has no 
 
 Eucharistia et Sacrifioio universal! date,) but from the end of the preface, 
 
 Ecclesiae : ad Pontificiorum et Evan- written in 1576. 
 
 gelicorum cognoscendas, dirimeudas- c Harch. Patr. Consens. pp. 183, 
 
 que Controversias, proChristi Gloria, 230. 
 
 et Ecclesiarum Pace. Per Jodocum d Ibid, idem, pp. 77, 127, 129, 270, 
 
 Harchium, Montensem Medicum.' 278. 
 
 A.D. 1576. 8vo.
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 
 
 filled his two books with quotations of that kind : some geuuine 
 and some spimous, some ancient and some middle-aged,. some 
 Greek and some Latin ; many of them misconstrued, more mis- 
 applied, but all made to serve the system 6 which he had before 
 formed in his mirkl f . As the attempt was considerable in its 
 way, and commendable for its good meaning ; and as it may be 
 of use to know what the system was, and how received, and how 
 confuted, (for confuted it was by a very able hand,) I shall here 
 take the pains to draw out the chief lines of it, and next to 
 exhibit a brief summary of the answer then made to it. 
 
 1. He pleads much for an invocation of the Holy Ghost in the 
 Communion Offices^ ; and he speaks often- of some illapse either 
 of the second or third Person upon the elements, or else of some 
 virtue of life, some spiritual and eternal gift, sent down from 
 above, upon the consecrated bread and wine h . 
 
 2. He assei*ts a spiritual and marvellous change thereby made 
 in the elements, but not destroying either their substance or their 
 figure : a change of qualities, and a melioration, as it were, of the 
 substance itself, by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost and 
 the supervening of the Logos * : on account of which change, he 
 talks frequently of the elements as passing into the virtue of 
 Christ's body and blood k . Sometimes he calls it passing into the 
 flesh of Christ, or substance of his body : but then he interprets 
 it to mean, not the personal body or substance, but another 
 
 c A brief summary of his system, hoc libro probanda.' Harch. Patr. 
 
 in his own words, is as here follows: Consens. p. 93. cp. pp. 68, 79. 
 
 ' Panis Eucharistiae est corpus r [' Patrum multitudine putavit 
 
 quoddam sanctum, consecratione Harchius suum illud commentum 
 
 sacerdotum factum divinum ; exis- aperte confirmari ; illis certe non 
 
 tens veluti imago, repraesentatio, dissimilis quibus si specillis vindici- 
 
 seu sacramentum proprii et animati bus utantur viridia omnia apparent.' 
 
 corporis Christi quod in caelo est; Beza, 182. fol. edit.] 
 
 impletum a Christo Spiritu Sancto Harch. Patr. Consens. pp. 25, 
 
 et Verbo : ut offeratur (mystice) Deo 96,98, 100. Concord, p. 146. 
 
 Patri, per ministerium sacerdotum ; h Ibid. Concord, pp. 14, 45, 49, 
 
 deinde ut sumatur ab omnibus fide- 79, 92. Patr. Consens. pp. 56, 115, 
 
 libus, &c in fide et charitate, 151, 157, 168. 
 
 ore et corde, ad remissionem pecca- ' Ibid, idem, pp. 30, &c. 75, 82, 
 
 torum in spem resurrectionis et 83, 86, 146. Patr. Consens. pp. 54, 
 
 vitae aeternae, simul et ad memoriam 69, 100, 157, 185. 
 
 passionis Christi, &c. Haec definitio k Ibid, idem, pp. 32, 35, 39. 45, 
 
 vera est et catholica, et a nobis in 47, 53, 74, 79, 105.
 
 522 The Sacramental Part 
 
 very like it, or near akin to it in virtue ; which he denominates 
 a spiritual body, to distinguish it from the natural and personal 
 body !. 
 
 3. He makes this pretended spiritual body sometimes the 
 body of the Divine Spirit, meaning Christ's own Divine Hypo- 
 stasis 111 ; sometimes, the body of the Word and Spirit together 11 ; 
 and sometimes of the Divine essence, or whole Trinity . 
 
 4. But as he could not admit of a personal union? between the 
 Deity and the bread-body, without calling it Christ, and Lord, 
 and God, he was content to call it a creature, but a most noble 
 creature 1 ; an image of the natural body, but not full and 
 adequate ; extremely like it in power and energy, but not per- 
 fectly equal 1 ": a true, and holy, and Divine, but inanimate figure, 
 while full of the Word, and of the Spirit, and of grace, and 
 of life s . 
 
 5. He supposed two true bodies of Christ ; one in heaven 
 above, another in the Eucharist below : one natural, and eaten 
 by contemplation and faith at all times ; the other spiritual, and 
 eaten in the Eucharist both with mind and with mouth *. He 
 conceived them to be so nearly the same thing, that they might 
 be reckoned as one flesh, but yet considering that there was some 
 inequality, he rather chose to make them two u . 
 
 6. He maintained an infusion of the Divine essence x , or of 
 Christ y, or of some virtue of Christ's flesh z , into the elements : 
 
 1 Harch. Concord, pp. 33, 35, 39., tatis.' Harch. p. 182. Patr. Con- 
 
 45> 53> 74> l5- Patr. Consens. p. sens.] 
 
 69. i Ibid, idem, pp. 36, 37, 38, 75, 
 
 ra Ibid, idem, pp. 15, 16. Patr. 76, 82, 83. 
 
 Consens, pp. 28, 42, 47, 69. r Ibid, idem, pp. 36, 38, 53, 54, 
 
 n Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 29, 42, 65, 94, 95. Patr. Consens. pp. 68, 
 
 46, 48, 53, 69, 98, 114, 128, 180. 79, 91, 117, 250. 
 
 Ibid. Concord, pp. 31, 48, 70, 74. Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 68, 76, 
 
 Patr. Consens. pp. 91, 167, 172, 182, 85,90,91,92,93, 112,131,147. 
 
 183. * Ibid. Concord, pp. 27, 55,70, 81. 
 
 P [' Dat ergo nobis Christus in hoc "Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 215,216. 
 
 Sacramento duplicem spiritum suum, * Ibid. Concord, pp. 31, 48, 70, 74. 
 
 existens verus Elias. Inpanequidem Patr. Consens. pp. 74, 76. 
 
 spiritum proprium verbum ipsum et 1 Ibid. Concord, pp. 28, 31, 39, 48. 
 
 Dei sapientiam : in vino spiritum qui Patr. Coiisens. pp. 74, 77, 225. 
 
 a Patre procedit et Filio : inutroque * Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 128 182, 
 
 vero essentiam totius beatae Trini- 209, 215.
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 523 
 
 an inhabitation a also, and union b , and mixture with the 
 same. 
 
 7. He once supposed, that the spiritual body in the Eucharist 
 is not so fully or perfectly Christ's body as every good Christian 
 is d ; but he appears to have changed his mind afterwards, upon 
 a supposal that the fulness of the Godhead resides in the ele- 
 ments, and not ordinarily in good men e . 
 
 8. He supposed the spiritual body to be the vicarious substitute 
 of the natural ; not equal in power or virtue, but approximate f . 
 
 9. The spiritual body, not being hypostatically united with the 
 Divinity ?, has no title in his scheme (as he supposed) to formal 
 adoration ; but must be reverenced only, or highly venerated h . 
 
 10. He supposed the elements to contain within them the 
 grace of Christ's body, the nature of the Word and Spirit, and 
 the essential powers of Christ's body in a permanent way, abiding 
 as long as the elements may serve for food i. 
 
 11. He imagined brutes, upon devouring the elements, to 
 devour them only : but unworthy communicants are supposed to 
 receive the Deity besides, but as a judge and an avenger ; as a 
 burning coal, or a consuming fire, not to save, but to destroy 
 them k . 
 
 1 2. He maintained an oral manducation (as of course he must) of 
 the eternal Word, of the Divine substance, and of essential grace 1 . 
 
 13. As to the sacrifice, he was reasonably modest and cautious 
 in his first piece. He lashed the Romanists on that head, all 
 the way, and blamed some Protestants, but with tenderness, 
 
 a Harch. Concord, pp. 56, 57, 63, Patr. Consens. pp. 52, 53, 54, 65, 
 
 68, 74. Patr. Consens. pp. 50, 91. 130, 213, 217, 262. 
 
 b Ibid, idem, pp. 15, 57, 71. Patr. ' Ibid, idem, p. 89. Patr. Consens. 
 
 Consens. pp. 46, 48, 50, 5*, 68, 70. pp. 64, 8p, 102, 175, 309, 213, 228. 
 
 71, 91, 121. k Ibid, idem, pp. 41, 56, 71, 72, 
 
 c Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 28, 126, 87. 88. Patr. Consens. pp. 61, 139, 
 
 131, 134, i8r, 193, 204. 140, 141, 175, 312. 
 
 d Ibid. Concord, pp. 25, 48, 60, 64. ' Ibid, idem, p. 15. Patr. Consens. 
 
 e Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 91, 154. pp. 83, 93, 138, 151, 154, 174, 201, 
 
 f Ibid, idem, pp. 85, 1 1 3, 1 73, i 74, 2. 1 2. 
 
 176. m ' Ke quis puiet in posterum in 
 
 K Ibid. Concord, pp. 37, 63, 68, 86, Coena Domini nulluin esse sacrifi- 
 
 87, 105. Patr. Consens. pp. 54, 91, cium : quod ab Evangelicis aliquot 
 
 126, 173. doleo nimis impudenter negatum, 
 
 h Ibid, idem, pp. 59, 60, ic6. aut omissum, neque in catechismis
 
 524 The Sacramental Part 
 
 not denying them or others their just commendations 11 . He 
 speaks handsomely of the first English Liturgy, as coming very 
 near to the primitive, and particularly admires their form of 
 consecration, beseeching God to sanctify the gifts with his Holy 
 tSpirit and Word , He insisted much upon self-sacrifice, and 
 the sacrifice of alms, and the memorial of our Lord's passion P. 
 He expressed some contempt of a bread-sacrifice, a sacrifice of 
 signs and shadows Q. Had he said, signs and shadows of a sacri- 
 fice, rather than sacrifice of signs, he had said better. However, 
 he observed, that a sacrifice of bread and wine is never men- 
 tioned in Scripture, no, nor in the Fathers ; except in such a 
 qualified sense as Irenaeus speaks of r . He had a particular 
 fancy, that the elements should first be made food of, and then 
 sacrificed from within : for so he hoped to avoid all extrinsic 
 sacrifice, (condemned by Scripture,) and to account the better 
 for the order of the words of institution s . Besides, it would 
 suit the more aptly with another fancy of his, viz. that though 
 the elements were the body of the Logos before manducation, yet 
 they were not the body of Christ, God-man, till eaten and con- 
 verted into human flesh *. 
 
 14. In his second treatise he altered his notion of the sacrifice 
 more ways than one : whether disgusted with the Protestants for 
 slighting his kind offices, or whether further instructed, it is 
 certain, that he came much nearer to the Popish sacrifice, and 
 brought severer charges than before, both against Lutherans 
 and Calvinists, as casting off the visible sacrifice of the Church". 
 
 explicatum.' Harch. Concord, p. Patribus; nisi ea ratione offeramus 
 
 132. pauem et ejusmodi visibilia, quae Ire- 
 
 n 'Legite, O pontificii, Liturgiam naeus vocat creaturas, ut non appa- 
 
 Justini, et putabitis institutam fuisse reamus in conspectu Dei aut vacui 
 
 a Calvino. Legite et earn quae fertur aut ingrati.' Harch. Concord, p. 
 
 Jacobi, et quid, precor, differt ab ea 171. 
 
 quam iustituit Lutherus?' Ibid. p. 8 Ibid, idem, pp. 171, 174, 175. 
 
 132. l 'Etiamsi panis Eucharistiae sit 
 
 Harch. Concord, pp. 145, 146. virtute caro Christi, et realiter corpus 
 P Ibid, idem, pp. 52, 120, 131, Verbi ante manducationem, tamen ut 
 
 J 3 2 > '33> r 38, I39i I43> I47 ^8, fiat actu vera caro, debet prius man- 
 
 158, 161, 167, i6S, 171, 176. ducari, et nutritionis lege in carnis 
 
 1 Ibid, idem, pp. 120, 139, 143, formam converti.' Harch. Concord. 
 147. 155. i57 158- p. 80. 
 
 r ' De panis et vini hostia nusquam "Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 38, 39, 
 leges in Scripturis, imo neque in 40, 234, 270, &c. 281, 282, 285.
 
 of the Eucharist, explained. 525 
 
 He forgot his former speculations about the sacrifice following 
 the manducation ; for now he made it go before x . And whereas 
 formerly he had disowned any propitiatory sacrifice y, content 
 with gratulatory, after the Protestant way, he now made it 
 properly propitiatory, inventing a colour for it, viz. that Christ 
 himself consecrates by the minister, fills the elements with the 
 Logos and Spirit, is present with them, and offered by himself in 
 them and with them z . 
 
 15. As to our Lord's own sacrifice in the original Eucharist, 
 he supposed him to have offered up that spiritual body there 
 made, that compound body of spirit and element : or else per- 
 haps he offered up his own natural body to the Father, as it 
 were in effigy, under the symbols of bread and wine a . 
 
 1 6. His construction of the words of institution may be worth 
 the noting as a particularity. He interprets the words, ' This is 
 my body given for you,' as if our Lord had said, ' This is my 
 spiritual body, given me by my Father, for your consolation and 
 conservation V A construction scarce tolerable, if there had 
 
 * Harch. Patr. Consens. pp. 79, 2 74, Deo hostiam. ' Harch. Patr. Consens-. 
 
 275. p. 232. 
 
 y Ibid. Concord, pp. 132, 143, 161. ' Christus spiritualis offerturmente 
 
 1 Ibid, idem, pp. 240, 263. ' In hoc et inanu re vera : at Christus homo 
 
 pane praesens et oblatus,' p. 264. carneus et animatus otfertur sola 
 
 ' Hostia offtrtur, et grata est Patri, et mente, per ipsius symbola, panem et 
 
 simul propitiatoria : non ex se, sed vinum.' p. 240. 
 oblata per Christum,' p. 300. ' Quemve non reddet Deo Patri 
 
 [Yet he blames the Papists in propitium unigenitus Dei Filius in 
 
 strong terms, p. 232 of the same hoc pane praesens et oblatus?' p. 
 
 treatise, of 1576. ' Veritatem ipsani 264.] 
 
 pro imagine praetendunt, et signum a 'Christus in pane et vino acci- 
 
 adorant simpliciter pro signato. Et piens, ut homo, a Patre corpus et 
 
 cum corpus Christi (quod est ecclesia sanguinem, Verbi scilicet aeterni et 
 
 per eucharistiae panem figurata) de- Spiritus, obtulit ilia eadem Deo Patri 
 
 buissent et commtmdasse et obtulisse ad gratiarum actionem, agnoscens 
 
 Deo patri, per Christum, ipsum beneficium : vel in pane et vino ob- 
 
 Christum Deo patri commendant, tulit, tanquam in symbolis, corpus 
 
 et eum pro proprio et novo Ecclesiae suuin proprium, sequent! die cruci- 
 
 sacrificio, se in manibus tenere, hie figendum.' Harch. Patr. Consens. 
 
 in terra vere carneum, cruentum, pp. 273, 274. 
 
 osseumqne, et ore comedere persua- b 'Accipite hocmeum corpus, Di- 
 
 dent: parum memores illius Origenis vini mei Spiritus, quod mihi datur 
 
 inLeviticumdicentis: jejunansdebes pro vobis a Patre meo, ad vestram 
 
 adire pontificem Christum, qui uti- consolationem, justificationem, vivi- 
 
 que non in terra quaerendus est, sed ficationem, conservationem. ' Harch. 
 
 in caelo, et per ipsum debes offerre Patr. Consens. p. 28. cp. p. 29.
 
 526 The Sacramental Part 
 
 not been worse invented for the same words, to serve the like 
 purposes. 
 
 I beg pardon, if I have been tedious in recounting the rovings 
 of that learned gentleman ; which may have their use, and which 
 were not so much owing to the weakness of the writer, (for I 
 much question whether any one else could have performed better 
 in that way,) as to the weakness of the principle which he had 
 the misfortune to set out with. Whoever else should take in 
 hand to enrich the elements, either with what belongs to us, or 
 with what belongs to God only, could not reasonably expect to 
 succeed any better than that ingenious writer did. He is to be 
 commended however for adhering to the sacrifice of the ci'oss c , 
 jmd for allowing, that the faithful partake of Christ's body 'extra 
 coenam d ,' and that the ancient Patriarchs feasted upon the same 
 spiritual food that we do now e . In other points where he judged 
 ill, he appears to have intended well : for he certainly had a 
 warm zeal for God, loved religion, (or what he esteemed such,) 
 and had firmness enough to submit to a kind of voluntary exile 
 for it ; as he has left upon record { . 
 
 What the Protestants, in general, thought of his first per- 
 formance, and how coldly they received Ids reconciling scheme , 
 he has himself declared in his preface to the second. They were 
 offended, it seems, with him, for mistaking his talents, and 
 meddling out of his sphere ; they approved not of his interpos- 
 ing, without judgment, in theological debates, and admonished 
 him to return to the business of his own profession. The Ro- 
 
 c Harch. Concord, p. 133. ment to bis Dictionary, in the article 
 
 d Ibid, idem, pp. 31, 80, 82, 91. 'Harchius. ' 
 Patr. Consens. pp. 142, 228, 229. 'Conabar dissentientes inter se 
 
 e Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 200, Evangelicos appellatos, (Lutheranos 
 
 201, 202. inquam,) et Calvinistas, sive Zuin- 
 
 f Harcb. Concord, in dedicatione. glianos, conciliare Sed tantum 
 
 Mention also is made of a piece of abest ut ex meis laboribus ullam 
 
 his, printed in 1573, with this title : reportarirn gratiam, ut ambobus in 
 
 'De Causia Haeresis, proque ejus Ex- sua opinione licet dissimillima hae- 
 
 ilio, et Concordia Controversiarum in rentibus, ambo me veluti risui et 
 
 Religione, Haereticorum, Pontifici- contemptui habentes, ad medicae 
 
 orum, et Poeniteritium, Oratio ad meae professionis arenam indigna- 
 
 Deum Patrem.' Gesner, Epit.-p. 515. bundi relegarint.' Harch. Patr. Con- 
 
 Thi.s I have at second hand from sens, in praefat. 
 Mr. Bayle, in the French Supple-
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 527 
 
 manists were either silent, or more favourable in their censures, 
 so far as appears : and he was suspected, by some of the Lxi- 
 theran way, to incline more to the Popish than to the Protestant 
 interests h . He was very impatient for some answer, thinking it 
 a tribute of respect due to himself or to the subject : but he 
 lived not to see any. Beza was preparing one 1 , which appeared 
 at length in the year 1580, some time after Harchius's decease. 
 Beza had been dilatory in that matter, under a serious per- 
 suasion that such remote and fanciful speculations might best 
 be left to die of themselves. But being at last overruled by 
 friends, he submitted to undertake the work ; as he tells us 
 himself k . He complains frequefftly of the author's laboured 
 obscurity, and of the difficulty of ascertaining his true and full 
 meaning 1 . But to prevent any suspicion of unfairness, and to 
 enable the readers to judge for themselves, he collected a com- 
 petent number of passages out of Harchius's first treatise, and 
 prefixed them to his own, filling more than forty pages with 
 them. 
 
 After these preliminaries, he fell directly upon the leading 
 error of the whole system : which was the making the elements 
 receptacles either of the eternal Word or Spirit, or of some Divine 
 power or grace, supposed to be infused into them, inherent in 
 them, intrinsic to them, and permanent with them. He calls it 
 a most grievous error, full of impiety m : a notion altogether 
 unscriptural and absurd n ; yea, and wilder than either consub- 
 
 h ' Quomodo pontificii me excepe- (two volumes ) A. D. 1582. Genevae. 
 
 rint, vix possum coiijecturis assequi, From p. 148. to p. 186. 
 
 contra quos tamen potissimum om- k Beza contr. Harch. p. 4. 8vo. ed. 
 
 nia argumentorum meorum tela diri- alias p. 148. fol. ed. 
 
 gebantur. . . Verum quomodocunque 'Ibid. pp. 5, 49, 60, 147, 148. 
 
 in ea re mecum sentiant aut dissen- edit, prima. 
 
 tiant pontificii, relatione tamen post- m ' Teterrimum, et plane cum mani- 
 
 modum accepi, me potius pontifi- festa impietate conjunctum errorem,' 
 
 cium quam Evangelicum, ab Evan- p. 52. 'Nego igitur et pernego Dei- 
 
 gelicisaliquot'essejudicatum. 'Harch. tatem, aut vim ullam Divinam in ipsa 
 
 ibid. signa infundi : et impium esse hoc 
 
 ' 'De Coena Domini, adversus Jo- dogma rursum dico, eo sensu quo 
 
 doci Harchii Montensis Dogmata, loquitur et scribit Harchius ; non quo 
 
 TheodoriBeKaeResponsio.' Genevae. locuti aunt Patres, quorum senten- 
 
 1580. pages 8 vo. 160. Reprinted in tiam penitus depravat.' Beza, p. 71. 
 
 folio, among the TractatusTheologici, " Beza, p. 66.
 
 528 The Sacramental Part 
 
 stantiation or transubstantiation, which it aimed to correct . He 
 proceeds to confute it at large, in a strong, masterly way, worthy 
 of his great abilities. I shall endeavour to give you a taste of 
 his performance, in a few particulars; though it must be a great 
 disadvantage to it, to appear as it were in miniature, when the 
 whole is so close and concise : but it is necessary, in a manner, 
 to give some kind of summary view of it. 
 
 1. He observes, that the system proposed, under colour of 
 magnifying the signs one way, really lessened and depreciated 
 them another way, as making them bare memorials of what they 
 ought spiritually to exhibit, namely, of the natural body, being in 
 that respect made mere signs, ^bs any picture might beP,) rather 
 than exhibitive signs. And though he endeavoured, another 
 way, to give more honour to the signs than really belonged to 
 them, yet he destroyed the very nature of signs by doing it, and 
 made quite another thing of them, viz. receptacles of the Divinity, 
 not exhibitive signs or symbols of the humanity 1 : which, in effect , 
 was excluding the thing signified out of the Sacrament, and 
 seeking salvation independently on Christ's humanity 1 " ; thereby 
 subverting the economy of man's redemption, which stands in 
 our mystical union with the human nature of Christ 8 . 
 
 2. Beza observes further, at large, that it is manifestly wrong 
 to interpret 'body given for you,' and 'blood shed,' of anything but 
 
 ' Harchius magis etiam ineptam Beza, p. 5 1 . 
 
 sententiam tuetur : qui ut corporis i ' Quamvis enim postea plus etiam 
 
 naturalis localem praesentiam exclu- illis quam nos tribuere videatur, ne- 
 
 dat, Deitatem ipsius Verbi ex carne dum ut ilia extenuet : si quis tamen 
 
 assumpta in panem Ulapsam, velit rem totam propius inspiciat, com- 
 
 intra ipsum panem habitare, adeoque periet omnem signorum rattonem ab 
 
 ipsi re ipsa uniri et permisceri,' pp. ipso aboleri : ut qui panem ilium et 
 
 66, 67. vinum illud, non corporis illius pro 
 
 p 'Docemus Sacrarnentorum signi- nobis traditi, et sanguinis illius pro 
 
 ficationem, divinitus institutam, ne- nobis effusi signa, sed ipsius essen- 
 
 que nudam esse, qualis est pictarum tialis aeterni Filii Dei conceptacula 
 
 imaginum et aliorum ejusmodi vul- esse contendat.' Beza, p. 51. 
 
 garium signorum, sed cum ipsa rerum r 'Neque enim nunc quaerimus, 
 
 significatarum praebitione conjunc- plus an minus in his vel illis detur, 
 
 tarn.' Beza, p. 50. sed an idem detur, id est, ilia ipsa 
 
 'Nimium profecto, parce et jejune Christi humanitas. Si hoc negatis. 
 
 de isto signorum genere loquitur, ergo extra Christi humanitatem sa- 
 
 cum Q3. nvrujL^ffvva. tan turn vocat, quod lutem quaeritis.' Beza, p. 95. 
 
 quam pictis imaginibus convenit.' * Vid. Beza, pp. 96, 97, 123, &c.
 
 of the Eucharist, explained. 5 2 9 
 
 the natural body and blood signified in the Eucharist, and therein 
 also mystically or spiritually given and received *. 
 
 3. Against inherent graces, virtues, powers, &c. he pleads, 
 that to suppose pardon-giving, grace-giving, life-giving powers to 
 be lodged in the elements, is transferring Divine powers from 
 their proper seat, where only they can reside, to things altogether 
 incapable of sustaining them or receiving them : in short, it is 
 communicating to inanimate creatures the incommunicable attri- 
 butes, properties, or powers of God u . 
 
 4. He enforces his plea by observing, that it is attributing 
 more to the signs, than to the Word of God which makes them 
 signs, and of which as high things are predicated in Scripture, 
 but without any supposal of an inherent or intrinsic power infused 
 into, or lodged in the sounds or syllables x . 
 
 5. He enforces it still further by observing, that it is attri- 
 buting more to the inanimate elements than could be justly 
 ascribed to the Apostles or others who wrought miracles ; not 
 by any inherent or intrinsic powers infused into them, but by 
 the sole power of God extrinsic to them y. 
 
 6. He adds, that it is ascribing more to the bread and wine, 
 the sacramental body, than could be justly ascribed even to our 
 Lord's own natural body considered in itself, or abstracted from 
 his Divinity, the only proper seat or subject of such powers z . He 
 dwells upon this topic, as well to guard it from cavil and mis- 
 construction, as to imprint it the deeper on the minds of his 
 readers, being indeed singly sufficient and unanswerable, when 
 rightly understood. For if even a personal union makes not the 
 humanity of Christ life-giving in itself, or so as to become the 
 
 4 Beza, pp. 67, 68, 69, 70, 89, 90. prium quam ipsa Deltas, ad panem 
 
 u ' Spiritualia ac clivina (cujusmodi et vinuin, res inanimatas, transferat, 
 
 incorporatio in Christum, et in eodem aut certe cum illis communicet.' 
 
 collatum justificationis, sanctifica- Beza, pp. 70, 71: conf. 114, 115, 
 
 tionis, et tandem glorificationis, seu 130-136. [Chamier, Panstrat. vol. 
 
 vitae aeternae donum) per alium, ut iv. pp. 91, 93. Hooker, book v. n. 
 
 ullo modo efficientem causam, si quis 57, 67.] 
 
 nobia tribui existimet; aut rerum x Beza, pp. 133, 134, 135. 
 
 Divinarum prorsus est imperitus, aut t Ibid. pp. 75, 76, 77, 132, 133, 
 
 plane impius : ut qui quod unius Dei 1 34. 
 
 est incommunicabiliter, tarn pro- z Ibid. pp. 77, 78, 79, 134. 
 
 M in
 
 530 The Sacramental Part 
 
 proper seat or subject of such powers 8 , much less can any supposed 
 union of the Logos or of the Spirit with the elements make 
 them the subject or seat of life-giving powers b . If it should be 
 pleaded, that a healing virtue went out of Christ's body c , even 
 that would not reach the case, were it really fact ; since healing 
 virtues and grace-giving powers are widely different. But the 
 texts say not that virtue went out of his body, but out of him, or 
 from him : neither is it said, that he felt in his body, but that 
 he knew in himself ; knew that a miraculous operation [Swa/m] 
 had gone forth from him ; which was said, to intimate that a 
 miraculous virtue or power really resided in him, as God-man, 
 but in no man else d . 
 I return to Beza. 
 
 7. He takes occasion to expose the doctrine of an oral man- 
 ducation of Christ, or of the Spirit, as palpably absurd e . 
 
 8. He more particularly exposes the notion of the unworthy 's 
 receiving the ' res Sacramenti/ the grace of the Sacrament, and 
 not with any benefit, but to certain destruction. A contradiction 
 to all the Scripture phrases in that article, phrases of a kind and 
 gracious import, words of favour, and blessing, and comfort ; 
 and such as \vill no more admit of a destructive meaning, than 
 light, or life, or health, or peace, or immortality can admit of it f . 
 Indeed, Christ is offered both to worthy and unworthy in the 
 holy Communion : and to the former, who receive him, he is a 
 life-giver and preserver, while to the latter, who reject him, he 
 is a judge and avenger. Still Christ received is always health, 
 
 " Ata rr t v Tivtaufvyv avrrj wr)v, OUTTJ life-giving. Much less can it be said 
 
 [<rap] a>ojroids. Theod. Dial. p. 184. of the elements, which are not so 
 
 ' Caro Christ! per se vivifica non est, much as hypostatically united, nor 
 
 sed vivificandi vim a Spiritu cui can claim any benefit from the rule 
 
 juncta est, id est, a Divinitate mutu- of ' communicatio idiomatum,' or 
 
 atur.' Albertinus, p. 341 : cp. 758. from the use of personal phrases. 
 
 [Sadeel, pp. 145, 203, 421.] c See Mark v. 30. Luke vi. 19; 
 
 b N.B. The man Christ (according vlii. 46. 
 
 to the rule of ' cormnunicatio idioma- d 'Cognoscens divinum opus a se 
 
 turn,' and after the personal way of patratum.' Vid. OleariusinMatt. pp. 
 
 speaking) may be said to be God, 275. 276. Wolfius, Cur. Crit. in loc. 
 
 Life-giver, &c. But as the human Beza, pp. 86 &c., 100. 
 
 nature cannot be said to be the f Ibid. pp. 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 
 
 Divine nature, so neither can it be [172. Rivet, t. ii. 136. Hooker, book 
 
 said to be efficiently or properly v. n. 67. Towerson, 245.]
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 53 * 
 
 and life, and blessing to the receiver S : and it is Christ rejected, 
 not Christ received, who becomes to every unworthy communicant 
 both a judge and a revenger h . This reasoning appears to be just 
 and solid : and it is worth observing, that, after the latest re- 
 finements in this article, by the help of a distinction between 
 external and intei-nal eating > of the same enriched body k , yet the 
 difficulty remains as before, and cannot be evaded. For unless 
 the unworthy (who are the external eaters) are supposed exter- 
 nally and orally to eat both the bread and the grace, they cannot 
 be said to eat the body, which is supposed to mean and to 
 consist of both, and is not tlie enriched body, if either be want- 
 ing. All that can be made out, in that way, is, that the 
 unworthy eat one part of the pretended spiritual body, and not 
 the other part ; they eat the gross part, viz. the bread, not the 
 finer, viz. the grace : which, in other words, is saying, that they 
 eat not the body ; and therefore the distinction so applied 
 destroys itself. The plain truth is, that nothing but the sign is 
 externally eaten, and nothing but the thing signified is eaten 
 internally : therefore to imagine an external or an internal eating 
 both of sign and thing, confounded in one, and called a spiritual 
 body, is joining together incompatible ideas \ But I pass on. 
 
 S ' Omnes quidem manum et os af- ibid. p. 103. Cp. Beza contr. Pap- 
 
 ferentes symbolarecipiunt.mens vero pum de Unione hypostatica, pp. 1 38, 
 
 verafidenonpraeditaremSacramenti 130, 140. 
 
 repudiat : ac pr< ande reus non fit " ' Christus igitur ipse, turn in 
 
 tails quispiam indigne sumpti corpo- Verbo, turn in Sacramentis, eos qui- 
 
 vis et sanguinis Domini, (nisi per dem a quibus sumitur, id est, fideles, 
 
 corpus et sanguinem ipsa illoium vivificat: incredulos autem non re- 
 
 symbola metonyniia sacramental! ceptus, sed repudiatus judicat.' Beza 
 
 intelligas,) sed corporis et sanguinis contr. Papp. p. 140. 
 
 Domini contempti, et per incredu- ' [The same distinction was ob- 
 
 litatem repudiati Usque adeo served for the same purpose. G. Pas- 
 
 conjuncta sunt et connexa vita et chat. Radbert. p. 1568.] 
 
 caro Christ!, quoniam caro Filii Dei k See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. 
 
 est, ut neque vitae particeps esse pp. 20^, 351-356. 
 
 quisquam extra illius carnis, unici ' ['Duplex est homo, qui comedit, 
 
 vinculi nostrae cum vita colligationis, externus et internus : duplex xnan- 
 
 participationem possit, neque quis- ducatio, qua comeditur, externa et 
 
 quam illius esse particeps, sive in interna : duplex etiam cibus qui 
 
 Verbo, sive in Sacramentis, qui ex comeditur, externus et internus : 
 
 ea non vivificetur : etqui contrarium externus cibus ab externo homine, 
 
 statuunt, Christum dividant : de externa manducatione comeditur : 
 
 quibus quid statuendum sit, docet internus ab interne interna manduc.i- 
 
 Spiritus Sanctus, i John iv. 3.' Beza, tioneparticipatur.'Salmasrus,p.426."! 
 
 M m 2
 
 53 ^ The Sacramental Part 
 
 9. Beza takes notice how Havchius's system might lay a 
 foundation for bread-worship, stronger and firmer than even the 
 Popish one does, because of the union or mixture of essential 
 Divinity with the elements, which it introduces and rests upon. 
 He adds, that it would go near to destroy the 'sursum corda,' the 
 lifting up of the heart, so much and so justly celebrated by the 
 ancients. For if the elements really contain such immense 
 treasures, what need have we to look up to the natural body 
 above ? Or what have we to do but to look down to those 
 impanated riches, to the elements ennobled with all graces and 
 virtues, and replenished with thai very Divinity which makes 
 the humanity so considerable 11 ? 
 
 10. When Beza came to answer on the head of sacrifice, he 
 appeared to be much concerned at Harchius's unfair and un- 
 generous dealing, in reviving stale accusations against Protest- 
 ants, without so much as taking notice of the strong and 
 repeated replies . He avers solemnly, that the reformed had 
 been so far from discarding the eucharistical sacrifice, that they 
 only had most strictly preserved it, or rather retrieved it, fixing 
 it upon its true and ancient basis. Therefore he resented Har- 
 chius's misreport, in this article, as a grievous calumny P upon 
 the Protestant name, since the Protestants had not rejected all 
 sacrifice, no nor so much as a visible sacrifice in the Eucharist ( J. 
 
 This was the turn that Beza gave to that matter ; and it was 
 the right turn, made use of before by Bucer in 1&(6. For Bucer 
 was so far from submitting to the injui-ious charge of discarding 
 the sacrifice, that he retorted that very charge, and justly, upon 
 the accusers themselves : not merely pleading, in behalf of the 
 Protestants against the Romanists, that we have, a sacrifice as 
 well as they, but that we only had kept it, and that they had 
 lost it, or however had so lamentably depraved or smothered it, 
 
 m Beza, pp. 146, 147. i 'Quo sensu veteres Coenam Do- 
 
 n Ibid. p. 147. Ibid. p. 152. mini sacrificium vocarint, apertissime 
 
 P ' Cum totidem ilia constet a liquet. Ostendat autem Harchius 
 
 nobis diligenter fieri, calumniator in ecquid tandem istorum in nostris 
 
 eo deprehendetur, quod sacrificium ecclesiis praetermittatur ; et tune a 
 
 a nobis sublatum esse dicat. ' Beza, nobis visibile sacrificium abolitum 
 
 p. 153. esse clamitet.' Beza, p. 155.
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 
 
 533 
 
 that what remained of it was next to none r . This he said, and 
 this he proved, beyond all reasonable contradiction. They must 
 be very little acquainted with those two excellent men, Bucer and 
 Beza, who can suspect that they admitted of no sacrifice but 
 mental or vocal only : for they were firm and constant friends to 
 the Christian sacrifice, rightly understood ; to external sacrifice s , 
 and that principally in the Eucharist, as all the Fathers were. 
 Had but the Protestant Divines, as many as came after them, 
 been as careful and accurate as they were in the stating the 
 main question, and as constant in abiding by it, many intricate 
 disputes which have since risen might have been happily pre- 
 vented. For, indeed, the great question between the Komanists 
 and us*, is not whether the Eucharist be a proper, or a visible, or 
 an external sacrifice, but whether it be an extrinsic sacrifice or 
 no ; and whether their Eucharist or ours is that Gospel sacrifice 
 
 T ' Demonstrabo haec ipsa veteris 
 Ecclesiae, et S.Patrum sacrificia nos 
 vere offerre et sacrificare : vestros vero 
 sacrificulos ilia cuncta a missis suis 
 omnique sua administrations aut pro r- 
 sus renaovisse, aut certe pervertisse, 
 ut auctoritatibus omnibus S.Patrum 
 extremae impietatis convincantur et 
 condemnentur. ' Bucer contr. La- 
 tom. lib. ii. p. 146. 
 
 ' Planum faciain in nostris ecelesiis 
 restituta esse cum genera oinnia sa- 
 crificiorum et oblationum quae offerre 
 vetus Ecclesia solita est . . . deinde 
 ostendam Ecclesiae veteris sacrificia 
 et oblationes per vestros sacrifices 
 aut esse omnino sublata, aut penitus 
 perversa.' Bucer, ibid. p. 246. Cp. 
 pp. 144, 261. 
 
 8 External sacrifice has been owned, 
 not only by Bucer and Beza, but by 
 Hooper, Jewel, Bilson, Fulke, Z'an- 
 chius, Chrastovius, Mornaeus, Schar- 
 pius, Field, Spalatensis, Montague, 
 Lany, Patrick, and many more, who 
 yet admitted none but spiritual sacri- 
 fice : neither do I know that any of 
 the old Protestant Divines ever re- 
 jected external sacrifice, but in the 
 sense of extrinsic, in which both 
 Scripture and Fathers reject it. 
 
 N. B. Extrinsic sacrifice means 
 something 'ab extra,' as a goat, a 
 lamb, a loaf, all extrinsic to us : 
 intrinsic is what proceeds *ab intus,' 
 from within ourselves ; as all our 
 true services do, whether internal 
 and invisible, or external and visible: 
 and therefore if all true services are 
 properly sacrifices, there must of con- 
 sequence be some visible, external 
 sacrifices. But we ought carefully 
 to note, how the ancient writers 
 used words or phrases. If I mistake 
 not, Lactantius and Austin rejected 
 all visible sacrifice, admitting none 
 but invisible, under the Gospel : but 
 then they meant by invisible, the 
 same with intrinsic ; and they call it 
 invisible with respect to its invisible 
 source, as it comes from within. 
 
 * [' Missa, sicubi a sacerdote cele- 
 brari solet, neque sacrificium pro- 
 pitians est, neque laudis aut gratia- 
 rum actionis, neque Deo accepta aut 
 probata, sed horribilis et detestabilis 
 res, de qua Servatoris illud verissime 
 dici potent. Quod celsum est coram 
 hominibus, id abominandum est co- 
 ram Deo.' Cranmer, Defens. Doctrin. 
 de Sacramento, p. 150.]
 
 534 The Sacramental Part 
 
 which our Lord instituted, and which all antiquity acknowledged. 
 It will be found, upon just inquiry, that our eucharistical 
 sacrifice is the true one, and that their bread -sacrifice (for it 
 is really no better, fiction set aside) is as much a corruption, 
 though not altogether so novel or so dangerous a corruption, as 
 their bread-worship. But I return. 
 
 From the time of Beza's answer, Harchius and his system 
 have been very little mentioned : both seem to have been almost 
 buried in oblivion for a hundred and twenty years or more. 
 Only Mr. Bale takes notice u of some slight mention made of 
 Harchius, by Rivet, in some letters to Militiere, alias Brachet, 
 in the last century. Indeed the Romanists, since that time, 
 have sometimes invidiously and insidiously charged the Protest- 
 ants as interpreting the words of institution to such a sense as 
 either to make two personal bodies of Christ, or to imagine some 
 other fictitious body, substituted as the 'res sacramenti,' instead 
 of the natural. The Protestants rejected the injurious aspersion 
 with disdain, resenting it as a great reproach, to be so much as 
 suspected of any such thing x ; but insisting upon it, in the 
 strongest manner, that the words, 'this is my body,' and 'this is 
 my blood,' could not reasonably be interpreted of anything else 
 but the natural body and blood, represented, and sacramentally 
 exhibited, in the holy Communion y. 
 
 From the accounts now laid before you, my Reverend Bre- 
 thren, I take the liberty to observe, that some late notions of 
 the Eucharist appear to be little else but the remains of that 
 confusion which first began in the decline of the seventh century : 
 and the fundamental error of all lies in the want of a right 
 notion of symbolical language, as before hinted. Hence it is 
 
 u In the Supplement to Bajle's igitur corpus illud ; id est, solida 
 
 Dictionary, or in the last French substantia humanae naturae, quam 
 
 edition, in the article Harchius. assumptam in utero Virginis circum- 
 
 * Vid: Chamier, Panstrat. torn. iv. tulit in hypostasi sua Verbuin ; quam 
 
 pp. 528, 529. cruci affixam, et in sepulchre depo- 
 
 > 'Quaeritur ergo, quid sit corpus sitam suscitavit a mortuis.. . . quam 
 
 meum, sanguis meus. Nos candide, denique transtulit in caelos, inde 
 
 et libere, ac libenter respondemus, reddendam terris postremo adventu. ' 
 
 Kara TO farov interpretandum, cum Chamier. Panstrat. torn. iv. p. 528. 
 
 Hesvchio in Levitici xxii est
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 535 
 
 that signs have been supposed either literally to be, or literally to 
 inclose, the very things signified, viz. the Divine body, or the 
 Divine graces, virtues, or powers. Beza cleared up what con- 
 cerned the latter with great acumen and force : and the whole 
 question has been more mimitely discussed since by several able 
 hands z ; but more especially by the very acute and learned 
 Chamier, who has in reality exhausted the question, both 
 historically and argumentatively, in his disputes against the 
 Romanists a . 
 
 I may note by the way, that the Romanists, from the time 
 of the Trent Council b , have commonly maintained some kind of 
 physical efficiency in the outward sacraments, together with in- 
 herent graces as infused into the elements : though some of their 
 ablest Divines have scarce known what to make of the Trent 
 doctrine on that head, but have in a manner given up the thing, 
 contending merely for words or names. Cardinal Allen, one of 
 the shrewdest of them, saw the absurdity of the notion, and ex- 
 posed it : being aware how ridiculous it would be, to imagine 
 any inherent or intrinsic powers to have been infused into clay 
 and spittle, into handkerchiefs and aprons, or into St. Peter's 
 shadow c : neither durst Bellarmine afterwards be at all positive 
 on that head d . But yet both of them were minded to contrive 
 
 z Hooker, book v. chap. 57, 60, sit. Nam si oorporalis esset, nihil 
 
 67. Gasp. Laurentius, Defens. Sa- adjuvaret ad spiritualem effectum 
 
 deelis, p. 382, &c. Rivet. Cathol. magia quam ipsa natura aquae : et 
 
 Orth. torn. ii. p. 5, &c. Vossius de spiritualis qualitas non potest inesse 
 
 Sacram. Vi et Efficacia. Le Blanc, in corpore tanquam in subjecto. Sed 
 
 Thes p. 253. Preservative against id volunt, hanc esse virtutem Sa- 
 
 Popery, vol. ii. tit. 7. p. 32. Alber- cramentorum, ordinari, moveri, ap- 
 
 tinus, p. 503. [Davenant, Determ. plica-i, elevari a Deo ad effectum 
 
 p 108. Salmasius, p. 429, &c. Ward, spiritualem Christus accipiendo 
 
 Determ. p. 62. Spalatensis, 910.] lutum aut salivam, non impressit 
 
 Chamier, Panstrat. torn. iv. pp. illis, multo minus umbrae Petri, 
 
 51-96. aliquam qualitatem medicam; sed 
 
 h ' Si quis dixerit Sacramenta no- utendo, ac applicando, elevavit eas, 
 
 vae legis non eontinere gratiam quam ad quascunque sanitates producen- 
 
 significant, .... anathema sit.' Con- das: cum ipsae qualitates sana- 
 
 cil. Trident, sess. vii. can. 6. tivas actu inhaerentes atque sta- 
 
 c ' Noli putare id Patres dicere, biles non haberent.' Alanus de 
 
 quasi sit aliqua permanens qualitas a Euchar. p. 130. Compare my Ee- 
 
 Deo infusa Sacramento, aut ejus view, abov^e, pp. 275, 276. 
 materiae, cum ea qualitas neque d ' Non esse controversial!! de 
 
 spiritualis, neque corporalis esse pos- modo quo Sacramenta sunt causae,
 
 536 The Sacramental Part 
 
 some verbal evasion, whereby to make a show of maintaining 
 what in reality they had yielded up. They pretended I know 
 not what Divine movement, raising or enabling the elements to 
 produce the effect : which was somewhat like the subtilty of 
 those who, not knowing how to ascribe thought to matter, as 
 such, either added motion to matter, or had recourse to Divine 
 omnipotence, to salve the hypothesis. Only there is this difference 
 between the two cases, that thought is a communicable attribute, 
 which a creature may have ; but a grace-giving power is incom- 
 municable, and can reside only in a Divine Being. Gerard Vossius 
 has well observed 6 , that the evasion before mentioned was a mere 
 evasion : and indeed it amounts only to so many unmeaning 
 words, artfully thrown together as a fine-spun covering, to hide 
 the flaws of a false hypothesis. Be the Divine movement what it 
 will, it can never shake God's attributes from his essence, or his 
 incommunicable powers from his nature, so as to transfer or 
 impart them to a foreign subject. God may co-operate with the 
 elements, so as to affect the soul, while they affect the body : 
 but his operations and powers, though assistant or concurrent, 
 are not inherent or intermingled, but are entirely distinct ; and 
 are as truly extrinsic to the elements, as the Deity is to the 
 creature. When and where the elements are duly administered 
 and received, God does then and there work the effect, pursuant 
 to his promise and covenant f . The elements are the occasional 
 
 an physice, &c et rursum si ratur, et concurrit ad productionem 
 
 physice, an per aliquam qualitatem effectus supernaturalis.' Albertinus, 
 
 inhaerentem, an per solsvm Dei mo- p. 503. 
 
 tionem.' Bellann. lib, ii. cap. i. 'Res ipsa quae unitur nobiscum in 
 
 p. 30. conjunotione spiritual!, nequaquam 
 
 ' Commentum hoc de effectu ab curn illis signis unitur : alioqui sa- 
 
 actionis vi orto, nee tamen a vi cramentalis etiam haec unio [unio 
 
 interna ejus, cujus actio est, profecto pacti] esset dicenda spiritualis ; quae 
 
 merum Kpri<r<pvyfrov est, eademque ipsa quoque signa vivificaret; et 
 
 facilitate, qua citra probationem signa ipsa sacramentalia non am- 
 
 ullam affertur, etiarn rejici debet.' plius essent instruments, sed ipsa 
 
 Vossius de Sacram. Vi et Efficacia, fbrent causa efficiens et formalis : 
 
 p 253. [Cp. Davenant, Deterinin. quod est a.8f6\oyov, et naturae Sa- 
 
 23. pp. 1 08, 109. Ward, Determ. crarnentorum, atque Spiritus Sancti 
 
 pp. 62, 44.] energiae, fideique proprietati omnino 
 
 f c Effectum non attingunt proprie, repugnans.' Gasp. Laurent. Index, 
 
 sed operari dicuntur, quia ubi sunt, Error. Greg, de Valent. in Opp. Sa- 
 
 Deus juxta promissionem suam ope- deel, p. 382. ['Nos non dicimus
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 537 
 
 causes, as it were, and he the efficient : this is the whole of that 
 matter. 
 
 If what hath been said may be thought sufficient to vindicate 
 the received doctrine of this Sacrament, as a sacrament, then the 
 other notion of it, together with the bread-sacrifice built upon it, 
 must fall of course : and we may reasonably rest contented with 
 what our excellent Church has all along taught us, both of the 
 sacrament and sacrifice : which in truth is no other doctrine but 
 what the New Testament, and the- Fathers of the Church from 
 the beginning, and downwards for six whole centuries, have de- 
 livered : here fix we, and abide. And that the reasonableness of 
 our so abiding may yet more clearly and more succinctly appear, 
 I beg leave here to throw in a few pertinent considerations, for a 
 kind of recapitulation of what I have before said. 
 
 i. Let it be considered what pains have been taken some 
 way or other to enrich and ennoble a bread-sacrifice, in order 
 to make it bear, or to suit it to a Gospel state, and yet none 
 of the ways will answer upon a strict trial ; unless we could be 
 content to rest in words which have no consistent or no deter- 
 mined ideas. Shall we fill the elements with Divinity, like as 
 our Lord's personal body is filled S ? A vain thought ! But 
 supposing it were fact, yet shall we sacrifice the Divine essence, 
 or any of the Divine persons ? God forbid. Yet Harchius, in 
 his way, was forced to admit of that absurdity, in order to make 
 
 sacramenta conferre gratiam per magnifying the consecrated elements, 
 
 unam illis inditam aut vim aut qua- (chiefly since the seventh century,) 
 
 litatem (sive naturalem, sive super- are these five : 
 
 naturalem) quod est gratiam conferre I . As the Adyos deified,, in a man- 
 
 per modum causae physicae : sed ner, the natural body ; so, &c. 
 
 ilicuntur, ex nostrae Ecclesiae sen- 2. As the fulness of the Godhead 
 
 tentia, efficacia gratiae signa, quia dwelt in Christ's body ; so, &c. 
 
 divina virtus hisce sacramentis ad 3. As the Holy Ghost formed the 
 
 producendum gratiae effectum, certo body in the womb ; so, &c. 
 
 et infallibiliter ex tenore foederis et 4. As the Holy Ghost inhabited 
 
 Christi promissione, assistit, ut viz. the man Jesus ; so, &c. 
 
 rationem habeant causae sine qua 5. As the burning bush was a 
 
 non, vel potius causae instrumenta- shechinah of God ; so, &c. 
 
 lis, generaliter dictae, instrumentum All of them novel, and foreign ; 
 
 morale vocant.' Sam. Ward, De- and betraying great forgetfulness of 
 
 term. p. 44.] symbolical language, or sacramental 
 
 B The similitudes made use of for phrases.
 
 53 8 The Sacramental Part 
 
 out his pure and unbloody, and propitiatory sacrifice ll : and so 
 must all they who build upon the same general principles, if 
 they mean to be consistent with themselves. 
 
 Or shall we, to avoid the former absurdity, endeavour only 
 to enrich the elements with grace-giving or life-giving powers * ? 
 That would be sacrificing the Divine attributes, as before, only 
 with the additional absurdity of abstracting them from the 
 essence, and placing them in a creature, an inanimate creatui-e. 
 
 Or shall we call it only the sacrificing of grace and pardon, 
 first lodged in the elements, and next transferred from them to 
 us ? But how shall we make sense of it k : and if we could, how 
 would it answer the purposes intended by it ? It is very certain, 
 that good Christians are endowed with infused and inherent 
 graces. Now, supposing that the elements have the same, (which 
 however is a wild supposition,) yet that could only make the 
 elements, so far, equal to every good Christian : and still the 
 good Christian, though equal only in that view, will be as much 
 a nobler sacrifice than the elements, as man, the living image 
 of God, is better than a dead loaf. Why then so much earnest- 
 ness for a dead sacrifice, (were it really any,) in preference to so 
 many better living ones ? Or what sense or consistency can there 
 
 h Harchius, Patr. Consens. pp. sacramental solemnity, in which God 
 
 240, 263, 273, 275, 280, 299, 300. bears his part: and then it is no 
 
 i [ ' Ea igitur commixtio spiritus more than saying, that God is in the 
 
 et panis quam patres in his sacra- Sacraments, as he really is, and ope- 
 
 mentis fieri dicunt, non in ipso rates in both, as he really does. It 
 
 pane fit, neque in ipso calice, sed in may be justly said, that the abiding 
 
 corde sumentis per fidem.' Salmas. virtue of Baptism, (not the inherent 
 
 429. See above, pp. 513, 514. virtue of water, which is none,) oper- 
 
 Coinpare Pfaffius, 414, 431, 432, ates as long as a man lives. See 
 
 446. 'Neither the bread nor the Review, above, p. 216. That is, 
 
 water giveth life but only the God applies and continues the graces 
 
 might and power of Christ that is in and privileges of that seal, and his 
 
 them : and yet not in them reserved, work is sure and lasting. And if 
 
 but in the action and ministration : God operated with the consecrated 
 
 as is manifest from his (Epiphanius's) elements reserved in the Church, or 
 
 words.' Cranmer, p. 327.] in private houses, for many days or 
 
 k N.B. Whatever the Fathers may weeks aftt-r ; it was not because the 
 
 be conceived to have, looking at all elements retained any inherent vir- 
 
 tliat way, is either to be understood tues, but because God is true and 
 
 of what is concurrent with the ele- constant to his own covenants or 
 
 ments, not inhering in them ; or else, ordinances, 
 it is to be interpreted of the whole
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 539 
 
 be in proclaiming, that such dead sacrifice, and offered by man, 
 is the most sublime and Divine sacrifice that men or angels can 
 offer l ; especially considering, that the value of the sacrifice can 
 never rise higher than the value of the sacrifice!" m 1 
 
 Shall we at length say (which appears to be the last refuge) 
 that the sacred elements are the most perfect and consummate 
 representatives of the natural body and blood, answering to the 
 originals as completely, as exemplified copies do to charters, or 
 to letters patents 1 Such words are easily thrown out : but what 
 sense do they bear, or what Scripture or Fathers have ever used 
 them n ? Or to what purpose can it be, to make use of swelling 
 and magnificent phrases, without any coherent or determinate 
 ideas'? Besides that even the original body and blood do not 
 operate efficiently, as the elements are supposed to do, but 
 meritoriously , and that by means of the Divinity which 
 personally resided and resides in them : therefore, unless the 
 elements have the same Divinity personally united with them, 
 they can be no such consummate proxy as hath been pretended. 
 Upon the whole, this account must either at length resolve into 
 a personal union of the elements with the Logos, or amount to 
 nothing. I have endeavoured to turn and try this matter every 
 way, in order to guard the more strongly against a common 
 failing, viz. the resting in a string of unmeaning words, which 
 really carry in them no certain or no consistent ideas. For so 
 it is, that false systems generally have been kept up by such as 
 
 I Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. pp. and foreign similitude, and was thus 
 60,67,141. Compare my Appendix answered: 
 
 to Christian Sacrifice Explained, pp. ' Stupenda prorsus est hominis au- 
 
 451-453 of this volume. dacia, veteribus tribuentis id de quo 
 
 m See my Christian Sacrifice Ex- ne per somnium quidem cogitarunt, 
 
 plained, p. 441. Pet. Martyr. Com- Quis enim illorum unquam observa- 
 
 ment. ad i Cor. pp. 48, 65. Zan- vit, aut tantillum subinnuit, eucha- 
 
 chius, torn. vi. pp. 212, 215, alias ad ristiam hoc sensu antitypum appeb 
 
 Ephes. p. 424. Benedict. Aretixis, lari ? Nulius, nemo.' Albert! n us, p. 
 
 Loc. Comm. p. 394. Pet. du Moulin, 377: cp. pp, 437, 443,471. [Cp. 
 
 Buckler of Faith, p. 416. Anatome Salmas. pp. 26, 27.] 
 
 Missae, p. 168. Rivet. Summ. Con- ' Agnoscimus carnem vere vivifU 
 
 trov. torn. ii. p. ic8. Arumadv. ad care, quatenus oblafca fiiit Deo. .. 
 
 C'assand. p. 38. tanquam causa meritoria, sed non 
 
 II Cardinal Perron made use of vivificare corporibus nostris recep- 
 that vaunting plea, that affected tam.' Rivet, torn. ii. p. 138,
 
 54 The Sacramental Part 
 
 intend not to deceive others, but are really deceived themselves : 
 and it is difficult to persuade them to call over their ideas, or to 
 examine their terms with due care. 
 
 2. To what has been said I shall only add, that it is worth 
 considering, that many true and sound principles of our own 
 Church, and of the ancient churches also, (as may be under- 
 stood from what has been hinted,) must be given up, before we 
 could admit the bread-sacrifice ; and that when it is brought in, 
 it can never find rest, till it thrusts out the sacrifice of the cross, 
 as I have shewn elsewhere r. Some perhaps might modestly 
 resolve to stop in the midway ; but they would be the less 
 consistent in doing it : for the natural, necessary, unavoidable 
 consequence of the other principle, regularly pursued, must at 
 length terminate in rejecting the cross-sacrifice. If our Eucharist 
 is a sacrifice of the elements, so was our Lord's also ; or else 
 ours and his will not tally : and he must have sacrificed himself 
 at the same time ; or else other accounts will not answer Q. 
 And if such was the case, the sacrifice of the cross was effectually 
 precluded, since our Lord was to make a sacrifice of himself but 
 once r . The sacrifice of the cross cannot, in this way, be con- 
 sidered as a continuation of the sacrifice of the original Eucharist, 
 for these reasons : i . The subject-matter could not be the same : 
 for neither bread nor wine could have any place in the oblation 
 of the cross. 2. The number could not be one; for in the 
 original Eucharist are supposed two sacrifices, the elemental 
 and personal, whereas upon the cross there could be no more 
 than the personal. 3. The form of the sacrifice could not be the 
 same, but different as bloody and unbloody. 4. The priesthood 
 (which is most material) could not be the same : for it is denied 
 that Christ offered at the cross a Melchizedekian sacrifice 8 , or 
 
 P Appendix, chap. iv. p. 4/o> &c. dam, nisi ut dicant (quemadmodum 
 
 i Ibid. p. 479. insipidissimus rabula Smythaeus ali- 
 
 1 Ibid. pp. 475, 479. quando scripsit, et postea publice 
 
 8 ['Si fuit in coeua sacerdos, ut Londini A.D. 1549, *d crucem D. 
 
 volunt, juxto ordinein Melchisedech, Pauli recantavit) Christum in cruce 
 
 in cruentum offerendo sacrificium, tantum fuisse sacerdotem secundum 
 
 qualis in cruce sacerdos fuit, ubi ordinein Aaronis.' Pet. Mart, contr. 
 
 sanguis est effusus? Nil deest ad Gardin. p. 60. Cp. FulkeinHeb. vii. 
 
 illorum stultitiam ecclesiae propinan- pp. 748, 749. Heskyns (1566), b. i.
 
 of the Eucharist explained. 541 
 
 offered as a Melchizedekian priest *. 5. Lastly, the value 
 could not be the same : for two must be supposed better than 
 one, if each of them has its respective value ; or if not, why 
 was not one of them spared ? And a Melchizedekian sacrifice 
 must be supposed the most honoui'able and the most valuable 
 of any, and so of course must supersede all other. In short, the 
 cross- sacrifice, in this way, must either be excluded, or else 
 grievously disparaged, by being brought in as second, and in- 
 ferior to the higher sacrifice before made in the Eucharist. Some 
 learned persons, ancient and modern, have reasonably conceived 
 three several parts or views of one continued oblation of Christ 
 our Lord u : but then they have conceived it in quite another 
 sense, and upon very different principles, nothing at all akin to 
 the notion of the bread-sacrifice. They might, in their way, 
 consistently maintain one continued oblation ; which others 
 cannot, for the reasons just mentioned. Therefore, though it 
 is a very great error to reject the sacrifice of the cross, yet since 
 it is but the necessary consequence of the principle before men- 
 tioned, and is no more than arguing right from wrong premises ; 
 it seems that the first or greatest fault lies in retaining the 
 principle, after it is clearly seen what company it must go with, 
 and what precipices it leads to. I forbear to press these matters 
 further, and should have been glad to have had no occasion for 
 pressing them so far. May God give a blessing to what is 
 sincerely intended for the service of truth and godliness : and 
 may that Divine Spirit which accompanies the word and sacra- 
 ments, and dwells in all the faithful, grant us a sound judgment 
 and a right understanding in all things. 
 
 c. 13. p. 28. c. 28 ; p. 70. Vasquez. See Appendix, above, p. 463 &c., 
 
 533. Alanus, 534. Appendix 41, 471. 
 
 54, 28.] See Review, above, p. 337.
 
 DISTINCTIONS OF SACRIFICE 
 
 SET FORTH IN 
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVERED IN PART TO 
 
 THE CLERGY OF MIDDLESEX, 
 
 At the Easter Visitation, 1740. 
 
 Nos panem et vinum, in usu sacrae Coenae, sanctificari concedimus : sacri- 
 ficari nunquam dabimus. Mason, de Minister. Anglican, p. 575.
 
 REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 THOUGH I have dwelt some time upon the Christian sacrifice, 
 perhaps even to a degree of tediousness ; yet considering the 
 great importance of the subject, I am not willing to dismiss it, 
 while I see room left for throwing in any further light upon it. 
 This may be done, as I conceive, by a more minute considera- 
 tion of the several distinctions, or names of distinction, which 
 saci-ifice, of one kind or other, has passed under, in Church 
 writers ; those especially of the earlier times, not neglecting 
 others of later date. 
 
 My design therefore, at present, is to bring together into 
 one summary view the most noted distinctions, or names of 
 distinction ; and to explain them one by one, taking in the 
 authorities proper to illustrate their meaning, or to signify 
 their use. 
 
 I. 
 
 The first and most comprehensive division, or distinction of 
 sacrifice, is into four several kinds, denominated from so many 
 several kinds of religion ; Patriarchal, Pagan, Mosaic, and 
 Christian. 
 
 i. The Patriarchal sacrifices commenced, very probably, soon 
 after the fall, and consisted of slain beasts a , prefiguring Christ 
 to be slain, pursuant to some Divine appointment b . Certain it 
 is. that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, and that very early c ; 
 one, of the fruits of the earth ; and the other, of cattle d . Such 
 
 a This hath been probably collect- Demonstr. Evang. lib. i. cap. 10. 
 ed from Gen. iii. 21. See Patrick p. 35. 
 and other commentators. c A.M. 130. Bedford's Scripture 
 
 b See my first Charge of I73f, Chronol. p. 126. 
 Works, vol. v. p. 20. Cp. Eusebius, d Gen. iv. 3, 4. 
 
 K n
 
 546 Distinctions of Sacrifice : Patriarchal, Pagan, 
 
 were the patriarchal sacrifices strictly so called, of the material 
 and extrinsic kind. No doubt but the good Patriarchs offered 
 spiritual sacrifices besides : but those were Gospel sacrifices, (as 
 the Gospel, in some sense, obtained even from the time of the 
 fall e ,) and therefore I reckon not them as purely patriarchal. 
 
 2. The second branch of this division concerns the Pagan 
 sacrifices ; which appear to have been little else but the patri- 
 archal, variously corrupted, at different times, and in different 
 degrees, by superstitious additions or mutilations f . 
 
 3. The Mosaical sacrifices were the patriarchal augmented, 
 regulated, and very minutely diversified, by Divine authority. 
 
 4. The Christian sacrifices are what both the patriarchal and 
 Mosaical, strictly so called, pointed to : they are the things sig- 
 nified, the truth, the substance, the antitypes or archetypes of 
 those types, signs, figures, shadows. Christians have a sacrifice 
 of which they participate, and whereupon they feast, which is no 
 other than the grand sacrifice itself, whereof the patriarchal and 
 Jewish sacrifices were types, or prefigurations : and Christians 
 have sacrifices, which they devoutly offer up as presents? to the 
 Divine Majesty : those are their spiritual sacrifices, (all reducible 
 to one, namely, self-sacrifice,) whereof the patriarchal sacrifices 
 were signs or symbols 11 . So much, in the general, of the first 
 distinction, or fourfold division : some particulars just hinted 
 shall be explained in the sequel, in the places proper. I proceed 
 to a second distinction. 
 
 e See my Review, above, p. 280. cal meaning of the younger name 
 1 ' Tantum interest inter sacrificia 8v<rla, in the Greek, and to vindicate 
 Paganorum et Hebraeorum, quan- the propriety of the appellation, as 
 turn interest inter imitationem erran- to spiritual services, the noblest of 
 tern, et praefigurationem praenunti- all presents to a spiritual Being, 
 antem.' Augustin. contr. Faust, lib. h Of the difference between a type 
 xxi. cap. 21. p. 348. Cp. lib. xxii. and a symbol, see Outram de Sacri- 
 cap. 17. p. 370. ed. Bened. ficiis, p. 203. A type, strictly, is an 
 8 Note, That the two oldest names image or figure of things future : 
 of sacrifice are ' mincha' (Gen. iv. 3) but a symbol is an image or figure 
 and 'corban' (Levit. i. 2), both signi- of things at large, whether past, pre- 
 fying a gift, or present ; and in that sent, or to come. So that ' symbol ' is 
 case, a gift to God. This observa- a more general name than ' type ; ' 
 tion may be of use to cut off all though they are sometimes used pro- 
 fruitless speculations upon the criti- miscuously in ancient writers.
 
 Levitical, Christian : Passive and Active. 547 
 
 II. 
 
 Sacrifices may be considered either in an active view as 
 offered, or in a passive view as participated. The Jewish 
 Passover, or paschal lamb, for instance, might be considered 
 as a sacrifice offered up to God by the priests, or as a sacri- 
 fice participated by the people who feasted upon it. The case 
 is the same, so far, with our Lord's sacrifice : for he is our 
 Passover, sacrificed for us'. He is the Lamb of God, as he 
 offered himself up a sacrifice to God : he is our Paschal Lamb, 
 as we participate of him, and feed upon him k . This distinc- 
 tion of active and passive sacrifice is not met with among the 
 ancients, in terms : but it is sufficiently wan-anted by the ideas 
 of the New Testament, and by the doctrine of the primitive 
 Churches ; and it is founded in the very reason and nature of 
 things. To explain this matter, let it be observed, that our 
 Lord's sacrifice, actively considered, as a proper act of sacri- 
 ficing, was performed once for all, was one transient act : but 
 the subject-matter of it, viz. Christ himself, and the virtue of 
 that sacrifice, are permanent things, to be for ever commemo- 
 rated, exhibited, participated. Christ entered into heaven with 
 'his oAvn blood 1 ;' and in virtue of the cross-sacrifice, he 
 'abideth a priest continually, ever living to make intercession 
 for us m .' In such a sense his sacrifice abides, and we per- 
 petually participate of it ; sometimes symbolically, as in the 
 two Sacraments ; and at other times without symbols, by faith 
 only and good life. In this sense it is that Christians are said 
 to 'have an altar whereof to eat n :' and if an altar, they must 
 have a sacrifice, for the same reason, and in the like sense. 
 The same thing is intimated by St. Paul, in the comparison 
 
 ' i Cor. v. 7. tidie in Ecclesia fit. Juxta hoc, 
 
 k Ferns, a learned and moderate offerve debemus sacrificium laudis, 
 
 Romanist, who died A.D. 1554, ex- item sacrificium justitiae. imo nos 
 
 pressed this matter very justly, and ipsos.' Joan. Fer. in Genes, cap. 
 
 after the Protestant way. viii. p. 248. A.D. 1550. 
 ' In Ecclesia autem, sacrificium ' Heb. ix. 12. 
 
 nostrum est Christus : qui semel qui- m Ibid. vii. 3, 25. 
 
 dem seipflum obtulit, memoria tamen n Ibid. xiii. 10. See my Review, 
 
 et repraesentatio ejvis eacrificii quo- above, p. 95, &c. 
 
 K n 2
 
 548 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 which he draws between the partakers of the Jewish altar 
 and the Christian communicants : for as the Jews literally 
 feasted upon the typical sacrifices, so Christians spiritually feast 
 upon the body and blood of Christ, the true and grand sacrifice. 
 Therefore Christ's sacrifice is our sacrifice, but in the passive 
 sense, for us to partake of, not to give unto God. Christ 
 once gave himself to God for us, and now gives himself to us, 
 to feast upon, not to sacrifice. This distinction is worth the 
 noting, for the explaining numerous passages of the Fathers ; 
 either, where they speak of Christ himself as the Church's sacri- 
 fice P, or where they consider the grand sacrifice as dispensed ex- 
 communicated <i in the Eucharist, by and through the symbols, 
 to as many as are worthy. 
 
 But while Scripture and Fathers thus speak of Christ himself, 
 or of his body and blood, as the sacrifice whereof Christians 
 partake, that is, of sacrifice in the passive sense, or passive view, 
 with respect to us the receivers of it ; yet the same Scripture 
 and Fathers do as plainly and as frequently speak of other 
 sacrifices belonging to Christians, such as they actively offer 
 up to God, and present as their own sacrifices, the best they 
 have to give ; and those are their spiritual sacrifices, of which 
 I shall say more under a distinct head, in its place. Enough, 
 I hope, hath been said for the explaining both the meaning 
 and the use of the distinction between active and passive sacri- 
 fice, between performing a sacrifice, and participating of what 
 has been sacrificed. Our religious duties or services are our 
 only sacrifices in the active view ; and Christ once offered is 
 our only sacrifice in the passive or receptive view ; as was 
 
 i Cor. x. 1.6-21. nobis caro et sanguis Domini, novuin 
 
 P See Christian Sacrifice Explained, sacrificiuni.' Augustin.iu Ps. xxxiii. 
 
 pp. 418, 419. p. 211. torn. iv. 
 
 H ' Memoriam sui ad altare tuum, ' Quod addidit, manducare pauem, 
 
 Deus, furi desideravit [Monica] cui etiam ipsum sacrificii genus eleganter 
 
 nullius diei intermissione servierat, expressit, de quo dicit sacerdos ipse, 
 
 unde sciret dispensari victimam sa- panis quern ego dedero, caro mea 
 
 cram, qua deletum est chirographum pro saeculi vita. Ipsum est sacri- 
 
 quod erat contrarium nobis.' Au- ficium, non secundum Aaron, sed 
 
 gustin. Confess, lib. ix. cap. 13. p. secundum Me'. chizedecli.' Augustin. 
 
 170. torn. i. edit. Bened. de Civit. Dei, lib. xviii. cap. 5. p. 
 
 ' Ut jam de cruce commendaretnr 466. torn. rii.
 
 Extrinsic and Intrinsic. 549 
 
 formerly well distinguished by a moderate Roman Catholic r , 
 who met with hard usage for so freely speaking the truth. 
 But I pass on. 
 
 III. 
 
 Another very noted and necessary distinction is between 
 sacrifice extrinsic and intrinsic. Christians have no extrinsic 
 sacrifice but Christ ; and that with regard to participation 
 only, as before hinted : all their other sacrifices, wherein they 
 themselves are the sacrificers, are of the intrinsic kind, are 
 ' ab intus,' from within the persons themselves ; being either 
 good thoughts, good words, or good ways, all of them issues 
 of the heart s . This is ancient and catholic doctrine : for thus 
 did the primitive Fathers distinguish the Christian sacrifices 
 from the sacrifices of Jews and Pagans ; which were of the 
 extrinsic kind, were extraneous to the man, such as sheep, goats, 
 beeves, fruits, cakes, or the like. What Barnabas says of God's 
 now requiring an human oblation, instead of the old legal sacri- 
 fices t, may best be interpreted by this key : it is the man that 
 God requires as his sacrifice; and he is to give to God, not 
 things extrinsic, but his whole self, his soul and body, his mind 
 and heart ". 
 
 Origen expresses the distinction in plain and broad terms, 
 observing that every good man has his sacrifice in himself v : 
 
 r ' Rite in missa dicitur a sanctis Jesu Christi, quae sine jugo necessi- 
 
 Patribus offerri et sacrificari corpus tatis est, humanam habeat oblati- 
 
 Christi. i. Eo sensu quo asserunt onem. . . . Nobis enim dicit, sacri- 
 
 Ecclesiam offeree in missa semet- ficium Deo cor tribulatum,' &c. 
 
 ipsam et preces. 2. Quia in missa Barnab. Epist. c. ii. p. 55. Compare 
 
 repraesentatur et commemoratur my Eeview, above, p. 314. 
 sacrificium crucis et passionis Christi, u ' Deus non pecudis sanguine, sed 
 
 imncupatur sacrificium commemora- hominis pietate placatur.' Lactant. 
 
 tivum. 3. Capiendo sacrificium pas- Epist. p. 204. 
 
 sive, pro sacrificato, noviter appli- ' Non vult ergo sacrificium truci- 
 
 cato nobis, asseritur rite sacrificium dati pecoris, sed vult sacrificium con- 
 
 missae ; quia in ea continetur corpus triti cordis.' Augustin. de Civit. 
 
 Christi quod fuit vere sacrificatum Dei, lib. x. cap. 5. p. 241. torn. vii. 
 in unico illo sacrificio crucis.' Joan. v 'Unusquisque nostrum habet in 
 
 Barnes. Catholico Roman. Pacific, in se holocaustum suum, et holocausti 
 
 Brown. Fascic. torn. ii. p. 849. sui ipse succendit altare, ut semper 
 
 8 Prov. iv. 23. ardeat.' Origen. in Levit. Horn. ix. 
 
 4 ' Haec ergo [sacrificia] vacua p. 243. 
 fecit, ut nova lex Domini nostri
 
 550 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 that he sends it up to God from within, from, his own self : 
 that sons, or daughters, or farms, or cattle, are all of them 
 extraneous, or extrinsic, to the man : that self-sacrifice is be- 
 yond all other, as it is copying after the example of Christ x . 
 Origen was not singular in thus commending self-sacrifice, as 
 the best of any, and the sum total of all : other ancient Fathers 
 of the Church have done the like 7. It is a maxim of truth, 
 aud of common sense, that self-sacrifice is always the best that 
 any person or persons can offer, because it comprehends them 
 and all theirs. An angel's self-sacrifice is the most that such 
 angel can offer, and our Lord's self-sacrifice was the most that 
 he could offer, and every man's self-sacrifice is the most that 
 such man can offer. There is a seeming objection to this truth, 
 drawn from the consideration of an authorized minister's offering 
 up to God his own people ; who, collectively at least, must be 
 owned to be better than he. But then it is to be remembered, 
 that such authorized minister therein acts ' in persona ecclesiae,' 
 in a public capacity, as an officer of the church z ; and so it is 
 the whole church which offers what is offered in and through 
 him. But I return. 
 
 To Origen I may subjoin Lactantius, who rejects all extrinsic 
 sacrifice, everything extraneous to the man ; alleging that God 
 requires only what comes from within ; from the heart, not from 
 the chest; offered up by the mind, not by the hand 8 . This 
 
 * ' Vota autem Domino offerre an offering, by Divine institution, 
 
 nemo potest, nisi qui habet aliquid be made to rise higher than the 
 
 in semetipso, et in substantia sua, valae of the man ? No : for if it 
 
 quod offerat Deo. . . . Filium offerre, is made the man's property, (and 
 
 vel filiam, aut pecus, ant praedium, otherwise he cannot give or sacrifice 
 
 hoc totum extra nos est. Semet- it,) the proprietor is still more valu- 
 
 ipsum Deo offerre, et iion alieno la- able than the property, as contain- 
 
 bore, sed proprio placere, hoc est ing it. Object. 2. Is not the offer- 
 
 perfectius et eminentius omnibus ing Christ to view, more valuable 
 
 votis : quod qui facit, imitator est than offering ourselves ? No : be- 
 
 Christ!.' Origen. in Num. Horn, cause it is service only, and no ser- 
 
 xxiv. p. 364. ed. Bened. vice is more valuable than the ser- 
 
 y See references to them in Chris- vant himself: besides, such offering 
 
 tian Sacrifice Explained, Append, to view is not sacrificing Christ : so 
 
 p. 452, above. the objection runs wide of the point. 
 
 1 See Christian Sacrifice Explained, a ' Quid igitur ab homine desiderat 
 
 Append, p. 452, above. Deus, nisi cultum mentis, qui est 
 
 Object. I. May not the value of purus et sanctus? Nam ilia quae
 
 Extrinsic and Intrinsic. 55 l 
 
 is not excluding good services, whether external or internal, 
 whether mental, vocal, or manual : for they are intrinsic to the 
 person, are as the man himself, amounting to, or resolving into 
 self-sacrifice. What our Lord says of evil thoughts, words, and 
 deeds, that they come from within, and out of the heart b , must 
 be equally true of all good services ; for the reason is the same 
 in both. This I hint, lest any one should interpret intrinsic 
 sacrifice of mental service only, exclusive of vocal or manual, 
 confounding intrinsic sacrifice with internal, which is of different 
 consideration, and belongs to another head of division, as will 
 be seen in the sequel. But I proceed to other authorities. 
 
 Chrysostom understood the distinction between extrinsic and 
 intrinsic sacrifice, rejecting the one as Jewish, and recommend- 
 ing the other as proper to the Gospel : those he says were from 
 without, these from within c . His disciple Isidore fell in with 
 the like sentiments, in his reflections on Eom. xii. i, ' Present 
 your bodies a living sacrifice d ,' &c. St. Austin is very clear and 
 expressive on the same head : for after rejecting all extrinsic 
 sacrifice, (actively considered,) he then asks the question, 'What? 
 have we therefore nothing to offer 1 ? Shall we so come before 
 God? So hope to appease him?' He answers : 'By all means 
 offer : you have within you what you are to offer. Look not 
 abroad for frankincense, but say, In me are thy sacrifices of 
 praise, O God, which I am to render thee. Seek not abroad 
 for cattle to slay ; you have within yourself what you should 
 slay. The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit e .' I may here- 
 
 aut digitis fiunt, aut extra hominem torn. xii. Bened. ed. 
 
 sunt, inepta, fragilia, ingrata sunt. d Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. Epist. 
 
 Hoc est sacrificium verum, non quod 75. p. 284. 
 
 ex area, sed quod ex corde prefer- e ' Nihil ergo offeremus ? Sic 
 
 tur ; non quod inanu, sed quod mente veniemus ad Deum ? Et unde ilium 
 
 libatur. Haec acceptabilis victima, placabimus ? Offer sane : in te habes 
 
 quain de seipso animus immolaverit.' quod offeras. Noli extrinsecus thura 
 
 Lactant. Epist. cap. Iviii. p. 1 7 2 . Cp. comparare, sed die, In me sunt, 
 
 Zen. Veron. in Psal. xliac. Deus, vota tua, quae reddam laudis 
 
 b Matt. xv. 1 8, 19. Mark vii. 15, tibi. Noli extrinsecus pecus quod 
 
 23. mactes inquirere : habes in te quod 
 
 <' 'Eictivai fj.fl> yap ir\ovrov ical Ttav occidas. Sacrificium Deo spiritus 
 
 t^vTcav elfflf, a.bra.1 Se aper^s. '?- contribulatus,' &c. Augustin. in 
 
 vat ffaOtv, avrai fvSo6ei'. Chrysost. Psal. 1. p. 473. torn. iv. Cp. pp. 14, 
 
 in Hcb. cap. vi. Horn. n. p. 115. 364, 527-529.
 
 55$ Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 upon remark, that St. Austin would not say in this case, Offer 
 Christ : for though Christ is our sacrifice to commemorate, or 
 to feast upon, he is not our sacrifice to offer up in a proper 
 sacrificial sense. Much less would he say, Sacrifice bread and 
 wine ; for they are things extrinsic, as much as cattle or frank- 
 incense, and cannot be the subject-matter of a Gospel sacrifice, 
 any more than the other. What then was the only sacrifice left 
 for a Christian actively and properly to offer ? The man himself, 
 (or his services, which amount to the same thing,) that was still 
 left : and there St. Austin very justly and very consistently fixed 
 the Christian sacrifice, (actively considered,) as he always does. 
 
 IV. 
 
 I pass on to another ancient and useful distinction of sacrifice, 
 into visible and invisible. A distinction near akin to the former, 
 or rather resolving into it. Pagan and Jewish sacrifices were 
 visible ; but the Christian sacrifices were deemed invisible ; not 
 every way, but in respect of their invisible source, as arising 
 from within, from the heart or mind, which is seen to God only. 
 Lactantius argues, that our sacrifices ought to be invisible, that 
 so they may suit the better with an invisible Deity f . St. Austin 
 has the same distinction between visible and invisible sacrifices, 
 meaning by the visible the noted sacrifices of Jews and Pagans, 
 and by the invisible, the sacrifices made by good Christians only, 
 the Gospel sacrifices. In one place he observes, that the Jewish 
 sacrifices, which God's people now read of only, and do not 
 use, were bigns of the evangelical ; and thereupon lie says, that 
 ' a visible sacrifice is a Sacrament, or holy sign, of an invisible 
 sacrifice?.' In another place, arguing, 'ex hypothesi,' against 
 Porphyrius and other Pagans, (whose principle it was, to offer 
 
 f ' Si enim Deus non videtur, ergo est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse sig- 
 
 his rebus coli debet quae non viden- nificatas quae aguntur in nobis, ad 
 
 tur.' Lactant. de Ver. Cult. lib. vi. hoc ut inhaereamus Deo, et ad eun- 
 
 cap. 215. dem finem proximo consulamus. Sa- 
 
 n ' Nee quod ab antiquis Patribus crificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacri- 
 
 talia sacrificia facta sunt in victimis ficii Sacramentum, id est, sacrum 
 
 pecomm (quae nunc Dei populus signum est.' Augustin. de Civit. 
 
 legit, non facit) aliud intelligendum Dei, lib. x. cap. 5. p. 241. torn. vii.
 
 Visible and Invisible. 553 
 
 what they called invisible sacrifices to God supreme, and what 
 they called visible, to inferior deities,) he pleads, that both the 
 visible and invisible ought to go to the supreme only ; those 
 being signs of these, and requiring the same direction, to the 
 same Deity : and hereupon he observes, that the persons them- 
 selves are, or ought to be, that invisible sacrifice, whereof the 
 visible are the signs \ St. Austin here builds upon this Chris- 
 tian maxim, that what some call visible sacrifice, is really no 
 better than the sign, shell, shadow, of true sacrifice ; and that it 
 is no more true sacrifice, than articulate sounds are sense, or 
 words are ideas. Nothing- with him is true sacrifice, or accept- 
 able sacrifice, or evangelical sacrifice, (for those are so many 
 phrases reciprocal and tantamount,) but the invisible sacrifice, 
 the sacrifice of the heart, of the mind, of the man, for the 
 mind is the man. 
 
 One may justly wonder what some Divines, among the Ko- 
 manists, have meant, who, in order to maintain an extrinsic 
 sacrifice in the Eucharist, have laid hold of Austin's account of 
 a visible sacrifice, (that is, of a sign, shell, shadow,) as amounting 
 to a definition of true or proper sacrifice i. They could not have 
 contrived a shorter or surer way to depreciate the eucharistical 
 sacrifice. For since it is manifest, that St. Austin rejected those 
 called visible sacrifices, as what never were true sacrifices, (in his 
 sense of true,) even when required under the law, and are not 
 required at all, under the notion of sacrifice, by the Gospel k , the 
 advancing of signs now into proper sacrifices is but a kind of 
 
 h 'Qui autem putant haec visi- invisibile sacrificium nos ipsi esse 
 
 bilia sacrificia Diis aliis congruere, debeinus.' Augustin. ibid. lib. x. 
 
 illi vero tanquam invisibili invisi- cap. 19. p. 255. 
 
 bilia, et majori majora, meliorique ' ' Sacrificium, proprie dictum, est 
 
 meliora, qualia sunt purae mentis, sacrum signum.' Sylvius, torn. iv. 
 
 et bonae voluntatis officia ; profecto p. 624. ' Sacrificium est invisibi- 
 
 nesciunt haec ita esse signa eorum, lis sacrificii visibile Sacramentum.' 
 
 sicut verba sonantia signa sunt re- Bayus, lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 210. 
 rum. Quocirca, sicut orantes atque k 'Inhujusprophetaeverbisutrum- 
 
 laudantes, ad eum dirigimus signifi- quo distinctum est, satisque declara- 
 
 caiites voces, cui res ipsas in corde, turn, ilia sacrificia per seipsa non 
 
 quas significamus, offerimus, ita sa- requirere Deum, quibus significantur 
 
 crificantes non alter! visibile sacri- haec sacrificia quae requirit Deus.' 
 
 ficium offerendum esse noverimus, Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 
 
 quam illi cujus in cordibus nostris 5. p. 242.
 
 554 Distinctions of Sacrifice: 
 
 will-worship, or sacrilegious usurpation. The sacramental ele- 
 ments are not that true sacrifice which St. Austin so often speaks 
 of, but the signs of it 1 ; not that true eucharistical sacrifice which 
 that Father so magnificently sets forth, but the shadows of it m . 
 And what can give a man a meaner idea of the eucharistical 
 oblation and sacerdotal sacrifice, than the placing it in the signs 
 of true sacrifice, and thereby setting it much lower than the 
 private but true sacrifice of every single laic of the Church 1 In 
 short, St. Austin's true sacrifice was really self-sacrifice 11 , the 
 same with his invisible sacrifice : and his eucharistical sacrifice 
 was the offering up the collective body of Christians, the whole 
 Church or city of God . But of this I may say more in a proper 
 place. All that I shall observe further here is, that St. Austin 
 never once gives (so far as appears) the name of visible sacrifice 
 to anything which he esteemed true sacrifice, or Gospel sacrifice, 
 justly so called. What he said of visible sacrifice, in the two 
 passages before cited, related purely to the Jewish and Pagan 
 sacrifices, which he opposed to the invisible, that is, to the 
 Christian sacrifices. He does indeed sometimes speak of the 
 Christian sacrifices, as appearing P, or being seen; that is, in such 
 a sense as things invisible may be said to be seen by their signs, 
 or reasonably collected and inferred from what appears out- 
 
 1 'Quod ab omnibus appellatur sa- inferiorem.' Albertinus, p. 474. The 
 
 crificium, signum est veri sacrificii.' reader may compare Unbloody Sacri- 
 
 Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. fice, part i. p. 32, if disposed to 
 
 5. p. 242. observe what may be said, where no 
 
 m Nazianzen expressly teaches the just answer can be given. Alberti- 
 
 same thing, where he declares that nus had foreclosed all evasions : and 
 
 the outward oblation is but as shadow yet no notice was taken of him. 
 
 to truth, in respect of the true and n Augustin. torn. v. p. 268 ; torn, 
 
 spiritual sacrifices. vii. pp. 242-244, 256, 260, 569, 609, 
 
 OlSa Kal &\\o Qvaiaffr-hpiov, o5 TV- 674; torn. viii. pp. 349, 568; torn. x. 
 
 TTO s TO vvv 6pw/j.fva .... rovrif irapa- p. 94. ed. Bened. 
 
 (TTri<TOfj.a.i, TOVTW 6v<r<a Se/cra, Ovffiav, Vid. torn. vii. pp. 243, 244, 256, 
 
 Kal irpofftyopav, Kal oAo/caur^/iOTO, 260, 569, 674. 
 
 Kpe'iTTuva. rSiv vvv irpoffayo[j.ti>aji>, otrca P ' Ibi quippe primum apparuit 
 
 Kfttlrrov ffKias TJ a\ri6fia. Nazianz. gacrificium quod nunc a Christianis 
 
 Orat. xxviii. p. 484. See my Review, offertur Deo, toto orbe terrarum,'&c. 
 
 above, pp. 342-345. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. xvi. cap. 
 
 'Gregorius affirmat oblationem 22. p. 435. torn. vii. 
 
 illam quae fit in Eucharistia, esse 'Cum videt sacrificium Christiano- 
 
 lunbram ac imaginem oblationuin rum toto orbe terrarum,' &c. Ibid, 
 
 nostrarum spiritualium, ac iis longe lib. xvii. cap. 5. p. 465.
 
 Material and Immaterial. 555 
 
 warclly. Good works are seen by men, and they are sacrifices : 
 but they are not seen as good, or as sacrifices, except to God 
 only, who alone sees the heart. Good Christians are a sacrifice 
 to God in St. Austin's account, and they are visible, as men : 
 nevertheless, he calls them an invisible sacrifice, because in their 
 sacrificial capacity they are seen to God only, the searcher of 
 hearts. He would not allow that Satan himself could see what 
 Job did, when he sacrificed unto God : Job was visible, but his 
 sacrifice was invisible ; because it was true sacrifice, arising from 
 the hearts. From what hath been noted under this article, it 
 may sufficiently appear, that the Gospel sacrifices are of the 
 invisible kind, as contradistinguished from the visible sacrifices 
 of Jews and Pagans ; and that they have had the name of 
 invisible, on the same account as they had the name of intrinsic ; 
 and so both the names resolve into one and the same notion. 
 By these accounts, the bread and Avine of the Eucharist could 
 not be considered as Gospel sacrifices, being that they are 'ab 
 extra,' and open to view ; and as they are not intrinsic, so neither 
 are they invisible, either in themselves or in their source. 
 
 V. 
 
 Another, more ancient and more famed distinction of sacrifice, 
 was into material and immaterial, or corporeal and incorporeal : 
 the Christian sacrifices were of the immaterial and incorporeal 
 kind, and as such distinguished from the Jewish and Pagan 
 sacrifices, which were material and corporeal. This distinction is 
 as old as Justin Martyr, who rejected the sacrifices of Jews or 
 Pagans, as material sacrifices. Such material things, he says, 
 God has no need to receive of us, but that he accepts only of the 
 men themselves, while copying after the . Divine perfections, 
 purity, righteousness, philanthropy, and the like 1 ". This was 
 
 'i 'Ablatis omnibus, solus remansit mini, in luce viveiitium. Diabolum 
 
 Job: sed in illo erant vota laudis latebat, quiaintenebriserat.' August, 
 
 quae redderet Deo. In illo plane in Psal. Ivi. pp. 528, 529. torn. iv. 
 erant: arcam pecfcoris sui fur diabolus r 'AAA' ov 5eecr0ai TTJS irapa avOpdt- 
 
 non invaserat. Plenus erat unde sa- irvv UAIKTJS irpoa-ffiopas irpocrti\'fi(f>a.fj.ti' 
 
 critical et. Deus videbat in corde rbv fov, ainov Traptxovra iravTO. dpwv- 
 
 servi sui cultum suuin gratuitum : res' e/ceiVovs 8e irpotrSexfffOai O.VTOV 
 
 placebat illud cor in conspectu Do- p-ovov SeSiSayMefla /cal TreweiVjuefla, Ka.1
 
 55^ Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 pleaded in answer to the Pagan charge of impiety, thrown upon 
 Christians for not using material sacrifices. Justin tacitly admits 
 the charge as to fact, that the Christians did not use such sacri- 
 fices ; but in vindication of their conduct in that article, he pleads 
 that God had no need of material sacrifices : which in his phraseo- 
 logy, as circumstances shew, amounted to saying, that God did 
 not require them, but indeed rejected them. This appears very 
 plainly by his use of the like phrase soon after, with respect to 
 blood, libations, and incense, which, without all question, Justin 
 understood to have been absolutely rejected : yet Justin, even in 
 that case also, pleaded that God had no need of them 8 . He 
 chose, very probably, that form of speaking, by way of oblique 
 reproof to the Pagans, for their gross sentiments, in conceiving 
 that the Deity had need of such offerings. Other Fathers, in 
 the same cause, made use of the phrase of ' no need,' exactly in 
 the same way; so as not barely to teach that God is all -sufficient, 
 but intimating withal, that God had really rejected what he is 
 there said to have no need of 1 : otherwise their arguments on 
 that head would have been of no force to justify the conduct of 
 Christians in their not admitting such or such sacrifices. It is 
 observable, that in both the places where Justin speaks of the 
 sacrifices which God has no need of, he uses the phrase in direct 
 opposition to such sacrifices as God accepts of; which makes it 
 still plainer, that that phrase, as it there stands, is used as equi- 
 valent to disallowing, or rejecting. But to clear the matter up 
 yet further, so as to cut off all evasive pretences or reserves, (as 
 if Justin had left room for a material sacrifice in some shape or 
 other,) it is worth noting, that he distinctly points out what is to 
 be offered to man, and what to God, in the Eucharist : all the 
 material part, all that God gives for nutriment, is to be offered to 
 ourselves and to the needy, and to God a*re to be sent up hymns 
 
 iriffT(vo/4.(i' rovs ra irpaffffovra ai>T(? See Review, above, p. 317, and Dod- 
 
 ayaBa, /j.ipovfj.fi'ovs, ff(a<ppoffuvqi>, KO.\ well of Incense, p. 46. 
 
 fitKaioffvvriv, Kal <(,i\av6pa>iriav, Kal l Athenagoras, pp. 48, 49. Clem. 
 
 ova olicfla 0ff ta-ri. Just. Mart. Alex. pp. 836, 848. Tertullian ad 
 
 Apol. i. p. 14. Compare my Review, Scap. c. ii. p. 69. Arnobius, lib. vi. 
 
 above, p. 317. pp. 190, 191. Lactantius, Epit. c. 
 
 8 'AvevSerj a.tfj.a.Tui', /ecu airovftuiv, KO! Iviii. pp. Ifi, J? 2 - 
 v. Just. Mart. Apol.i. p. 19.
 
 Material and Immaterial. 557 
 
 and praises u . Justin could never have expressed himself in that 
 manner, had he thought that any part of that material nutriment 
 was to be a sacrifice unto God. The words are very emphatical. 
 We are not to burn it, as the Pagans did : well, what then are 
 we to do with it 1 May we not irpoa-fopfiv, offer it up as a sacri- 
 fice ? No ; but we must offer it, in a lower sense, to man. What 
 then is to be offered up to God ? Nothing 1 Yes, thanks, praises, 
 hymns, and the like : that is God's tribute, that is a sacrifice fit 
 for him, and worthy of him. I have dwelt the longer upon this 
 Father, because of his great antiquity and authority, and because 
 his sentiments on this head have been sometimes widely mistaken 
 by contending parties. 
 
 I pass on to Lactantius v , who has the same distinction with 
 Justin, but under the names of corporeal and incorporeal, instead 
 of material and immaterial : he argues, that since God is incor- 
 poreal, he ought to have a sacrifice suitable, that is, incorporeal. 
 Nay, he argues further, that no other kind of sacrifice ought to 
 be offered him, and that he requires no other w . It is observ- 
 able, that his incorporeal sacrifices take in mental, vocal, and 
 manual services ; all good works x , external or internal, coming 
 
 u T<5 ra for' ftcdvov (Is Smrpo^V to God, is the same with forbidding 
 
 yivoptva, oil wvpl Sairavav, aAA' eat>To7s them to be used as presents, or 
 
 icol TO?S 8eo/j.fvots irpocr<pfpfiv, ticfivty considered as presents to the Divine 
 
 5e fi/xapiffrovs uvras <5iot \6yov iro/j.iras Majesty. 
 
 Ka.1v/j.vovsirffj.irfiv. Just. Mart. Apol. v 'Sicut corporalibus corporalia, 
 
 i. p. 19. sic utique incorporali incorporale 
 
 Literally thus : sacrificium necessarium est.' Lactant. 
 
 ' Not to consume by fire the crea- Epit. c. Ixviii. p. 171. 'Duo sunt 
 
 tures made for nutriment, but to quae offerri debeant, donum et sa- 
 
 offer them to ourselves, and to the crificium Deo utrumque incor- 
 
 needy ; and thankfully to send up porale offerendum est, quo utitur. 
 
 to him [God] \>y speech, praises Donum est integritas animi, sacri- 
 
 and hymns.' ficium, laus et hymnus.' Lactant. 
 
 N. B. Mr. Reeves has diluted the Instit. lib. vi. c. 24. Compare my 
 
 meaning of this passage by a transla- Review, above, pp. 339, 340. 
 
 tion too paraphrastical. It cannot w ' Quid igltur ab nomine deside- 
 
 be supposed that Justin meant only, rat Deus, nisi cultum mentis, qui 
 
 that such things should not be offered est purus et sanctus ?' See above, 
 
 to God by wasting, burning ; for he p. 550. 
 
 declares plainly what things are to * 'Hie cultor est veri Dei, cujus 
 be presented to God, and what to sacrificia sunt mansuetudo animi, et 
 man : besides that the taking from vita innocens et actus boni.' Lac- 
 such offerings the very essential tant. Instit. lib. vi. c. 24. 
 characteristics of all material presents
 
 558 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 from a good mind. Bodily service is performed indeed by the 
 body, as the instrument : but that service is not a bodily substance, 
 not a material thing ; as a sheep, a bullock, a cake, a loaf, or a 
 vessel of wine is. Lactantius's notion of sacrifice includes all 
 acts of obedience, all true services of the man y ; but it excludes 
 everything extraneous to the man, from being the subject-matter 
 of his sacrifice : so that this distinction of corporeal and incorpo- 
 real, or of material and immaterial, differs only (if it at all differs) 
 in a mode of conception from the distinction of extrinsic and 
 intrinsic, before explained. 
 
 Eusebius recommends the Christian sacrifices as incorporeal, 
 in opposition to the corporeal sacrifices of Jews and Pagans 2 . 
 Basil in like manner observes, that God rejects corporeal sacri- 
 fices a . Chrysostorn also bears his testimony to the same thing, 
 and in words of like import, where he speaks of the converted 
 Jews as relinquishing their corporeal services, upon their em- 
 bracing Christianity 15 . Cyril, after observing that beeves, sheep, 
 turtles, pigeons, fruits, fine flour, cakes, incenses, are all discarded 
 under the Gospel, as too gross to be offered for sacrifice : and that 
 Christians are commanded to offer up something more fine and 
 more abstracted, more intellectual and spiritual, namely, meekness, 
 faith, hope, charity, righteousness, temperance, obedience, dutiful- 
 ness, praises, and all kinds of virtues, (not a word of bread or of 
 wine in all this long list,) adds, 'For this sacrifice, as being purest 
 from matter, is most worthy of the Deity, who is by nature 
 uncompounded and immaterial c .' To the same purpose writes 
 
 i 'Haec sunt opera, haec officia took notice, that the editor had re- 
 
 misericordiae ; quae si quis obierit, jected that piece as of doubtful au- 
 
 verum et acceptum sacrificium Deo thority, in his preface, torn. i. p. 48. 
 
 immolabit.' Lactant. Epit. p. 204. But I have since observed, that in a 
 
 Cp. Mimic. Fel. sect. 32. p. 183. in later tome he altered his mind, and 
 
 Review, above, p. 332. admitted it as genuine, giving his 
 
 z Taurus 5e ira\iv TCJJ affufMTovs reasons, torn. iii. in Vita Basilii, c. 
 
 teal fofpas Bvfflas TO. irptxpriTiKa /crjpur- 42. p. I79> & c 
 
 Tit \6yta. Euseb. Demonstr. lib. i. c. b Trjv Sia Ovffiwv Kal &\oKavTu/*d.Twt> 
 
 IO. p. 39: cp. 35, 36. Origen. in Kal rwv &\\cai> r<av ata^ariKSiv a<f>tvTfs 
 
 Psalm, pp. 563, 722. edit. Bened., Otpaitfiav. Chrysost. adv. Judaeos, 
 
 and my Review, above, p. 340 Horn. vii. p. 664. torn. i. ed. Bened. 
 
 a Tla.paiT(?Tcu TOS ffufiariKas Qvfficu. Cp. ad Roman. Horn. xx. p. 658. 
 
 Basil. Comm. in Isa. torn. i. p. 398. torn. x. 
 
 edit. Bened. c 'Aiikordri) yap avri) 6vcriar<f Kara 
 
 N.B. In Review, above, p. 345, 1 <j>v<nt> air\tp KM duAy vptirovffa 0.
 
 Material and Immaterial. 559 
 
 Procopius, of the next succeeding century ; observing that cor- 
 poreal sacrifice is abolished, and spiritual established d . 
 
 Could such writers, after all, believe bread or wine to be the 
 sacrifice which God accepts 1 Are they finer than fine flour ? Are 
 they purer than cakes ? Or say that they are : yet are they im- 
 material, or incorporeal 1 Or if even that were allowed, (which 
 never can be allowed,) yet are they faith, or hope, or charity, or 
 good mind, or good life 1 Every way they stand excluded. But 
 still, colours have been invented, to evade the authorities here 
 cited : sometimes it is said, that immaterial, or incorporeal, may 
 not mean perfectly immaterial, but only less gross, or less fecu- 
 lent 6 . That is not very likely, if we consider that the immateri- 
 ality or incorporeity of the sacrifice spoken of is understood to 
 be analogous to God's immateriality or incorporeity, to which it 
 is compared. But that is not all : for it is further to be con- 
 sidered, that the immaterial quality of the Christian sacrifices 
 was commended by the Fathers, in opposition to the Jewish and 
 Pagan sacrifices. Now had they really meant no more than that 
 they were less gross, or less dreggy, such an argument could not 
 have failed to introduce a very doubtful debate between them 
 and their adversaries, viz. whether the Jewish and Pagan fine 
 flour and cakes were not as free from dregs as the Christians' 
 bread ; and whether their libations were not of wine as pure, and 
 as free from feculency, as any that the Christians could pretend 
 to. Yet we find nothing recorded, no not so much as a hint 
 of any such debate : wherefore it is much more reasonable, as 
 well as more natural to suppose, that those plain Fathers, \vho 
 were both wise and honest men, understood immaterial and 
 
 Cyrill. Alex, contr. Julian, lib. x. p. as all other bodies are allowed to 
 
 345. Compare Review, above, p. 346. have ; and that I do not intend it as 
 
 Dodwell on Incense, p. 89. a word of the same adequate import 
 
 d OVKOVV fdSrj\of us rb <ro>/j.aTiKov with the Greek v\iit6s. For I appre- 
 
 t K)3aA>i>, rb irvfvfj.a.'TiKbv ir\-r}povv liray- hend that some of the ancients may 
 
 yi AAfTcu. Procop. Gaz. in Isa. pp. 22, have asserted, that the eucharistic 
 
 23: cp. p. 493. sacrifice is SiiAos, as well as dfftcJ/taTos; 
 
 6 ' When I call the eucharistic but then they did not mean perfectly 
 
 sacrifice material, I must here de- immaterial, or without bodily sub- 
 
 clare, that I mean nothing by it but stance, but not gross or dreggy.' 
 
 that it has such a real corporeal Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 27. 
 extension, as natural bread and wine,
 
 560 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 incorporeal in the usual and obvious sense of those words. And 
 indeed the instances which they give to exemplify what they 
 meant, such as hope, faith, virtue, all immaterial, (and those were 
 their sacrifices,) demonstrate that they did so. I take no notice 
 of some slighter evasions which have been offered, for fear of being 
 tedious, or of giving offence to persons of true discernment. 
 
 VI. 
 
 I pass on to the famous distinction of bloody and unbloody 
 sacrifice : a distinction, probably, borrowed from the Pythago- 
 rean philosophers f by the Christian Fathers of a philosophic 
 turn, who, by some easy and proper refinements of the idea, 
 adapted it to Christian purposes. Justin Martyr here seems to 
 have led the way ; who to the Pagan sacrifices of blood, and to 
 their libations, opposes the true spiritual praises and thanksgivings 
 offered up by Christians S. He did not say, unbloody, or spiri- 
 tual bread and wine, but spiritual praises and thanksgivings. 
 Athenagoras, of the same age, says, that it is meet to offer an 
 unbloody sacrifice, and to bring a rational service Q . Had he in- 
 tended bread and wine by the unbloody sacrifice, this would have 
 been the place wherein to have mentioned them : but he has not 
 one word of them. All that he opposes to the sacrifices of blood, 
 are the knowledge of God's works and ways, the lifting up holy 
 hands, and the like ; which, according to him, are 6v<ria fteyio-TT). 
 the noblest sacrifice ; and therefore, undoubtedly, the same that 
 he i-ecommends under the names of unbloody sacrifice and rational 
 service '. He had said before, God needs no blood, nor fat, nor 
 scents, nor incense ; that is, he does not now accept them. What 
 then does he accept instead of blood, &c. ? Did he say bread or 
 wine? No: but he tells us of that greatest sacrifice, describing it 
 as consisting of religious faith, and prayers, and services : those 
 
 f Vid. Clem. Alex. pp. 848, 849. ed. Lond. 
 
 ed. Ox. h Hpoa-<f>fpfLV Stov afaif^aifTov 6v- 
 
 s O5 tv TT> traKiv irapovffiq, /j.)i $6- ffiav, Kal T^V \oyiid]v vpoffdyfiv \a- 
 
 ITJTE \(yetv 'Hcrcuav, ^ rovs &\\ovs vpo- rpflav. Athenag. Legat. p. 49. 
 
 </>7jTas Bvtrlas a<p' al/j.drcav t) airovfiiav ' See my Review, above, p. 323, 
 
 eirl r<5 OvfftaffT'fipioi' a.va(p(ptaQai, oAA* and compare Jewel's Answer to 
 
 a\ridivovs iced Kvfv/j.a.riicovs tuvovs Kal Harding, pp. 427, 428. 
 eixap'orfo^ Just. Mart. Dial. p. 389.
 
 Bloody and Unbloody. 561 
 
 God accepts in opposition to blood, &c., wherefore those are what 
 this Father recommended as unbloody sacrifice in the place now 
 cited. The case is plain in the author himself, and will, besides, 
 be abundantly confirmed by other similar passages in the Fathers 
 that followed, whose testimonies I shall take in their order of 
 time. 
 
 Tertullian, to the bloody sacrifices, opposes pure prayer k : not 
 a word of pure bread and wine, as a Christian sacrifice in oppo- 
 sition to the other. But in another place, where he again recom- 
 mended prayer sent up from a chaste body, an innocent soul, 
 and a sanctified spirit, he adds, not worthless grains of frankin- 
 cense, the tears of an Arabian tree, nor two drops of wine 1 . He 
 must have been very imprudent, not to say worse, in touching 
 upon so tender an article as the two drops of wine, had he con- 
 ceived that such in part was the real sacrifice of every Christian 
 communicant at the holy altar. 
 
 Origen m , Lactantius n , Eusebius , Austin?, all state the oppo- 
 sition in the same way ; not between bloody animals and bloodless 
 bread or wine, (as they should have done upon the material 
 scheme,) but between bloody sacrifices and sacrifices of the spi- 
 ritual kind, such as prayers, praises, and good works. More 
 particularly, Eusebius joins rational with unbloody, and calls it 
 unbloody service, not unbloody elements, symbols, and the likefl. 
 
 k ' Sacrificamus sed quomodo lari.' Origen. in Num. Hoin. xxiv. 
 
 Deus praecepit pura prece: non p. 363. 
 
 enim eget Deus, conditor universi- n ' Deus non pecudis sanguine, sed 
 
 tatis, odoris, aut sanguinis alicujus.' hominis pietate placatur.' Lactant. 
 
 Tertull. ad Scap. c. ii. p. 69. Com- Epit. 204. 
 
 pare my Review, above, pp. 329, Ou 5i" eu'juarwj', aAAa 5t' tpycav 
 
 330. tvfff&(ai> KaJSapa-v wvo/j.aa'fj.fi'rjv Gvfftav 
 
 1 ' Offero ei opimam et majorem T$? M tra.ffiv ava<pepftv @f<p. Euseb. 
 
 hostiam ; quam ipse mandavit : ora- Demonstr. Evang. c. vi. p. 19 : cp. pp. 
 
 tionem de carr.e pudica, de aiiima 20, 21, 23, 39; in Psal. p. 212. 
 innocenti, de Spiritu Sancto pro- P ' Non rult ergo sacrifidum truci- 
 
 fectam : non grana tlmris unius assis, dati pecoris, sed vult sacrincium con- 
 
 Arabicae arboris lacrymas, nee triti cordis.' Augustin. de Civit. Dei, 
 
 duasmeri guttas,' &c. Tertull. Apol. lib. x. c. 5. p. 241. 
 c. xxx. p. 277. Cp. Arnob. lib. vi. * QvcnaffTiipiov avai/j.<av Kal \oyiKav 
 
 p. 190. edit. Lugd. Bat. Ovcrtuv. Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. 
 
 111 ' Decet enim Deo immolari vie- lib. i. c. 6. p. 20. nvfv/j.a-n Kal a\Tj- 
 
 timam cordis, et hostiam contribulati Ofiq, &VO.LIJ.OV Kal KaQapav ajroSiSoi/s 
 
 .spiritus, non carniset sanguinis jugu- aiiry \arpfiav. Euseb. ibid. p. 21. 
 
 O
 
 563 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 Eusebius further teaches, that the unbloody sacrifices will obtain 
 in heaven r . From whence it is manifest, that he meant not the 
 elements by that phrase, but religious services. Neither has there 
 been produced so much as a single passage from his writings, 
 where that phrase must mean the material elements, or where it 
 may not reasonably mean religious acts, services, performances 8 . 
 Attempts have been made upon a place or two *, to warp them 
 to another meaning, but so slight, and so easily seen through at 
 once, that I shall not here trouble you with any particular con- 
 futation of them. The error lies in confounding the material 
 things with the religious work ; and the sacrificial instruments 
 with the sacrificial service ; that is, with the sacrifice itself. But 
 I proceed. 
 
 The Emperor Constantine, in a letter to King Saporis, says, 
 that Christians are content with unbloody prayers only, in 
 supplicating God ; and that prayer, free from blood and filth, 
 together with the sign of the cross, was sufficient for victory u . 
 Here we have the epithet unbloody directly applied to religious 
 services, (not to material things ;) so that there is no arguing 
 from the Pagan application of that epithet to the Christian, 
 which was widely different, as their sacrifices were different. 
 It is in vain to plead, that the difference lay only in this, that 
 the Jews and Pagans used animal sacrifices, and the Christians 
 bloodless bread and wine : for then, why did not the Fathers 
 mention unbloody bread and wine, rather than unbloody prayers'? 
 
 r See the passage in my Review, 4 See Unbloody Sacrifice, part 5. 
 
 above, p. 341. How sacrifices shall p. 21. N. B. Eusebius asks, 'Who 
 
 be offered in heaven, or what sacri- but our Saviour ever taught his 
 
 fices, see Origen in Num. Horn, xviii. votaries to offer by prayer and an 
 
 P-359- ed.Bened. Lactantius, Instit. ineffable theology, these unbloody 
 
 lib. vi. c. 24. Augustin. torn. iv. p. and rational sacrifices ?' That is, 
 
 474; tom.vii. p. 610. Gregor. Magn. memorial services; which is Euse- 
 
 tom. iii. p. 509. ed. Bened. bius's constant notion of the eucha- 
 
 Gvfficus avalpots KCU /j.vffriKait ristic sacrifices. Demonstr. Evang. 
 
 Ifpovpyicus TO Qewi> i\a.ffKovro. Euseb. pp. 27, 38, 39, 40. Compare my 
 
 de Vit. Constant, lib. iv. c. 45. p. 651 . Review, above, p. 3?. 
 
 'Avalpovs iced \oyiicas 6v<rias, rat Si n M6vait ti>x.cus avai/JidKrais irpbs 
 
 fvX&v Kal airoppJiTov 6(o\oy(as, rots iKtfta.i' @eov apxovvrai . . . airoxp^ai 
 
 avrov Bioffwrais ris &riT*Ae?' trapeSta- miry tis viKtjv rb TOV ffravpov <rv/j@o- 
 
 Ktv &\\os, 1) /j.6vos 6 rifitrtpos ffwrhp ; \ov . . . nod fvx^iv KaBapav alfidrttiv KCU 
 
 Euseb. de Laud. Constant, p. 768. plnrov. Constantin. apud Sozom. lib. 
 
 ed.Cant. Cp.Demonstr.lib. i.e. 6, 10. ii. c. 15. p. 63.
 
 Bloody and Unbloody. 563 
 
 And why should they so industriously smother the true state of 
 the competition, (if it were true,) and run off so wide, that 
 nobody, by their way of speaking, could suspect any other, than 
 that the opposition entirely lay between bloody victims and 
 unbloody services of lauds, prayers, and good works 1 For those 
 are what they directly call sacrifices, and what they expressly 
 point to, as often as they specify or explain their unbloody 
 sacrifices. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem in plain terms characterizes the spiritual 
 saci'ifice by unbloody service x . Now, as sure as that a service y 
 is not a substance, and a spiritual sacrifice is not a corporeal 
 host, so sure is it, that the epithet of unbloody belongs not to 
 the elements in that passage of Cyril. There may be some 
 doubt of what Cyril meant by the sacrifice of propitiation, in 
 the same paragraph : but a wise interpreter will not therefore 
 depart from what is clear and certain. What I apprehend is, 
 that Cyril, by spiritual sacrifice and unbloody service, meant 
 the consecratory service, whereby the elements became symbols 
 of the real body and blood, symbols of the grand sacrifice. 
 When the elements were once so constituted exhibitive symbols 
 of the grand sacrifice, which is the true sacrifice of propitiation, 
 Cyril scrupled not to give them the name of what they repre- 
 sented and exhibited, by an usual metonymy of sign for thing : 
 for, in the very same way, he there also gave them the name 
 of Christ slain 7 , and of the most tremendous sacrifice a . The 
 
 * Mero T}> 0,-no.priaQriva.i T^V irvev/jLa- of it. But the whole context shews, 
 
 TIKV Ovfftav, T^V ava(fj.aKTov \aTpflav, that service there really means ser- 
 
 tirl rrjs 6v(rias eKeipTjs TOV i\a(rfj.ov ira- vice, the celebration of the paschal 
 
 pai(a\ov/j.fv rbv &tl>v vitfp KOIVTIS TUV sacrifice, the keeping that feast. 
 
 e/c/c\r)(Tiwj' (lpTivi)s. Cyril. Mystag. v. z Xpurrbv 4ff<payia.<riA.fi'oi' virep TI> 
 
 sect. 8. p. 327. Compare Review, ri^.frip<av anapr-nfjidruv jrpoff^tpofj.w, 
 
 above, p. 223. tiA.eui;|Uj'Oi virtp avrwv Tf Kal fifiuv 
 
 ' After that the spiritual sacrifice, -rbv (pt\dv8pcairo)> Qtov. Cyril. Mys- 
 
 the unbloody service, is finished, tag. p. 328. 
 
 upon that sacrifice of propitiation a TTJJ aylas KO,\ <t>piK<a$tffTd.Tris irpo- 
 
 we beseech God in behalf of the /ceijufVjjy Ovtrias. Cyril, ibid. p. 327. 
 
 common peace of the churches.' Cp. Ephraem. Syr. de Sacerdot. pp. 
 
 y It has been sometimes pleaded, 2, 3. Chrysostom, torn. i. pp. 382, 
 
 (Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 24) 383, 424; torn. vii. pp. 272, 310; 
 
 that service may import a material torn. ix. p. 176; torn. xi. pp. 217, 
 
 thing ; and Exod. xii. 26, 27, is 218. Nazianz. Orat. xvii. p. 273. 
 appealed to, as affording an example 
 
 002
 
 564 Dittinctiom of Sacrifice : 
 
 symbols therefore, in a figure, are there called the sacrifice of pro- 
 pitiation ; but the spiritual sacrifice and unbloody service, spoken 
 of just before, express that service of ours, that sacrifice which 
 we actively offer up, in order to the consecrating the elements 
 into holy symbols, exhibitive of the grand sacrifice to every 
 faithful i-eceiver b . So that the phrases of spiritual sacrifice and 
 unbloody service do here retain their usual meaning ; and Cyril 
 has neatly contrived to insinuate to his readers a just notion 
 of the two sacrifices of the Eucharist ; the one actively offered, 
 and the other passively received or participated c . 
 
 I pass on to Zeno of Verona, who lived about the same time 
 with Cyril. He makes use of the same distinction of bloody and 
 unbloody, while recommending the sacrifices of Christians as 
 preferable to the animal sacrifices of Jews and Pagans d . By 
 unbloody sacrifices, he understood clean thoughts and pure 
 manners, intimating nothing of clean bread or pure wine, as 
 set in competition with the bloody sacrifices. A strange omis- 
 sion, had he been at all aware that the elements were the proper 
 Christian sacrifice. 
 
 Nazianzen speaks of his purifying the people at the mystical 
 table, that is, in the Eucharist, with unbloody and perfect ordi- 
 nances 6 . From whence it is plain, that he thought not the 
 
 b Cyril's whole context will set Spirit efficiently. In a word, tirl 
 this matter clear. TTJJ Ovvlca fKfivrjs means the same, 
 napaKa\ov/j.fv rbv <f>i\di>Qpifirov &ebi>, as if it had been said 4*1 TOV ffia/Mros 
 Tb ayiov TftC/xa f^airo(rrti\at tiri T& ticfivov Kal afyiaros. And indeed, if 
 itpoK.tiu.fva., Iva, ITOJ^OTJ Tbv /j.fv Uprov Bvfftas had referred to Trvevfj.cn iidii' 
 ffua. XptcrTov, Tbv 8 olvov of/xa Xpi- Ovaiav next preceding, Cyril, prob- 
 arov' vajTtas yap ov av t<pd^aiTo rb ably, would have said, iirl ri}y Ovalas 
 Syiov wvfvfjut, TOVTO rtytaa-rai, Kal /j.t- ravrijs, not 4Kfivris. 
 Ta;8e'#AijTai. E/Va, /tisra rb avaprt- c See above, p. 547, &c. 
 ffOyvcu T)IV irvfvfuirn^jv dvffiav, TT;*' d ' Spiritali Deo sacrificium est ne- 
 &val/j&KTov \arpeiay, 4*1 TTJJ Overtax cessarium spiritale, quod non ex sac- 
 iiiftinfis TOV iXafffjiov ira.pa.Ka.\ovu.tv, culo, sed ex corde profertur : quod 
 C.T. \. non bromosis pecudibus, sed sua vis- 
 Here I understand ^ri TTJS Oufftas simis moiibuscomparatur; quod non 
 ?/cetrr;y to refer to ffp.a and of^ua cruentis manibus, sed sensibus mun- 
 XpiiTTov, before mentioned. They dis offertur ; quod non jugulatur ut 
 are that sacrifice of propitiation into pereat, sed, siout Isaac, immolatur 
 which the elements are supposed to ut vivat.' Zeno Veron. in Psal. xlix. 
 be 'symbolically changed, by the spi- This I take from Dodwell on In- 
 riUial sacrifice and unbloody service; cense, pp. 97, 98. 
 that is, by the consecratory prayers e 'E-ya; -rpatrtfas fivyrtic 
 and lauds, instrumentally, as by the TTJJ,
 
 Bloody and Unlloody. 565 
 
 epithet unbloody to be appropriated to material substance. 
 And this may help to explain another passage of his, relating 
 to Julian, Avhom he represents as desecrating his hands by 
 profane blood, thereby wiping out the consecration he had 
 received in Baptism, and washing his hands of the unbloody 
 sacrifice f ; that is, of the consecration received in the eucharis- 
 tical solemnities. Had this plain sense of the place been 
 thought on, there would have been no room left for the specu- 
 lations which some have raised upon that passage ". 
 
 There is another noted place of the same Father, where lie 
 speaks, I think, of the Pagans, set on by Arians, and defiling 
 the unbloody sacrifices with the blood of men and of victims h . 
 I see no reason for interpreting unbloody sacrifices, in this 
 passage, at all differently from the common usage of that phrase 
 in Church writers of those ancient times. Both the thought 
 and the expression seem to be near akin to what Optatus uses, 
 upon a like occasion, in relation to the rudeness and profaneness 
 of some Donatists ; who had overturned, as he terms it, the 
 vows and desires of the people, together with the altars 5 . I 
 suppose, Gregory might as properly and as reasonably say, that 
 the devotions of the people were polluted in one case, as Optatus 
 might say, that they were overturned in the other case : the 
 expressions are alike rhetorical. 
 
 Asterius Amasenus, in a work ascribed to Gregory Nyssen, 
 speaks expressly of incorporeal repentance and unbloody sup- 
 plication, as obtaining in the Church, in the room of animal 
 sacrifices k . So that the epithet unbloody, for the first four 
 
 'Eyui Ka.6a.(f><a \abv, ov ffoi irpoff- 6v<rtui> a'luaffi xpad'oi'Tfs. Naziarrz. 
 
 <pfpu, Orat. xx. p. 348. 
 
 'Ei/ TO?S ava'1/j.ois Kal reXe/bis 5<fy- i ' Vota et desideria hominum, cum 
 
 fj.acri. ipsis altaribus, evertistis. Iliac ad 
 
 Nazianz. Iamb. vol. ii. p. 182. aures Dei ascendere solebat oratio.' 
 
 f Kal ras x 6 V as a^ayvl^frat, TTJS Optat. contr. Parmen. lib. vi. p. 289. 
 avaiuaKTov 6vcr(as a.iroKa.Qaipui', Si' ?is k "Oirfp Se ?)v iSre 6 iWap/cos ij.6- 
 
 fi/Afts Xpi(TT<p K0ivtavo\}fj.fv, Kal fiav <?xos, TOVTO v\>v fffrl i] a.ffta/j.aros /j.tra- 
 
 Tra9Tjfj.a.T(av, Kal TTJS BtdrriTos. Nazi- ;ueA.eia, Kal o.valfi.a.ros 8e^<ris. Greg, 
 
 anz. Orat. i. p. 70. Nyssen. de Poenit. p. 170. That 
 
 B See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. work belongs to Asterius Amasenus 
 
 p. 20. of the fourth or fifth century. Vid. 
 
 h vffta<rTTftplcav Karopxov/j.(voi, Kal Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. torn, viii. 4 p. 
 
 ras avainaKTOvs Bvcrias avOptairoiv Kal 160.
 
 566 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 centuries at least, appears not to have been so much as applied 
 to the eucharistical elements, much less appropriated. 
 
 Some pieces have been quoted on this head 1 , under the 
 admired names of Athanasius and Chrysostoni, which might 
 have been worth examining, were they not now known to be 
 spurious. But Chrysostom, in his undoubted writings, abun- 
 dantly discovers how he understood the distinction which we 
 are now upon, by his opposing the bloody antiquated sacrifices, 
 not to clean elements, but to Christian virtues, lauds, prayers, 
 and good works . Isidore Pelusiot uses the phrase of unbloody 
 sacrifice , but without explication ; so that his sense of it must 
 be determined, either by his general doctrine elsewhere, or by 
 the constant usage of contemporary writers. 
 
 St. Austin opposes to the antiquated bloody victims, the sacri- 
 fices of praise P. Cyril of Alexandria says that the angels of 
 heaven offer unbloody sacrifices 9. A very clear passage, by 
 which we may reasonably interpret his meaning in other pas- 
 sages 1 not so clear, or left doubtful and undeterminate. I shall 
 here take notice but of one, which runs thus : ' The table bearing 
 the shewbread (proposition of loaves) signifies the unbloody 
 sacrifice, by which we are blessed, while we eat the bread from 
 heaven, that is, Christ 8 . Here the phrase of unbloody sacrifice 
 
 1 Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 20. xiii. p. 457. Epist. ad Nestor, p. 72. 
 
 m That ascribed to Athanasius is In Malach. p. 830. 
 
 among the spuria of the Benedictine Sq/xaiVei pev TJ Tpdirtfa r^v Trpodt- 
 
 edition, torn. ii. p. 241. aiv exovffa TOIV ttpTuv, TQV avai/juiKTov 
 
 The other ascribed to Chrysostom Ovtriav SC ?is fv\oyovfj.f0a, rbv &prov 
 
 is among the spuria of the Benedic- tff&iovrts r'bv e'| ovpavov, rovrfirri 
 
 tine edition, torn. v. p. 630. ~X.ptcrriv. Cyrill. Alex, de Adorat. 
 
 n Chrysostom. contra Jud. Horn, in Spirit, lib. xiii. p. 457. 
 
 vi. p. 648 ; Horn. vii. pp. 617, 664. N.B. This passage, or part of it, 
 
 torn. i. In Psal. iv. p. 20. In Psal. [in Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 20,] is 
 
 xlix. p. 231. In Joann. Horn. Ixxiv. strangely rendered thus : 'The table 
 
 p. 437. torn. viii. In Heb. Horn. xi. which had the shewbread denotes 
 
 pp. 115, 116. torn. xii. the unbloody sacrifice of the bread, 
 
 Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. Ep. 75. or loaves.' Here TWV &prw, which 
 p. 284. belong to irpodtffiv going before, (for 
 
 rAugustin. ad Honorat. Epist. cxi. irpoOttriv rwv &PTUV amounts to the 
 
 p. 439. torn. ii. same with rovs Sprouv rrjs wpoQeffas,} 
 
 1 Cyrill. Alex, de Rect. Fide, p. are separate! from irp66tcnv, and irp6- 
 160. See my Review, above, pp. Qevtv alone is rendered shewbread, 
 342, 346. very oddly, that so ruv Upruv may be 
 
 * Cyrill. Alex, explicat. Anathem. thrown to avaifi.aKTov Ovarlav, to make 
 xi. p. 1 56. De Adorat. in Spiritu, lib. an unbloody sacrifice of loaves in the
 
 Bloody and Unbloody. 567 
 
 undoubtedly refers to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in and by 
 which we are blessed, sanctified, &c. It may be a name for 
 some part of the service, or for the whole solemnity, (as the 
 whole is often denominated for some eminent part,) but cannot 
 reasonably be construed as a name for the elements, considered 
 as a material sacrifice. The bread from heaven, the thing 
 signified, rather than the signs, would, by Cyril's account, have 
 the better title to that name. But I apprehend, that the phrase 
 of unbloody sacrifice in that place, denotes not the heavenly 
 bread itself, nor the signs, but the memorial service performed 
 by those signs, which is the usual signification of the phrase. 
 Upon the whole, I may presume to say, that no clear testimony 
 hitherto, within the six first centuries, has been produced, 
 whereby to prove that unbloody sacrifice was ever made a name 
 for the elements of the Eucharist. If the Fathers had enter- 
 tained such a notion, no doubt but they could have expressed it, 
 in words as clear and as full as the Church writers of the eighth* 
 and following centuries expressed it ; for they wanted no com- 
 mand of language : but since they never did so express it, but 
 those later writers are (so far as appears) the first that did so ; 
 it is reasonable to conclude that such an use of that phrase came 
 in about the time that transubstantiation (or something very like 
 it) was creeping in. And it is no great wonder if the signs then 
 came to be looked upon as the unbloody sacrifice, when they 
 were believed to be or to contain the very things signified, the 
 real body and blood that was once sacrificed upon the cross". I 
 would not be understood, by my tracing the use of the phrase of 
 
 Eucharist : notconsidering.thatipTos, the same century, [vid. Oudin. torn. i. 
 
 in the apodosis of the comparison, p. 1858], in these words : 
 
 follows after, and means, not the ele- ' Offerimus tibi haiic immaculatam 
 
 ments, butthe bread from heaven, that hostiam, rationabilem hostiatn, incru- 
 
 is, Christ, as Cyril himself interprets, entam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, 
 
 ' The Second Council of Nice (A. D. et calicem vitae aeternae.' Pseud- 
 
 787) speaks plainly enough : oCrt 6 Ambros. serm. v. In Oudin. torn. i. 
 
 Kupios O#T 01 diroffToAof, $) Trarepes, 1904. So the interpolated Sacra - 
 
 tln6va fjirov Trjv Sta rov lepecvs Trpoa- mentary of Greg. I., and so other late 
 
 <p(pofji.(vriv o.fa.ifj.o.Krov Ova-lav, oAA.' liturgies. 
 
 aurb rb trcSfto ol avrb -rb oljua. Con- u See Sacramental Part of the Eu- 
 
 cil. Nicaen. ii. Act. vi. pp. 370, 371. charist Explained, in the preceding 
 
 So also had Damascen before, torn. i. Charge, pp. 497-514. 
 p. 272. So likewise Ambrosiaster, of
 
 568 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 unbloody sacrifice in so particular a manner, as if I thought that 
 much depended upon it : for had the Fathers really denominated 
 the elements by that name, it would amount only to this, that 
 as the elements, by a metonymy, have been sometimes called 
 tremendous sacrifice, often body and blood, or Christ slain, and 
 the like ; so, by the same metonymy, they have been likewise 
 called unbloody sacrifice. But as the fact has not been proved, 
 that the elements were ever so named by the ancient Fathers, I 
 thought it proper first to consider the fact, and to give what 
 light I could to it, because it may be of some use to know how 
 the ancients understood and applied their terms or phrases. 
 
 VII. 
 
 There was another ancient distinction similar to the former, 
 though of somewhat less note ; and that was the distinction of 
 smoky and unsmoky sacrifice. The Jewish and Pagan sacrifices 
 were of the smoky, fiery kind ; but the Gospel sacrifices were 
 free from fumes and vapours, and inflamed only with the fire of 
 the Holy Spirit. It will be of use carefully to examine this 
 distinction, on two accounts : first, in order to observe whether 
 the Fathers opposed to the smoky sacrifices, which they rejected, 
 clean bread and wine, or clean life ; and, next, to see whether 
 that fire of the Spirit, which they supposed to fall upon the 
 Christian sacrifice, was conceived to come upon the eucharistical 
 elements or upon the communicants. By these two marks, we 
 may as easily and as certainly discern what was or what was not 
 the Christian sacrifice, in their estimation, as a tree is known by 
 its fruits, or a face by its lines and features. 
 
 i. Let us see then, first, how the Fathers expressed the 
 distinction, and what it was that they opposed to the smoky 
 sacrifices of Jews and Pagans. 
 
 Justin, according to his way of stating the Christian sacrifice, 
 in opposition to incensings, among other articles, opposes only 
 the sacrifice of praise v . Athenagoras does the like w . Irenaeus 
 
 v Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 19. See w Athenag. pp. 48, 49. See above 
 above, p. 556, and Keview, above, p. 560. Review, above, p. 323. 
 p. 317, &c.
 
 Smoky and Unsmoky. 569 
 
 opposes a contrite heart, and prayers x , upon the strength of 
 St. John's authority in the Revelationsy. Clemens of Alexandria 
 opposes to incensings, &c. a sacrifice of the heart, and of speech 
 exhaled from holy souls, and the like z . Tertullian opposes clean 
 prayers a . So does OrigenA Lactantius opposes to blood, 
 fumes, and libations, a good mind, a clean breast, and innocent 
 life c . Hitherto no one thought of opposing clean bread or pure 
 wine to the smoky sacrifices. 
 
 Eusebius. speaking of Constantine, says; 'To God, the king 
 of all, he sent up gratulatory prayers, being a kind of unfiery 
 and unsraoky sacrifices' 1 .' Elsewhere, to blood, smoke, and 
 nidor, he opposes purity of thought, sincerity of affection, sound- 
 ness of principles, and the like e . The author of some com- 
 mentaries under the name of Ambrose, who is supposed to have 
 collected much from Chrysostom, opposes faith and prayers to 
 the smoky sacrifices^ Now, if the eucharistical elements had 
 been the Christian sacrifice, how easy and how natural must it 
 have been for the Fathers to flourish upon that topic ; the clean- 
 ness, the pureness, the usefulness of bread and wine, or the 
 intrinsic value of it, (as some have done since, g) beyond all the 
 gold and silver of the Indies. Indeed, how could they miss of 
 it ? Or how could they forbear to employ their finest strokes of 
 oratory upon it ] Yet they were totally silent on that head. 
 
 x Irenaeus, lib. iv. C; if. pp. 248, d TaJ irav-rtav f3a.(rt\ti &e eu^a- 
 
 249. ed. Bened. See Review, above, piffrovs cu^ar, Sxrirtp TIVO.S cnrvpovs nal 
 
 p. 324, &c. aicdirvovs Bvffias a.i>firt/j.wfTo. Eviseb. 
 
 y Revel, v. 8. de Vit. Constant, lib. i. c. 48. p. 
 
 z Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. iii.c. 12. 526. 
 
 p. 306. Strom, ii. pp. 369, 370. e Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. lib. i. 
 
 Strom, vii. p. 848. Compare Review, c. 6. p. 23 ; c. 8. p. 29 ; c. 10. p. 40. 
 
 above, p. 328. See Review, above, p. 340. 
 
 a Tertull. Apol. c. xxx. p. 277. f 'Nonne altare est caeleste fides 
 
 Ad Scap. c. ii. p. 69. See above, nostra, in quo offerhnus quotidie 
 
 p. 561, and Review, above, pp. 329, orationesnostras,nihilhabenscarnalis 
 
 330. sacrificii quod in cineres resolvatur, 
 
 b Origen. contr. Cels. p. 755. See ncc in fumos extenuetur, nee in vapo- 
 
 Review, above, p. 333. rationesdiffundatur.' Pseud- Ambros. 
 
 ' Illic nihil exigitur aliud quam in Heb. viii. 
 
 sanguis pecudum, et fumus, et inepta B See Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. 
 
 libatio : hie bona mens, purum pectus, p. 62. Compare my Appendix above, 
 
 irmocens vita.' Lactant. Instit. lib.v. p. 450. 
 e. 19. p. 279..
 
 5 jo Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 Say, that their ' disciplina arcani ' in some measure restrained 
 them from exposing their mysteries to strangers and aliens : yet 
 that ' disciplina' scarcely commenced so soon as some of these 
 authorities 11 . Besides that, their mysteries were not unknown 
 to Julian, for instance, (who had been a Christian reader,) nor to 
 several other adversaries : and they would not have been silent, 
 whatever the Christians themselves were. Yet Julian charged 
 not the Christians with bread sacrifice, but with no sacrifice ', 
 (excepting Christ's,) and so the general charge used to runJ. I 
 know but one instance, and that as late as the fifth century, 
 which looks at all like a charge of bread-sacrifice upon Chris- 
 tians : and perhaps by that time there might be more colour for 
 it (though colour only hitherto) than there had formerly been. 
 It is the instance of Benjamin the Jew, mentioned in Isidore, 
 who objected, that the Church's oblation appeared new and 
 strange, with respect to bread's receiving a sanctification, con- 
 sidering that the law had prescribed bloody sacrifices. Isidore 
 makes a very obscure reply, telling the Jew, that the law had 
 prescribed blood and nidors, in the court of the temple without, 
 but that within there was a table of bread, (meaning the shew- 
 bread,) which was not exposed to the view of the ancient people k . 
 It does not appear from this passage, either that Isidore admitted 
 the bread for a sacrifice, or that Benjamin the Jew (who speaks 
 only of bread's being a sanctified offering) charged him with it. 
 But suppose it related to the name of sacrifice, as sometimes 
 
 h Vid. Tentzelii Exercitationes : Lactantius, Instit. lib. v. c. 19. Epit. 
 
 contr. Schelstrat. part ii. p. 32, &c. pp. 169, 204. Eusebiua, Deraonstr. 
 
 Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. pp. Evang. lib. x. 
 
 407, 408. Dallaeus De Cult. Relig. k Koii'V Kal ^tvriv rijv rrjs 
 
 pp. 1085, 11131 Calvoer de Hit. p. e<J>Tjs irpofftf>opav iirivtvoriff6a.i, 
 
 639. &pro* rbv ayLzauov tvfiriffTv&Ti, rov 
 
 ' "Vid. Cyrill. Alex, contr. Jul. lib. von.au <u/xacri raj (Wi'aj bp'i&vros. 
 
 ix. pp. 307, 308. lib, x. p. 345. edit. ITcSs Se 06 trwopas . . . 8n ra aT,uara 
 
 Spanhein. *ol TOS Kviaaas ev rrj auAp, <cal TO?J 
 
 i Justin, pp. 14, 19, 387, ed. Lond. vpoffKrjviois TOV aytciffuaros vi^os eVee'- 
 
 Athenag.pp. 48, 49. Clem. Alex. pp. \tvtre yivfaOat, TOVS Se &prous ri taa- 
 
 36, 369, 370, 688, 836, 848, 860. ce8e'xTo rpd.irt^a,'firwira\aicfadfa,Tos 
 
 Minuc. Fel. sect 33. p. 183. Tertull. \ay- >v tls vvdpxft avrbs, 6 TTJV eV rf 
 
 Apol. 277, Ad Soap. c. ii. p. 69. v6(ii? Kp\nrro^tin}v KO! vvv 8f5ri\utj.(i>i)i' 
 
 Origen. contr. Cels. lib. viii. p, 755- a\'i)S(tai' ^ yvovs. Isidor.Pelus. lib. i. 
 
 ed. Bened. Arnobius, lib. vi. p. 189. Ep. 401. p. 104, alias 91,
 
 Smoky and Unsmoky. 571 
 
 given to the elements in the passive view, (metonymically called 
 sacrifice, as representing and exhibiting the grand sacrifice 
 received or participated in the Eucharist,) it would not concern 
 the question about the active sacrifices performed in the Eucha- 
 rist, but the sacrifice received in it, symbolically received ; and 
 so the instance would be foreign to the point now in hand \ I 
 shall have occasion to say more of the elements, as denominated 
 a sacrifice, in the receptive way, and in a metonymical sense, as 
 I go on, and therefore may pass it over now. 
 
 2. Having observed what kind of Christian sacrifices were 
 constantly opposed to the smoky and fiery sacrifices of Jews and 
 Pagans, (not pure and clean bread or wine, but pure heart and 
 life,) I am next to take notice what kind of fire the Christians 
 acknowledged in their sacrifice, and how they interpreted it. 
 As Pagans boasted of their culinary fires, which consumed their 
 sacrifices, Christians, in their turn, spake as highly of the fire 
 of the Spirit : let us now see in what manner they managed that 
 topic. 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria, opposing the fire of the Spirit to the 
 gross culinaiy fires, observes, that that spiritual fire does not 
 sanctify the flesh (of animals), but sinful souls m . The souls 
 were the sacrifice in his account. Upon the material scheme, 
 had it been his, he must have said, that the fire does not sanctify 
 animal flesh, but bread and wine. 
 
 Origen supposes every man to have his burnt sacrifice in him- 
 self, offered from the altar of his heart, which altar he himself 
 
 1 I may just take notice of another whereupon Albertine makes this re- 
 instance, sometimes pretended out of flection : 
 
 Origen ; as if he had opposed an ' Quod Bellarminus ambigue vertit 
 
 offering to God of bread to the sacri- oblatos, et de oblatione Deo facta in- 
 
 fices which Pivgans offered todaemons. telligit, id parthn ex linguae Graecae 
 
 See the passage in Review, above, ignorantia, partim ex praejudicio 
 
 p. 86. The strength of the objection inepte supponit.' Albertin. p. 362. 
 lies only in a false rendering of that m <bantv 5' T^ueTs a-yid^eiv rb irvp, 
 
 passage in Origen : thematerial words, ou ra Kpta, a.\\a /cot ras afj.aprca\ovs 
 
 justly rendered, run thus: 'We eat tyvx<is. Tlvp ov -rra/j.<t>dyov Kal ^avav- 
 
 the loaves brought, with thanks- aov, o.\\a. rb ^povi^ov Ktyovrts, rb 
 
 giving and prayer over the things $tticvov/j.evov Sta TTJS ^vx^s rrjs Siep- 
 
 given.' Bellarmine would translate xoy.4vi]s [f. SexojutVr/s] rb irvp. Clem. 
 
 Trpoffa.yoiJifi'ovs&pTovs,' loaves offered,' Alex, Strom, vii. p. 851. 
 understandingthem as offered to God:
 
 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 fires, and keeps always burning 11 : that is to say, by the fire of 
 the Spirit within, not by any fire from without, as in the case of 
 the Jewish and Pagan burnt offerings. 
 
 Jerome represents the man, his thoughts, words, and works 
 sublimated, in a manner, by the fire of the Spirit, and, as it 
 were, spiritualized into an heavenly composition, so as to become 
 a most acceptable sacrifice unto God . The persons themselves, 
 by his account, are the sacrifice ; and upon them the fire of the 
 Spirit falls : whereas, had the elements been supposed the sacri- 
 fice, the fire must have fallen there, and the whole turn of the 
 comparison must have been differently contrived. Austin's 
 accounts are much the same with Jerome's, Avhile he supposes 
 the old man to become in a manner extinct, and the sacrifice of 
 the new man to be lighted up by the fire of the Spirit P. 
 
 The most eloquent Chrysostom frequently flourishes upon the 
 same topic. In one place, elegantly describing the nature and 
 excellency of self-sacrifice, he proceeds to speak of the fire which 
 comes upon it, as being of a very new and uncommon kind, such 
 as subsists not upon wood, or material fuel, but is self-subsisting, 
 lives of -itself, and gives life to the sacrifice, instead of consuming 
 it Q. Most certainly he thought not of the material elements : 
 
 n ' Unusquisque nostrum habet et imponit in altare fidei, divino 
 
 in se holocaustura suum, et holo- igne, id est, Spiritu Sancto, compre- 
 
 causti ipse succendit altare, ut sem- hendenda." Augustin. in Psal. iv. 
 
 per ardeat.' Origen. in Levit. Horn. p. 14. torn. iv. Cp. torn. v. pp. 973, 
 
 ix. p. 243. 976, and Gaudentius Brix. de Exod. 
 
 ' Ut corpus pinguis literae, quod ii. p. 807. 
 
 significatur in lege, et prophetae nu- ' Totos nos divinus ignis absumat, 
 
 biluni igne Domini, hoc est, Spiritu et fervor ille totos arripiat. Quis 
 
 Sancto (de quo dicit Paulus, Spiritu fervor? De quo dicit Apostolus, 
 
 ferventes) in spiritualem et tenuem Spiritu ferventes. Non taiitum 
 
 substautiain convertantur Ut per anima nostra absumatur ab illo di- 
 
 ignem Spiritus Sancti omnia quae vino igne sapientiae, sed et corpus 
 
 cogitamus, loquimur, et facimus, in nostrum, ut mereatur ibi immortali- 
 
 spiritualem substantiam convertan- tatem. Sic levetur holocaustum ut 
 
 tur, et hujuscemodi Dominus de- absorbeatur mors in victoriam.' 
 
 lectatus sacrificiis placabilis fiat.' Augustin. in Psal. 1. p. 474. 
 Hieronym. in Ezech. xliv. pp. 1021, 1 Katvbs yap OVTOS rrjs 6u<rlas & 
 
 I O2 2. pj/uoj' Sib xal 7rctpa8o|os TOV Trvpbs 6 
 
 P ' Extincto vel infirmato per rpdiros. Ou5e yap v\tav diirat Kal 
 
 poenitentiam vetere homine, sacri- uA?jy inroKti/j.fi>7)s, dAA' avrb Kaff 
 
 ficium justitiae, secundum regenera- tavrb $7 rb nvp -rb ij/j.(repov, Kal ovSe 
 
 tionem uovi hominis, offeratur Deo ; KaraKaiet rb Upe7ov, oAAi juaAAoy 
 
 cum se offert ipsa anima jam abluta, avrb faoTrottt. Chrysostom. in Rom.
 
 Smoky and Unsmoky. 
 
 for he excludes all such gross fuel ; neither were the elements 
 capable of receiving life by the fire of the Spirit. Cyril of 
 Alexandria reasons on this head exactly the same way, mysti- 
 cizing the fire, and appropriating it to the persons considered as 
 the sacrifice r . What the Fathers aimed at in all was, to point 
 out something in the Christian sacrifices correspondent or analo- 
 gous to the ordinary sacrificial fires of the Pagans, and to the 
 holy fire of the Jews, but yet far exceeding both, in purity, 
 dignity, and energy. 
 
 But perhaps it may be here asked, Do not the same Fathers 
 often speak of the Holy Spii'it's coming upon the eucharistical 
 elements, as well as upon the persons of the communicants ] It 
 is very certain that they do ; for they supposed the Holy Ghost 
 to consecrate, or sanctify, the elements into holy signs, or sacred 
 symbols, representative and exhibitive of the body and blood of 
 Christ : not to make holocausts or sacrifices of them, but sacra- 
 ments only s ; signs of the grand sacrifice, spiritually given and 
 received in and through them. Therefore the Fathers do not 
 speak of the fire of the Spirit, as inflaming or warming the ele- 
 ments ; neither could they with any propriety or aptness do it : 
 if there be any chance expression seeming to look that way t, it 
 can be understood only of the gift of the Spirit accompanying 
 the elements to every worthy communicant. Upon the whole, it 
 is manifest, that when the Fathers opposed their sacrificial fire 
 (viz. the fire of the Spirit) to the sacrificial fires of Jews and 
 Pagans, they supposed it to enlighten, inflame, and spiritualize, 
 not the elements, but the persons : therefore the persons were 
 
 Horn. xx. p. 657. torn. ix. Cp. de Syrus, which has been thought to 
 
 Sacerdot. lib. iii. p. 383. torn. i. contain some such meaning : 'Christus 
 
 Item de Poenitent. Horn. ix. p. 349. Salvator noster ignem et spiritum 
 
 torn. ii. Item de Beat. Philogon. manducandum atque bibendum 
 
 Horn. vi. p. 500. torn, i., et in Heb. praestitit nobis carne vestitis, corpus 
 
 Horn. xi. pp. 1 15, 1 16. torn. xii. Item, videlicet et sanguinem suum.' Ephr. 
 
 torn. i. pp. 648, 671. Syrus/ de Natura Dei Incomprehen- 
 
 T Cyrill. Alex, contra Jul. lib. x. sibili,p.682. But ' ignis ' there seems 
 
 p. 345. Compare my Review, above, to mean the Logos, received with 
 
 p. 346. the Spirit ; received, not by the ele- 
 
 3 See Sacramental Part of the ments, but by the persons upon their 
 
 Eucharist Explained in the preced- partaking of the elements. Yid. 
 
 ing Charge, p. 491, &c. Alberrin. pp. 453, 454. The same is 
 
 ' There is a passage of Ephrern received in Baptism also.
 
 574 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 the true and acceptable sacrifices, living sacrifices, burning and 
 shining holocausts. 
 
 VIIL 
 
 There was another ancient, but less noted, distinction of sacri- 
 fice, into false and true ; or into untrue and true, which amounts 
 to the same. 
 
 Philastrius, speaking of the Jewish sacrifices, observes, that 
 they were not perpetual, nor true, nor salutary". That is to 
 say, that though they had truth of propriety, and were, properly 
 speaking, sacrifices, yet they had not truth of excellency, as the 
 Christian sacrifices have. Justin Martyr, long before, had hinted 
 the same thought T . And so also had Lactantius in opposing 
 the true sacrifices of Christians to the false ones (though he does 
 not expressly so call them) of Jews and Pagans *. St. Austin 
 expresses the distinction of false and true in plain terms; 
 opposing the true Christian sacrifice, performed in the Eucharist, 
 to all the false sacrifices of the aliens 7. The context may perhaps 
 make it somewhat doubtful, whether true sacrifice in that place 
 refers to the grand sacrifice, or to the eucharistical sacrifice, 
 since they are both of them mentioned in the same chapter. 
 But I choose to refer the words to the nearer, rather than to the 
 more remote antecedent, as most natural, and therefore most 
 probable : and the commendation there given to the true sacrifice, 
 by way of preference, runs no higher than what he elsewhere 
 says of the sacrifice of the Church, offered in the Eucharist. 
 That sacrifice Austin prefers z , under the name of ' true,' before 
 the false sacrifices both of Jews and Pagans. 
 
 I may just note by the way, that there is another sense of 
 false sacrifice to be met with in Cyprian, which belongs not to 
 this place ; for he understood schisinatical sacrifices ; which he 
 calls false and sacrilegious sacrifices, as offered in opposition to 
 
 ' Necessitate indocilitatis co- cuncta sacrificia falsa eesserunt.' 
 
 gente, sacrificia temporalia. non per- Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. c. 20. 
 
 petua, nee vera fuerunt indicta p. 256. Compare my Review, above, 
 
 Judaeis, nee salutaria.' Philastr. p. 347. 
 
 Haer. cix. p. 111. x 'Hujus antem praeclarissimum 
 
 T Just. Mart. Dial. p. 389. atque optimum sacriricium non ipsi 
 
 * Laciant. Epit. pp. 169,204,205. sumus : hoc est civitaa ejus ; cujus 
 
 y Huic snmmo veroque sacrificio rei mysterium celebramus oblationi-
 
 False and True. Old and New. 575 
 
 the true pastors a . The Jewish and Pagan sacrifices were deno- 
 minated false, in such a sense as we speak of a false diamond, or 
 false money, meaning counterfeit, figure, imitation : schismatical 
 sacrifices are called false in such a sense as we say a false title, 
 a false patent, or the like. But enough of this. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Hitherto I have been considering such names of distinction as 
 served to discriminate the Christian sacrifices from the sacrifices 
 both of Jews and Pagans. I proceed next to some other dis- 
 tinctions which respected only the Jewish sacrifices as opposed 
 to the sacrifices of the Gospel. Hereto belongs the distinction 
 between old and new ; which we meet with first in Irenaeus of 
 the second century b : who appears to understand the new obla- 
 tion of the offices of piety and benevolence performed at the 
 Christian altar . The sum of his doctrine is, that the old sacri- 
 fices which the law required, and which even then had the 
 second place only, have now under the Gospel no place at all ; 
 and that the true sacrifices which then had the first place, have 
 now the sole place under a new form, with many new and great 
 improvements. The service, not the elements, are with him the 
 new oblation d . 
 
 bus nostris. Cessaturas enim victi- oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apo- 
 
 mas, quas in umbra futuri offerebant stolis accipiens, in universe mundo 
 
 Judaei : et unum sacrificium Gentes offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis 
 
 a soils ortu usque ad occasum, sicut praestat, primitias suorum munerum 
 
 jam fieri cernimus oblaturas, per in Novo Testamento.' Iren. lib. iv. 
 
 Prophetas oracula increpuere divina.' c. 17. p. 249. Compare my Review, 
 
 Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. xix. above, pp. 324-326. 
 
 cap. 23. torn. vii. The following words of Origen 
 
 ' Unde et in ipso verissimo et are a good comment upon what is 
 
 singular! sacrificio, Domino Deo said by Irenaeus : 
 
 nostro agere gratias admonemur.' ' Si quis vel egentibus distribuat, 
 
 Augustin. de Spir. et Lit. c. n. vel faciat aliquid boni operis pro 
 
 p. 94. torn. x. Cp. de Civit. Dei, mandato, munus obtulit Deo.' Ori- 
 
 lib. x. c. 6. p. 243. torn. vii. Et gen. in Num. Horn. xi. p. 311. 
 
 contr. Advers. Leg. lib. i. c. 18. Compare Review, above, pp.324, 325. 
 
 p. 568. torn. viii. d Irenaeus hath plainlysaid, 'Deus 
 
 a ' Dominicae hostiae veritatem in se assumit bonas operationes 
 
 per falsa sacrificia profanare.' Cy- nostras.' Iren. lib. iv. c. 18. p. 251. 
 
 prian. de Unit. Eccles. ' Sacrilega But where hath he said, ' Deus in se 
 
 contra verum sacerdotem sacrificia assumit panem nostrum et vinum 
 
 off'erre.' Cyprian. Ep. 69. nostrum,' or ' pecuniam nostram ? ' 
 
 b ' Novi Testamenti novam docuit Nowhere.
 
 5 7 6 Distinctions of Sacrifice: 
 
 Cyprian, after Irenaeus, has the same distinction, under the 
 terms of 'old' and 'new;' observing, that by the accounts given in 
 the Old Testament, the old sacrifice was to be abolished to make 
 way for the new. He refers to Psalm 1. 13, 23 ; Isaiah i. IT, 
 iv. 6 ; Mai. i. 10. Not that every text there cited directly 
 asserted so much ; for at the same time that the prophets spake 
 slightly of the old sacrifices, in comparison, yet God required a 
 religious observance of them : but since those sacrifices were so 
 slightly spoken of, even while their use and obligation remained, 
 that single consideration was sufficient to intimate, that they 
 were to cease entirely under a more perfect dispensation. So 
 the Fathers understood that matter ; and therefore those texts 
 out of the Psalms, and out of the Prophet Isaiah, with others of 
 like kind, were not foreign, but were conclusive and pertinent, 
 with respect to the purpose for which they were cited. They 
 did not only prove that the new were then comparatively better 
 than the old, but that a new and better dispensation should 
 admit of no other f but the best. This I hint, to prevent any 
 one's imagining, because material sacrifices obtained along with 
 spiritual then, though the spiritual were preferred, that therefore 
 so it may be now, under the last and most perfect economy, 
 where the circumstances are widely different. But I return. 
 
 Cyprian, among the new sacrifices, reckons the sacrifice of 
 praise, the sacrifice of righteousness, spiritual incense, that is, 
 pi-ayers, and the pure offering, whatever it means ?. 
 
 Eusebius mentions the new mysteries of the New Testament, 
 contained in the unbloody and rational sacrifices h . From 
 
 e ' Quod sacrificium vetus evacua- of the Blessed Virgin, vol. ii. p. 189. 
 
 retur, et novum celebraretur.' Cy- fol. edit, 
 prian. Testim. lib. i. c. 16. e See the meaning of the pure 
 
 f ' Prayer and sacrifice, strictly so offering, mentioned in Malachi, ex- 
 called, were both acts of worship ; plained by Tertullian and Eusebius, 
 but prayer more excellent than sacri- cited in Review, above, pp. 330, 340. 
 fice, because sacrifice was a rite of * 'Efi 5e T< Kvpicfi /j.6vcp Bvcnaffrr,- 
 prayer, and a rite which God re- piov ava(fj.<nv KO.\ \OJIKWV 8v<niav KOT& 
 quired no longer than till that most KO.IVCL ftvar-ftpia rris vtas Kal KCUVTJS 5m- 
 precious sacrifice of the Son of God fl^Kijs. Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. lib. 
 was offered for us : the merit of i. c. 6. p. 20. vo/j.tv Kaiv&s, Kara 
 which alone it is, that made the T^V ttaivriv SiaBrixriv. Ibid. cap. 10. 
 prayers of good men in all ages ac- He explains the meaning of new, 
 ceptable.' Claget on the Worship lib. i. c. 6. p. 16.
 
 ' Literal and Spiritual. 577 
 
 whence appears the vanity of arguing, (as some have done 1 ,) 
 that the new sacrifice, spoken of by the Fathers, could not 
 mean spiritual sacrifice, which had obtained long before : for it 
 is certain fact, that the Fathers did so understand and so apply 
 the name of new sacrifice ; and therefore it is reasoning against 
 fact, or disputing against the Fathers themselves, to argue in 
 that way. Besides that the argument may very easily be 
 retorted, since neither material sacrifice, nor bread sacrifice, nor 
 wine sacrifice, could be reckoned altogether new : for they ob- 
 tained under the old, that is, under the Jewish economy k . In 
 one sense, indeed, they are new, (which is no commendation of 
 them,) they are new Christianity, having been unknown in the 
 Church for six whole centuries or more, and not brought in 
 before the late and dark ages : probably, about the time when 
 material incense came in, under the notion of a Christian sacri- 
 fice 1 . But of this I may say more in another article below. 
 I shall only add here, that St. Austin called the cross-sacrifice, 
 Christ's body and blood, as participated, the new sacrifice m . 
 
 X. 
 
 I proceed to another distinction, as considerable as any before 
 mentioned ; and that is of legal or literal, and spiritual or evan- 
 gelical. Indeed, the word spiritual may, and sometimes has 
 been, opposed to material or corporeal ; and so far the distinction 
 would resolve into article the fifth, before considered under the 
 names of material and immaterial : but here I consider the 
 name o"f spiritual under another conception, as opposed to literal 
 
 ' Bellarmin. de Eucharist, pp. 749, Levit. ii. 4, &c. Numb, xxvii. 13, 
 
 751. Compare Unbloody Sacrifice, 14. Compare Brevint on the Mass, 
 
 part i. pp. 268, 269. pp. 116, 121. Kidder, p. 93, new 
 
 That pretence has been often an- edit. fol. 
 
 swered by learned Protestants. Pet. ' See Christian Sacrifice Explain- 
 
 Martyr contr. G-ardin. p. 54. Jewel ed, Appendix, p. 450. Compare 
 
 against Hard. p. 421. Bilson, p. 696. Dodwell on Incensing, p. 222. Claget 
 
 Hospinian, p. 568. Chrastovius de on the Worship of the Blessed Vir- 
 
 Missa, lib. i. p. 57* Mason, 585. gin, p. 188. vol. ii. in fol. 
 
 Du Moulin. Buckl. 432. Rivet. m ' Ut jam de cruce commendare- 
 
 Cathol. 106. Buddaeus, Miscel. Sacr. tur nobis caro et sanguis Domini, 
 
 torn. i. p. S4. Deylingius, Miscell. novum sacrificium.' Augustin. in 
 
 Sacr. pp. 98, 99. Psalm, xxxiii. p. 211. torn. iv. ed. 
 
 k Exod. xxix. 40; v. ii, 12, 13. Bened. 
 
 P P
 
 578 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 and legal. The New Testament itself often distinguishes be- 
 tween the letter and the spirit 11 , that is, between the Law, 
 which is the outward shell, and the Gospel, the inward kernel. 
 This distinction may be otherwise expressed by the words carnal 
 and spiritual : for the word flesh is frequently a Scripture name 
 for the external and legal economy , as opposed to the spirit, 
 which is the name for the Gospel, as before hinted. Earthly 
 and spiritual mean the same with the other P. Typical and 
 true is but another way of wording the same distinction i be- 
 tween legal and evangelical, as the Law was a type or prefigura- 
 tion of Gospel-blessings, and as figure is opposed to truth. 
 
 Symbolical and true differs from the other, only as a type 
 differs from a symbol, or as a particular from a general : for a 
 type, strictly, is a figure of things future, as before noted ; 
 whereas a symbol is a figure of things past, present, or to come. 
 So that both are figures, and as such are opposed to truth, like 
 as shadows to substance. In short, the Jewish sacrifices were 
 comparatively literal, carnal, terrene, typical, symbolical ; and 
 the Christian sacrifices are spiritual and true : such is the im- 
 port of the present distinction, variously expressed in Scripture 
 or in Church writers. 
 
 St. Peter uses the name of spiritual sacrifice r , in such a sense 
 as spirit and truth are opposed to type, figure, shadow, symbol, 
 or emblem : for he understood it in the same way as he under- 
 stood the Church to be a spiritual house, and the Jewish temple 
 to have been an emblem or figure of it. So much appears from 
 St. Peter's context. The Fathers took their hints from the 
 Apostle : and their notion of spiritual sacrifice appears conform- 
 able thereto, as being regulated by it, and copied from it ; only 
 
 n Rom. ii. 29 ; vii. 6 ; viii. 2 ; 2 Cor. and probably some others. 
 
 iii. 6. Compare Christian Sacrifice P Tertullian uses the distinction 
 
 Explained, p. 416, and Glassius's of 'terrene' and ' spiritual.' 
 
 Philolog; Sacr. p. 1427. Irenaeus particularly uses the 
 
 Rom. iv. i. 2 Cor. v. 16. Gal. distinction of 'typical' and 'true, 'lib. 
 
 iii. 3; iv. 23, 29. Philipp. iii. 4. iv. cap. 17. Note, that the truth of 
 
 Heb. vii. 16. Tertullian expresses a thing, in Scripture phrase, means 
 
 the distinction by the words ' carna- the true interpretation of it. Dan. 
 
 lia et spiritalia.' Adv. Jud. cap. v. vii. 16. 
 
 p. 188. So also Jerome on Malachi ; r i Pet. ii. 5.
 
 Literal and Spiritual. 579 
 
 taking in St. Paul's account of reasonable service 8 , and our 
 Lord's own rule of worship ' in spirit and in truth *,' and the 
 several other descriptions given in the New Testament of evan- 
 gelical sacrifice. There were two things pointed to by the legal 
 sacrifices ; our Lord's sacrifice, and ours ; his propitiating 
 merits, our qualifying duties or services. The truth of this 
 matter may best appear by a distinct enumeration of particulars, 
 as follows : 
 
 1. The legal incense pointed to the perfume of Christ's media- 
 tion u , and at the same time to the prayers of the saints v . In 
 these it centered, in these it terminated : and thus the material 
 incense is now spiritualized into the evangelical sacrifice of 
 prayer. 
 
 2. The blood of the ancient sacrifices typically referred to the 
 blood of Christ ; which none can dispute : but it seems withal, 
 that it symbolically referred to the blood of martyrs, who sacri- 
 fice their lives unto God x . 
 
 3. The mincha of the Old Testament had a typical aspect to 
 Christ, as all the sacrifices had : but it seems likewise to have 
 had a symbolical aspect to the oblation of Christ's mystical body, 
 the Churchy. 
 
 4. The daily sacrifice looked principally to our Lord's con- 
 tinual intercession : but it appears to have been likewise a kind 
 of emblem or symbol of Christian faith and service z . 
 
 5. The Levitical memorial typified the sweet odour a of 
 Christ : but in symbolical construction it seems also to have 
 pointed to prayers and benevolent works *>. 
 
 6. Sacrifices in general, typically looking to Christ, are sym- 
 bolically interpreted of almsdeeds c . 
 
 " Bom. xii. i. * John iv. 14. y Rom. xv. 16. Vid. Vitringa in 
 
 u Revel, viii. 3, 4. Vid. Vitringa Tea. Ixvi. 20. p. 950. 
 
 in loc. Wolfius in loc. Lightfoot, * Philipp. ii. 17. Vid. Vitringa de 
 
 vol. ii. p. 1260. Outram, p. 359. vet. Synagog. 1. i. c. 6. pp. 70, 71. 
 
 v Revel, v. 8. Vid. Vitringa in Wolfius in loc. Cp. Rom. xii. i. 
 
 loc. Dodwell on Incensing, p. 36, a Ephes. v. 2. Cp. DeylingiusV 
 
 &c. Outram, p. 357. Observ. Sacr. torn. i. p. 315. 
 
 1 Revel, vi. 9. Vid. Vitringa in b Acts x. 4. Phil. iv. 18. 
 
 loc. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn. ii. c Heb. xiii. 16. Vid. Wolfius in 
 
 PP- 536-361. Biblioth. Antiq. torn. loc. 
 i. p. 505. Outram, p. 181. 
 
 P p 2
 
 580 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 7. The animal sacrifices of the old law, pointing to the grand 
 sacrifice, appear to have had a secondary, symbolical aspect to 
 the calves of the lips d . 
 
 8. Libations of wine, typifying the blood of Christ, are re- 
 presented as emblems of pouring forth one's blood in martyr- 
 dom e . 
 
 9. Lastly, the mactation of animals for sacrifice is inter- 
 preted of mortifying our lusts and passions f . 
 
 Thus has the New Testament itself unfolded the mystical in- 
 tendinent of the Law ; giving us the spirit instead of the letter, 
 truth for figure, and, in the room of the antiquated signs, the 
 things themselves signified by them. Upon this principle, the 
 Fathers of the Church constantly believed and taught, that the 
 legal sacrifices were not barely typical of the sacrifice of the 
 cross, but were signs also and symbols of the evangelical sacri- 
 fices offered up by Christians ; and were to be considered as 
 semblages to realities, or as shadows to substance, or as flesh to 
 spirit. It remains only, that we inquire what they understood 
 the spiritual sacrifice to be ; for as to the legal sacrifices, every 
 one knows what they were, being so particularly set forth, and 
 so minutely described in the Old Testament, and referred to 
 also in the New. 
 
 Now as to the spiritual sacrifices, besides what is said of them 
 in both Testaments 11 , the Fathers have so plainly deciphered 
 them, and so distinctly enumerated them, that there can be no 
 reasonable question made as to what sacrifices they intended by 
 that name. I have elsewhere traced this matter from Father to 
 Father, through the first four centuries , and I need not repeat 
 
 d Hosea xiv. a. Heb. xiii. f5. Oxon. Origen. in Levit. Horn. ii. p. 
 
 6 Phil. ii. 17. i Tim. iv. 6. Cp. 191. edit. Bened. Nazianz. Orat. 
 
 Deyling. Observat. Sacr. torn. ii. p. xxxviii. p. 484. Chrysostom. in Heb. 
 
 547, &c. Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. torn. Horn. xi. pp. 807, 808. Augustin. 
 
 ii. p. 48, &c. torn. vii. pp. 241, 242, 255 ; viii. 345, 
 
 f Rom. vi. 6. Colosa. iii. 5. See 586 ; x. 94. Pseud-Ambros. in Heb. 
 
 Dodwell on Incense, p. 34, and viii. p. 447. 
 
 Cranmer against Gardiner, p. 109, h See my Review, above, pp. 311, 
 
 alias pp. 422, 423. 312. 
 
 8 Irenaeus, lib. iv. c. 7. ed. Bened. ' Ibid. pp. 314-386. 
 Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. p. 849. ed.
 
 Literal and Spiritual* 581 
 
 here : only I may add two or three authorities to the many 
 before cited, for confirmation. 
 
 Origen is very full and express in his accounts of spiritual 
 sacrifice k . Chrysostom is so minute and particular in specifying 
 what the spiritual sacrifices are, that nothing can be more so '. 
 He does it by giving in a catalogue of Christian virtues or 
 graces : those are the spiritual sacrifices, in his estimation. 
 When he says, they need no instruments, nor are confined to 
 place, he is to be understood of the virtuous habits resting in 
 the mind, and which, if all opportunities of outward exercise 
 were wanting, would still be spiritual sacrifices ; so that they do 
 not absolutely need instrument or place, as material sacrifices do. 
 And when they do need both, as to the outward exercise of those 
 virtues or religious habits, still it is the inward heart, rather 
 than the outward work, which is properly the acceptable sacri- 
 fice. Such is Chrysostom's account of this matter, and such the 
 concurring sentiments of all antiquity. Great pains have been 
 taken m to find, if it were possible, some ancient voucher for a 
 different account of spiritual sacrifice, or for some different ap- 
 plication of that name : but not a single instance has been 
 found, nor, I suppose, ever will be. 
 
 Bellarmine pretended 11 that Tertullian understood Abel's sa- 
 crifice of a sheep to have been a spiritual sacrifice. All invention 
 and misconstruction. Tertullian did not, could not suppose so 
 wild a thing ; which would have been a flat contradiction to his 
 known, certain, settled principles everywhere else in his works , 
 
 h ' Immolatio spiritalis est ilia quam torn . xii. 
 
 legimus, Immola Deo sacrificium lau- Tf 8e &TTI \ojtKrj \arpeia ; i) irvevfi- 
 
 dis,etreddeAltissimovotatua.' Psal. <m/c7) SioKor/a, r; iro\irfia i) Kara 
 
 1.14. ' Laudare ergo Deum, et vota Xpunbv . . . rat/ret yap iroiuv, ava- 
 
 orationis offerre, immolare est Deo.' Qfpeis \oyiK^v \arpflav. TowrfffTiv, 
 
 Origen. in Num. Horn. xi. p. 311. ovStv a,lff6rjr6v. Chrysost. in Rom. 
 
 torn. ii. ed. Bened. : cp. pp. 191, 205, Horn. xx. p. 658. torn. ix. 
 
 248, 363, 418, 563. m See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. 
 
 1 Ti 8 tffTiv ri Ao-yi/c}) Xctrpeia ; ra pp. 22-27, 6l. 
 
 5ia fyvxris, T 5ia Tri/ev/xaroy. Joan. iv. n Bellarmin. de Eucharist, p. 751. 
 
 24. "Off a /UT) 5 (IT ai o-WjUeiTOT, 8<r<x i^ Compare Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. 
 
 5e?TOJ bpyavuv , ju)j T&itiav, To 8 ianv p. 25. 
 
 fTtifiKfia, ffo><t>po<rvvri,4\fT)iJ.offvi>r],ai>ei- See some of the passages collected 
 
 KaKia, ij.aKpo0vfj.ia, Tatreivoippoavvri. in Review, above, pp. 329-332. 
 Chrysostom. in Heb. Horn. xi. p. 1 15.
 
 582 Distinctions of Sacrifice: 
 
 and in that very work also which Bellarmine referred to, 
 Tertullian does not say that Abel's sacrifice was a spiritual 
 sacrifice, but that Cain, the elder brother, was a type or pre- 
 figuration of the elder people Israel, and Abel a type or prefigu- 
 ration of the younger people, the Christian Church ; and that as 
 their sacrifices were different, (one being of the fruits of the 
 ground, the other of the flock,) so a difference in the sacrifices of 
 the two different people was thereby intimated P. Not precisely 
 the same difference, but a difference : and as to the kind of 
 difference, Tertullian sufficiently explains it afterwards, when, to 
 the terrene sacrifices of the elder people, the Jews, he opposes 
 the spiritual sacrifices of the younger people, the Christians, and 
 specifies what they are ; namely, the sacrifices of lauds, and of 
 a contrite heart Q. But some may ask, how then did Tertullian 
 make out what he pretended ? He made it out thus : that the 
 Jewish and Christian sacrifices would be different, like as Cain's 
 and Abel's were, and that one should be rejected, and the other 
 accepted by God : so far the analogy or similitude holds, and no 
 further. For if we were to strain it with the utmost rigour, the 
 Jewish sacrifices ought all to hare been of the fruits of the 
 ground, which is false in fact ; and the Christian sacrifices ought 
 to be animal sacrifices, which is manifestly absurd. In short, as 
 Tertullian has not said, nor could consistently say, that Abel's 
 sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice ; so neither can it, by any clear 
 or just consequence, be concluded that he meant it, or had any 
 thought of it. But it is further pleaded, that material things 
 have sometimes the epithet of spiritual or rational superadded ; 
 
 P ' Sic et sacrificia terrenarum obla- tensa jam tune in primordio animad - 
 
 tionum et spiritualium sacrificiorum vertimus.' Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. v, 
 
 praedicata ostendimus. Et quidem p. 187. 
 
 a primordio majoris filii, id est, Israel i ' Quod non terrenis sacrificiis, sed 
 terrena f uisse in Cain praeostensa, et spiritalibus Deo litandum sit, ita legi- 
 minoris filii Abel, id est, populi nostri, mus ut scriptum est ; Cor contribula- 
 sacrificia diversa demonstrata. Nam- turn et humiliatum hostia Deo est : et 
 que major natu Cain de fructu terrae alibi, Sacrifica Deo sacrificium laudis, 
 obtulit munera Deo, minor vero films et redde Altissimo vota tua. Sic igitur 
 Abel de fructu ovium suarum. Re- sacrificiaspiritalialaudisdesignantur, 
 spexitDeus in Abel et in munera ejus, et cor contribulatum acceptabile sa- 
 in Cain autem et in munera ejus non crificium Deo demonstratur.' Tertull. 
 respexit. . . . Ex hoc igitur duplicia ibid. cap. v. p. 188. 
 duorum populorum sacrificia praeos-
 
 Literal and Spiritual. 583 
 
 and why then may not a material sacrifice be a spiritual or 
 rational sacrifice in a just sense of the word 1 I answer : the 
 question is not, whether the epithet spiritual may not in a just 
 sense be applied to a material subject ; for it is certain that it 
 may, and St. Paul r himself more than once so applies it : the 
 question is not, how the single word spiritual may be applied, 
 but what the phrase of spiritual sacrifice, according to Scripture 
 usage, and according to Church usage, signifies. It has not been 
 shewn, that either the New Testament or the ancient Fathers 
 ever gave the name of spiritual sacrifice, either to the elements 
 of the Eucharist, or to any material offerings. Spiritual sacrifice 
 is a phrase of a determined meaning in the New Testament and 
 ancient Church writers ; and it is but a vain attempt to look for 
 any real countenance from them, by retaining the phrase, unless 
 the ideas which they affixed to it be retained also : for the doc- 
 trine will be different, though the words or phrases should still 
 continue the same. 
 
 If it should be suggested, after all, that the carnal, earthly, 
 legal sacrifices meant only such sacrifices as wanted the "inward 
 service of the heart, and that spiritual sacrifices meant sacrifices 
 offered from and with the spiritual service of the heart ; it is 
 obvious to reply, that then the distinction which we are now 
 upon could not have served the purpose for which it was 
 brought, could not have shewn the absolute preference due to 
 the Christian sacrifices above the Jewish. The Jews, as many 
 as were really good men, joined the sacrifice of the heart with 
 the material offerings : and if that had been all the meaning 
 
 r I Cor. x.'3, 4; xv. 44. something spiritual. Cyprian seems 
 
 N. B. The word spiritual some- to denote the elements by the name 
 
 times means the same with mystical, of spiritual and heavenly Sacrament, 
 
 and may be applied to any material Epist. Ixiii. p. 1 08. But still the 
 
 thing considered as a sign of some- phrase of spiritual sacrifice is not 
 
 thing spiritual. In such a sense, applied to them (so far as appears) 
 
 St. Paul speaks of spiritual (that among Church writers truly ancient : 
 
 is, mystical) meat, drink, rock. In for in that phrase spiritual denotes 
 
 the like sense, we may, among the not the sign of something else, but 
 
 Fathers, meet with the phrases of the very thing signified, like as in the 
 
 mystical (or spiritual) oil, or waters, phrase of spiritual house, parallel to 
 
 or bread, or cup, or supper, or table, it in the same verse of St. Peter 
 
 meaning a material sign or symbol of (i Pet. ii. 5).
 
 584 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 which the Fathers went upon in their disputes with the Jews, 
 the Jews might have retorted, irresistibly, that their sacrifices 
 were as truly spiritual as the Christian sacrifices could be, and 
 more valuable, as having all that spirituality which the Chris- 
 tians pretended to, and a rich offering besides, of bullocks, sup- 
 pose, or rams. The Fathers were wiser than to lay themselves 
 open, and to expose the Christian cause, by any such meaning : 
 besides that, their own repeated explications of the phrase of 
 spiritual sacrifice are a flat contradiction to it. 
 
 XL 
 
 I pass on to another celebrated distinction of sacrifice, into 
 Aaronical and Melchizedekian ; which served also to distinguish 
 the Christian sacrifices from the Jewish ones, but in a view 
 somewhat different from that of the distinction immediately 
 preceding. For as the distinction of literal and spiritual was 
 intended chiefly to set forth the superior excellency of what 
 Christians actively offered by way of sacrifice, so the present dis- 
 tinction of Aaronical and Melchizedekian was intended chiefly to 
 set forth the superior excellency of what Christians passively 
 receive, participate, or feast upon, under the name and notion of 
 a sacrifice. 
 
 Christians have an altar, whereof they partake 8 . And that 
 altar is Christ our Lord *, who is altar, priest, and sacrifice, all 
 in one. Under the law, those were different things, because any 
 one of the legal figures alone could not represent Christ in all 
 the three several capacities : but in him they are all united. He 
 performed his sacrifice in the active and transient sense, once for 
 all, upon the cross : he distributes it daily in the passive and 
 
 8 Heb. xiii. 10. See my Review, Relig. p. 1117. 
 
 above, p. 93, &c. And compare 'Estergoaltareincaelis(illucenim 
 
 Dallaeus de Cult. Lat. Relig. lib. viii. preces nostrae et oblationes dirigun- 
 
 cap. 24. p. 1117. Patrick, Mens. tur) et templum ; quemadmodum Jo- 
 
 Myst. p. 85. Spanheim. Dub. Evang. annes in Apocalypsi ait, et apertum 
 
 torn. ii. p. 843. Mason de Minister, est templurn Dei.' Irenaeus, lib. iv. 
 
 Anglic, p. 625. cap. 17. p. 249. Cp. Clem. Alex. 
 
 1 Revel, viii. 3, 5. Compare my p. 209. Origen. in Levit. Horn. i. p. 
 
 Review, above, p. 324, and Vitringa 186. In Josh. Horn. xvii. p. 438, and 
 
 in loc. with Dodwell on Incensing, others referred to in Review, above, 
 
 pp. 39-44, and Dallaeus de Cult. Lat. p. 324.
 
 Aaronical and MelchizedeJcian, 585 
 
 abiding sense of it, to all his true servants, to every faithful 
 communicant. His table here below is a secondary altar in two 
 views ; first, on the score of our own sacrifices of prayers, praises, 
 souls, and bodies, which we offer up from thence u ; secondly, as 
 it is the seat of the consecrated elements, that is, of the body 
 and blood of Christ v , that is, of the grand sacrifice, symbolically 
 represented and exhibited, and spiritually there received ; re- 
 ceived by and with the signs bearing the name of the things. 
 
 These things premised, we may now find our way opened 
 towards a right conception of the Melchizedekian sacrifice, 
 whereof we partake in the Eucharist, and which is infinitely 
 preferable to all the sacrifices of Aaron, considered barely as 
 sacrifices : for as to their sacramental capacity, that is of distinct 
 consideration. For the first two centuries and a half, Mel- 
 chizedek was considered as giving holy food to Abraham, a 
 symbol of the true food from heaven, and a prelude to what our 
 Lord himself should afterwards do in the institution of the 
 Eucharist x . 
 
 About the middle of the third century, Cyprian, considering 
 our Lord's passion as the sacrifice commemorated and partici- 
 pated in the Eucharist, (which is a right notion rightly under- 
 stood,) expressed that commemorative act by the word offer y : 
 by which he could mean only the presenting to view, or repre- 
 
 u 'It is called a table with reference Dei, et quibus vota populi, in membra 
 
 to the Lord's Supper, and an altar Christi portata sunt Iliac ad aures 
 
 on the score of the sacrifice of praise Deiascendere solebat oratio.' Optat. 
 
 and thanksgiving there offered to ibid. 
 
 God Almighty.' King Edward's Let- * Mf\x tfff ^ K , Paffi\tvs 2aAV> 6 
 
 ter, A.D. 1550, in Collier's Eccl. Hist. 'Ifpevs rov tov fylarov, 6 rbv olvov 
 
 vol. ii. p. 304. See Reasons against Ka\ T^V &prov, T^V ayiafffj.frr)v StSovs 
 
 Altars in 1559, Ibid. p. 433 ; and rpo<f>Vt ** rvirov euxop'^Tias. Clem, 
 
 compare my Christian Sacrifice Ex- Alex. Strom, iv. p. 632. Cp. Ter- 
 
 plaihed, p. 423. Dow's Answer to tullian. adv. Judaeos, cap. iii. p. 185. 
 
 Burton, p. 116. Contr. Marc. lib. v. p. 472. 
 
 v ' Quid enim est altare, nisi sedes y ' Passionis ejus mentionem in sa- 
 
 corporis et sanguinis Christi ? Quid crificiis omnibus facimus : passio est 
 
 vos offenderat Christus, cujus illic per enim Domini sacrificium quod offeri- 
 
 certa momenta corpus et sanguis ha- mus. Calicem in commemorationem 
 
 bitabat . . . fregistis etiam calices, san- Domini et passionis ejus offerimus.' 
 
 guinis Christi portatores.' Optat. adv. Cyprian, Ep. Ixiii. p. 109. ' Calix qui 
 
 Parmen. lib. vi. p. 289. in commemorationem ejus offertur,' 
 
 In the other sense or view of an p. 104. 
 altar, the same author says, 'Altaria
 
 585 Distinctions of Sacrifice: 
 
 senting ; as is very evident, since our Lord's passion could be no 
 otherwise offered, neither could the cross-sacrifice be reiterated. 
 Christ cannot again be sacrificed, no, not by himself ; much less 
 by any one else. From hence it may be perceived in how lax a 
 sense Cyprian used the word offer. Therefore no certain con- 
 clusion can be drawn from it, in favour of the strict sacrificial 
 sense of the word, whether he speaks of offering bread and wine 2 , 
 or of offering Christ's passion, unless some other circumstances 
 determine the meaning. Cyprian cannot be understood of our 
 Lord's sacrificing himself in the Eucharist, because that would 
 be too high for us to aim at ; nor of his sacrificing the elements, 
 because that would have been too low a sacrifice for him, at 
 least, to offer. When he speaks of offering a true and full sacri- 
 fice a , (meaning bread and wine jointly, and not either singly,) 
 he understands that bread and wine (which he calls sacrifice, by 
 the same figure as he often calls them body and blood) to be a 
 true and full representation or image of the sacrifice of the cross. 
 So Cyprian himself explains it, viz. by offering (that is, present- 
 ing) an image of Christ's sacrifice in bread and wine b . The sum 
 of his doctrine is, that the typical Melchizedek blessed Abraham 
 in and by bread and wine, considered as symbols, images, figura- 
 tions of our Lord's passion and sacrifice ; and that the true 
 Melchizedek so blessed his own disciples in delivering to them 
 
 1 ' Quofl Melchizedech sacerdos Dei q. 61. p. 34. torn. vi. 
 summi fuit, quod panem et vimim * 'Hie sacerdos vice Christi vere 
 
 obtulit, quod Abraham beuedixit. . . . fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit 
 
 Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui imitatur ; et sacrificium verum et ple- 
 
 sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, et obtu- num tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, 
 
 lit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtu- si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod 
 
 lerat, id est, panem et vinum, suuro ipaum Christum videatobtulisse.' Ep. 
 
 scilicet corpus et sanguinem.' p. 105. Ixiii. Compare my Review, above, 
 
 Compare St. Austin on the same p. 336. 
 head : b ' Ut ergo in Genesi per Melchi- 
 
 ' Ipae est etiam aacerdos noster in zedech sacerdotem benedictio circa 
 
 aeternum, secundum ordinem Mel- Abraham possit rite oelebrari, prae- 
 
 chizedech, qui aeipsum obtulit holo- cedit ante imago sacrificii Christi, in 
 
 caustum pro peccatis nostris, et ejus pane et vino scilicet constituta. Quam 
 
 sacrificii similitudinem celebrandam rein perficiens et adimplens Dominus 
 
 in suae passionls memoriam commen- panem etcalicemmixtumvinoobtulit, 
 
 davit ; ut illud quod Melchizedech et qui est plenitude veritatis, verita- 
 
 obtulit, Deo jam per totum terrarum tern praefiguratae imaginis adimple- 
 
 orbem in Christi Ecclesia videamus vit. 1 p. 105. 
 offerri.' Augustin. de Divers. Quaest.
 
 Aaronical and MelcMzedeTcian. 587 
 
 the benefits contained in his passion, by the like symbols. We 
 may go on to Eusebius, who explains this matter more clearly, 
 and who, besides, more distinctly expresses the difference be- 
 tween Aaronical and Melchizedekian sacrifices, in these words : 
 ' As he (Melchizedek), being a priest of the Gentiles, nowhere 
 appears to have used corporeal sacrifices, but blessed Abraham 
 with wine only and bread ; just in the same manner, first our 
 Lord and Saviour himself, and then all priests from him, among 
 all nations, consummating the spiritual hierourgy, according to 
 the laws of the Church, do represent the mysteries of his body 
 and of his salutary blood, in bread and wine. Melchizedek fore- 
 saw these (mysteries) by a divine spirit, and previously made use 
 of those images of things to come c .' Whereupon we may ob- 
 serve, i. That Melchizedek, by this account, used no corporeal 
 sacrifices : therefore he did not sacrifice bread and wine, which 
 undoubtedly are both corporeal. It is in vain to contend that 
 he meant bloody, as opposed to unbloody. His word is corpo- 
 real, not bloody ; and he had used the same word just before, 
 speaking of corporeal oil, in the common sense of corporeal d. 
 2. That the Melchizedekian priests, after our Lord, exercise a 
 spiritual hierourgy, as opposed to corporeal sacrifices before 
 mentioned : therefore their sacrifices are spiritual ; and therefore, 
 again, they sacrifice not bread or wine, but they represent or 
 signify the mysteries of the passion in bread and wine e ; they 
 perform a memorial service by those symbols, a direct memorial 
 
 c flo-Trep yap fKf?i>os 'lepeus IBvwv d O&8 Sia ffKfvacrrov Kal 
 
 rvyxavwv, ovSajjiov tyaivtrai Qwriaus i\aiov 4KfXP lffT > ovSe re'Aos e| 
 
 ffunariKois Kfxprifitvos, ofvcf 5e p.6vy e/ueX\ TTJS itpoirvvris. Euseb. ibid. 
 
 Kal aprtf rbv 'A/Bpaafj. fv\oyuv TOP p. 223. 
 
 avrlv 877 rp6irov irpwros fj.fv auros 6 e So Epiphanius on this article. 
 
 ScoT^p Kal Kvptos fi/J.iav, eTreiro of | 'O Mt\x icrf t>* avrf [*Apaa;u] airrtvra, 
 
 avrov irdvrts i'epfTs oj/o iravra TO. fdvij Kal fe/3a.\fv avrf aprov Kal olvov, 
 
 TT}v irvevf^ariK^v firiTe\ovi>Tfs f Kara irporviriav -rlav fj.vcmjpi<av TO, alviyfjLara, 
 
 rovs fKKhyo'iaffTiKovs Ottr^ouy, fepoup- avrirvrraTov (Tttifnaros TOV Kvpiov fifj.(ais, 
 
 ylav, oivy Kal aprcp, rov re ffit>fj.a- \tyovros, Sri fyci> dpi apros 6 {wit, /cal 
 
 Tor avrov Kal trtarrjptou o'/^aroj o-vrirvira rov afytafoy, rav K rrjs ir\(v 
 
 aivirrovrai ra yuixm/jpia, rov MeA- pas avrov vvx.dffros Kal ptvffavros tls 
 
 X'^sSeK ravra VTC^urri Oeitfi irporf- KaOapffiv rwv K(Koiv<apL(vu>v Kal pavnff- 
 
 8fu>priK6TOs, Kal rSiv }i.f\X6vr<#v rais /j.bv, Kal ffterripiav rSiv fi/jLfrtptap fyvx&v. 
 
 (Mo-i TrpoicexpweVoii. Euseb. Demon- Epiphan. Panar. Haer. Iv. n. 6. p. 
 
 strat. Evang. lib. v. cap. 3. p. 223. 472. 
 Cp. Theodorit. in Psal. ex. p. 852.
 
 588 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 of the grand sacrifice. 3. That Melchizedek, by a divine spirit, 
 foresaw the mysteries of the same grand sacrifice, and made a 
 figuration of it in bread and wine, and by those symbols con- 
 veyed a blessing to Abraham f , the blessing of the great atone- 
 ment. Herein lay the superior excellency of Melchizedek's 
 sacrifice, (that is, figuration of the grand sacrifice,) that it 
 directly pointed to and exhibited true expiation, while Aaron's 
 directly conveyed temporal blessings only, and a temporal atone- 
 ment s. It must indeed be owned, that true expiation was 
 conveyed under the legal veils to persons fitly qualified : but 
 those legal sacrifices, in their sacrificial capacity, did nothing of 
 that kind. What they did of a saving kind was in their saci^a- 
 mental capacity : for, that they were sacraments, as \vell as 
 sacrifices, is an allowed principle among knowing Divines of all 
 principles or persuasions h . Where then was the difference be- 
 tween the Aaronical sacrifice and Melchizedekian, if both were 
 sacramental conveyances of the same blessings, and if neither of 
 them availed anything in their sacrificial capacity, properly 
 speaking ? The difference lay here, that Melchizedek was con- 
 sidered as conveying the true expiation directly and plainly, by 
 the symbols of bread and wine, and not under the dark covers 
 of a legal expiation, which but remotely and obscurely pointed 
 to it. He feasted himself and Abraham directly upon the grand 
 sacrifice itself, as Christian priests do now : Aaron feasted him- 
 self and his people directly upon nothing but the legal sacrifices, 
 and the legal, temporal expiations. But this distinction will yet 
 
 f So Julius Firmicus of that time : terminum constitutum, ideoque ad 
 
 ' Melchizedech, rex Salem, etsacerdos obtinendam aeternitatem non potest 
 
 summi Dei, revertenti Abrahae, cum proficere . . . Bibimus autem de san- 
 
 pane et vino benedictionis obtulit guine Christi, ipso jubente, vitae 
 
 gratiam.' Bibl. P. P. torn. iv. p. 114. aeternae cum ipso et per ipsum parti - 
 
 ed. 1618. cipes.' Pseudo-Cyprian, de Coena, 
 
 8 This matter is clearly expressed p. 113, edit. Bened. 
 by an author of the twelfth century, h Cudworth on the Sacram. chap, 
 
 under the name of Cyprian : ii. p. 23, &c. Gerhard, torn. iv. pp. 
 
 ' Hoc maximediscerneredebet Chris- 292, 297. Alanus de Eucharist, p. 
 
 tiana religio, quod sanguis animalium 502. Chamier, torn. iv. pp. 14, 15. 
 
 a sanguine Christi per omnia dif- Vossius de Idololatr. lib. i. cap. 41. 
 
 ferens, temporalis tan turn habeat vi- pp. 151, 152. Cloppenburg, Schol. 
 
 vificationis effectum, et vita eorum Sacrific. p. 9, &c. Buddaeus, Instit. 
 
 finem habeat, et sine ulla revocatione Theolog. p. 687.
 
 Aaronical and MelcMzedekian* 589 
 
 be better understood, by some other passages of the Fathers, 
 which I am going to subjoin in their order. 
 
 St. Jerome, more than once, mentions the distinction be- 
 tween the Aaronical and Melchizedekian sacrifices. He declares, 
 in one place, that Melchizedek did not (like Aaron) sacrifice 
 irrational victims, but offered bread and wine, that is, the body 
 and blood of the Lord i. He does not say, sacrificed bread and 
 wine, but offered, (a word of some latitude,) and he presently 
 after interprets them by the body and blood. So that Mel- 
 chizedek, according to him, offered no sacrifice but the grand 
 sacrifice : and he could not properly sacrifice that body and 
 blood, which were not then in being, but he figured it by 
 symbols k , and therewith conveyed the blessings of it ; feasting 
 Abraham, not with legal victims, but with Christ himself. This 
 appears to be his sense of that matter ; which will be further 
 confirmed by other passages of the same Father. He gives a 
 kind of summary of the sentiments of Hippolytus, Irenaeus, two 
 Eusebius's, Apollinaris, and Eustathius, in relation to Mel- 
 chizedek ; importing, ' that he sacrificed no victims of flesh and 
 blood, took not the blood of the brute animals upon his right 
 hand ; but he dedicated a Sacrament in bread and wine, in the 
 simple and pure sacrifice of Christ V So I point and translate 
 the sentence ; altering the common punctuation only as to the 
 placing of a single comma, to make out the sense. As to what 
 he says of not receiving blood on the right hand, (or right 
 thumb,) I suppose it alludes to the Levitical rites of conseci'ation 
 
 1 'Quod autem ait, Tu es sacerdos mentum : ut quomodo in praefigura- 
 
 in aeternum, secundum ordinem Mel- tione ejus Melchizedech, summi Dei 
 
 chisedech, mysterium nostrum in sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens 
 
 verbo ordinis significatur, nequa- fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui 
 
 quam per Aaron irrationalibus victi- corporis et sanguinis repraesentaret.' 
 
 mis immolandis, sed oblato pane et Hieron. Comment, in Matt. xxvi. p. 
 
 vino, id est corpore et sanguine 128. torn. iv. part I. 
 
 Domini.' Hieron. Quaest. Hebraic. ' ' Neque carnis et sanguinis vio- 
 
 p. 520. torn. ii. ed. Bened. timas immolaverit, et brutorurn san- 
 
 k ' Postquam typicum Pascha fu- guinem animalium dextra susceperit, 
 
 erat completura, et agni carnes cum sed pane et vino, simplici puroque 
 
 Apostolis comederat, assumit panem sacrificio Christi, dedicaverit Sacra- 
 
 qui confortat cor hominis, et ad mentum. ' Hieron. Epist. ad Evan- 
 
 verum Paschae transgreditur Sacra- gel. p. 571. torn. ii.
 
 590 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 to the priesthood m , which Melchizedek had nothing to do with. 
 He received his priesthood in some other way, and he exercised 
 it in a different manner; not by sacrificing animals, but by 
 dedicating or consecrating a Sacrament n , in or with bread and 
 wine : that is to say, with the simple and pure sacrifice of Christ 
 alone, represented and exhibited by and under those symbols. 
 This appears to be St. Jerome's sense, and his full sense. For 
 like as he had, in a passage before cited, interpreted bread and 
 wine by what they are signs of, namely, by body and blood of 
 the Lord, so here he interprets them by the same thing, under 
 the equivalent expression of the simple and pure sacrifice of 
 Christ. And as he had in a second passage, before cited, 
 interpreted the offering bread and wine of a figuration and 
 representation of the true body and blood, so he may reasonably 
 be presumed to mean the same thing here. He calls the sacri- 
 fice of Christ, thus represented, thus exhibited, simple and pure, 
 as not blended with any typical sacrifices or legal expiations, 
 but standing perfectly clear of them, and nakedly viewed in its 
 own simplicity, free from such legal incumbrances : represented, 
 indeed, by symbols, but yet so represented as that the things 
 signified, the body and blood, and the true expiation, are as 
 plainly, as directly offered to every man's faith and under- 
 standing, as the signs are to the outward senses, and both are 
 alike spoken of in plain and clear terms. If it was not alto- 
 
 m Exod. xxix. 20. merit in or with Christ's body and 
 
 n ' Recurre ad Genesim, et Mel- blood, in such a sense as St. Austin 
 
 chizedech regem Salem hujus princi- sajs, ' Mare rubrum . . . passione et 
 
 pern invenies civitatis : qui jam turn sanguine Domini consecratum." [In 
 
 in typo Christi panem et vinum ob- Psalm. Ixxx.] And, ' Unde rubet Bap- 
 
 tulit, et mysterium Christianum in tismus, nisi Christi sanguine conse- 
 
 Salvatoris sanguine et corpore dedi- cratus ?' In Joan. Tract, si. That 
 
 cavit.' Hieron. ad Marcell. p. 547. is to say, the Sacrament of Baptism 
 
 torn. iv. part 2. is made an exhibitive sign of Christ's 
 
 N. B. Jerome considered Christ's blood : which is, its consecration, or 
 
 body and blood as symbolically con- sanctification, or dedication, to high 
 
 tained in the exhibitive signs : and and holy purposes. The blood sig- 
 
 no wonder, when in the same Epistle nified, and spiritually exhibited, by 
 
 he could write thus : ' Sepulchrum water in one Sacrament, by wine in 
 
 Domini quotiescunque ingredimur, the other, gives the holy sanction to 
 
 toties jacere in syndone cernimus both Sacraments : for without that, 
 
 Salvatorem,' &c. they would be no Sacraments at 
 
 I interpret the dedicating a Sacra- all.
 
 Aaronical and MelckizedeJcian. 591 
 
 gether so in Melchizedek's sacrament, or figurative sacrifice of 
 Christ's body and blood, yet certainly it is in ours : and this 
 consideration renders it vastly preferable to the legal sacrifices ; 
 though they also darkly were sacraments of the same things, 
 and were much more valuable in that their sacramental capacity 
 than in any other. 
 
 St. Austin often speaks of this matter. He understood the 
 Melchizedekian sacrifice, (as opposed to Aaron's,) of sacrifice 
 passively considered ; not as offered to God, in a proper sense, 
 but as exhibited to, and received, or participated by men . The 
 want of observing the difference between a sacrifice considered 
 as actively offered, and as passively received, has made strange 
 confusion in what concerns the Melchizedekian sacrifice, spoken of 
 by the Fathers P. Yet this matter was clearly understood, as 
 low as the times of Charles the Greats, and much lower: and 
 even Thomas Aquinas, of the thirteenth century, has given a 
 just account of it ; rightly distinguishing between the oblation 
 of a sacrifice and a participation r . To be short, as the sacrifices 
 
 o ' Quod ergo addidit, manducare 1 'Jam verus Melchisedech, Chris- 
 panem, etiam ipsum sacrificii genus tus videlicet, rex Justus, rex pacis, 
 eleganter expressit. . . . Ipsum eat non pecudum victimas, sed sui nobis 
 sacrificium, non secundum ordinem corporis et sanguinis contulit Sacra- 
 Aaron, sed secundum ordinem Mel- mentum.' Carol. Magn. Capit. prolix, 
 chisedech : qui legit intelligat. . . . lib. iv. cap. 14. p. 520. Cp. Haymo 
 Quia enim dixerat superius, dedisse Halberst. In Psal. cix. p. 597. 
 se domui Aaron cibos de victimis Theodulf. de Ordinat. Baptismi, cap. 
 Veteris Testamenti, ubi ait, Dedi 18. Anselm [sive Herveus Dolensis] 
 domui patris tui omnia quae sunt in Heb. v. p. 416, et in Heb. vii. 
 ignis, filiorum Israel in escam. Haec p. 423. Walafrid. Strab. de Reb. 
 quippe fuerunt sacriticia Judaeorum : Eccl. cap. xvi. p. 674. 
 ideo hie dixit manducare panem ; r ' In sacerdotio Christi duo pos- 
 quod est in Novo Testamento sacri- sunt considerari, scilicet ipsa oblatio 
 ficium Christianorum.' Augustin. de Christi, et participatio ejus. Quan- 
 Civit. Dei, lib. xvii. cap. 5. pp. 466, turn ad ipsam oblationem, expressius 
 467. torn. vii. Cp. Ep. 177. p. 626. figurabat sacerdotium Christi sacrifi- 
 tom. ii. Et in Psal. xxxiii. pp. 210, cium legale per sanguinis effusionem, 
 211. torn. iv. In Psal. cvi. p. 1211. quam sacerdotium Melchisedech, in 
 In Psal. cix. p. 1241. torn. iv. De quo sanguis non effundebatur. Sed 
 Quaest. Octogint. q. Ixi. p. 34. torn, quantum ad participationem hujus 
 vi. De Civit. Dei, lib. xvii. pp. 435, sacrificii et ejus effectum, expressius 
 480. Contr. Advers. Leg. pp. 570, praefigurabatur per sacerdotium Mel- 
 571. torn. viii. chisedech, qui offerebat panem et 
 
 p See my Appendix, above, pp. vinmn, significantia, ut Augustinus 
 
 462-465, 475. dicit, ecclesiasticam. unitatem, quam
 
 592 . Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 of Aaron, in their oblatory view, were no way comparable to the 
 spiritual Gospel sacrifices, in their intrinsic value, or in regard 
 to the Divine acceptance ; so neither were the blessings, or the 
 sacrificial feasts of Aaron and his altars, worthy to be named in 
 comparison to the spiritual blessings, or spiritual banquet, given 
 to believers, whether by the typical or the true Melchizedek. If 
 we interpret what the Fathers say in relation to the Melchi- 
 zedekian sacrifices, as opposed to the Aaronical, by this key, 
 .everything, I presume, will be easy and clear : but without it 
 all is confusion. I know but of one objection to this account, 
 and that not weighty ; namely, that the Fathers sometimes 
 speak of Melchizedek as offering something to God, and not 
 barely as distributing to Abraham and his company. But then 
 let it be remembered, that the word offer is a word of a large 
 and lax meaning, importing any kind of presenting, either to 
 view, (as when Hezekiah spread a letter before the Lord 8 ,) or 
 for consecration, or the like. And it is further to be noted, that 
 the Fathers 4 , some of them at least, (a"s Ambrose, Philastrius, 
 Chrysostom, Austin, and perhaps Eusebius,) understood Mel- 
 chizedek to have offered a sacrifice of lauds to God, besides his 
 conveying the grand sacrifice, that is, the blessings and benefits 
 of it, to Abraham. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Having thus far observed, by what names of distinction 
 Christian sacrifices were discriminated from Jewish and Pagan, 
 
 constituit participatio Christi : unde Christum, tantum est quodammodo 
 
 etiam, in nova lege, verum Christi inter Judaeos et Christianos ; supe- 
 
 sacrificium communicatur fidelibus riora etiam et sacrificia. Talia vide- 
 
 sub specie panis et vini.' Aquin. licet offeramus sacrificia, quae in illud 
 
 part iii. q. 22. art. 6. p. 61. sanctuarium caeleste offerri possunt : 
 
 8 a Kings xix. 14. Isa. xxxviii. 14. non jam pecudem etbovem.non san- 
 
 ' Ambrosius, torn. i. p. 714. edit, guinem et adipem ; omnia haec soluta 
 
 Bened. Philastr. Haer. cix. p. 221 ; sunt, et pro eis introductum est ra- 
 
 Haer. cxliv. pp. 314, 316. Chrysost. tionabile obsequium. Quid est ration- 
 
 adv. Jud. Horn. vii. p. 671. torn. i. abile obsequium ? Quod per animam, 
 
 in Heb. pp. 128, 129. torn. xii. Au- quod per spiritum ofFertur. . . . Quid 
 
 gustin. contr. Advers. Leg. pp. 570, est Deum in spiritu adorare, nisi 
 
 571. torn. vii. Eusebius, Demonstr. in charitate et fide perfecta, et spe 
 
 Evang. lib. v. cap. 3. p. 223. indubia, et sanctis animae virtu- 
 
 Ambrosiaster well expresses that tibus?' Pseud-Ambros. in Heb. vi. 
 
 notion. ' Quantum est inter Aaron et p. 443.
 
 External and Internal; Private and Public. 593 
 
 jointly or singly considered, I may pass on to some other notes 
 of distinction, by which Christian sacrifices, differently circum- 
 stantiated, were distinguished one from another. Here may 
 come in the distinction between external and internal sacrifice, 
 which is of very different consideration from a distinction before 
 mentioned, between extrinsic and intrinsic. 
 
 Origen, mysticizing the two altars which belonged to the 
 temple, the inner and the outer altar, makes mental prayer or 
 service to answer to the incense on the one, and vocal prayer to 
 answer the burnt offerings on the other. Such was his notion 
 of internal and external sacrifice under the Gospel u . Neither is 
 it amiss, provided we take in manual service, or good works v , 
 into the notion of external sacrifice, to render that branch of 
 the division complete. But here it is to be noted, that though 
 mental service alone may make internal sacrifice, yet vocal or 
 manual alone, without mental, will not make external sacrifice. 
 Outward service is but the shell and carcase of sacrifice, without 
 the sacrifice of the heart x . How both the internal and external 
 sacrifice are performed in the Eucharist, see particularly noted 
 and explained in Dean Field v . 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Christian sacrifices may be divided into private and public : 
 which is a distinction somewhat like to, but not altogether the 
 same with the former. For though internal sacrifice, as such, is 
 always secret, yet it may be performed in company with others, 
 as well as when we are alone : and though external sacrifice, as 
 
 u ' Altaria vero duo, id est interius v Good works were always emi- 
 
 et exterius, quoniam altare orationis nently reckoned among the Christian 
 
 indicium est, illud puto significare sacrifices, as may be seen in Justin, 
 
 quod dicit Apostolus, Orabo spiritu, p. 14. Clemens of Alexandria, pp. 
 
 orabo et mente. Cum enim corde 836, 848. Chrysostom, torn. v. pp. 
 
 oravero, ad altare interius ingredior. 231, 503, and indeed in all the Fa- 
 
 . . . Cum autem quis clara voce, et thers. How that is to be understood, 
 
 verbis cum sono prolatis, quasi ut see in Review, above, pp, 317, 318. 
 aedificet audientes, orationem fundit x Vid. Chrysostom. in Rom. Horn, 
 
 ad Deum, hie spiritu orat, et offerre xx. p. 657. torn. ix. Origen. torn. ii. 
 
 videtur hostiam in altari quod foris p. 363. ed. Bened. Nazianz. Orat. i. 
 
 est ad holocaustomata populi consti- p. 38. Gregor. M. Dial. iv. cap. 59. 
 tutum.' Origen. in Num. Horn. x. J Field on the Church, p. 204 ' 
 P- 303.
 
 594 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 to the outward part, is open to view, may be seen or heard, yet 
 it may be performed in private as well as in company. Therefore 
 both external and internal sacrifices may be subdivided into 
 private and public, accordingly as they are respectively offered 
 up to God, either from the private closet in retirement, or from 
 among our brethren met together in the public assemblies for 
 the same purpose. Private prayer is private sacrifice, and public 
 prayer is public sacrifice. Good works likewise are sacrifices, if 
 really and strictly good, if referred to God and his glory : there- 
 fore when they are done in private, they are private sacrifices : 
 but if so done as to ' shine before men,' for an example to them, 
 then they become public sacrifices. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Christian sacrifices may be distinguished likewise into lay- 
 sacrifice and clerical. In a large sense, all good Christians are 
 sacrificers, and, so far, priests unto God 2 . St. Austin, in few 
 words, well sets forth both the agreement and the difference ; 
 observing that all Christians are priests, as they are members of 
 Christ, members of one and the same High Priest; but that 
 Bishops and Presbyters are in a more peculiar or emphatical 
 manner entitled to the name of priests*. So I interpret 'pro- 
 prie b ;' not to exclude Christian laics from being, properly 
 speaking, sacrificers, but so only as to exclude them from being 
 emphatically and eminently such as the clergy are : for though 
 
 * Exod. xix. 5, 6. I Pet. ii. 9. et regnabunt cum illo mille annis, 
 Revel, xx. 6. Just. Mart. Dial. Apoc. xx. 6. -Non utique de soils 
 p. 386. Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 8. episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, 
 P-, 237. Tertutlian. de Monogam. qui proprie jam vocantur in ecclesia 
 cap. vii. p. 529. Origen. in Levit. sacerdotes: sed sicut omnes Christia- 
 Hom. ix. pp. 236, 238. Cyrill. nos dicimus, propter mysticum chris- 
 Hierosol. Catech. xviii. c. 33. p. 301. ma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam 
 Ambros. in Luc. vi. Hieron. contr. membra sunt unius sacerdotis.' Au- 
 Lucif. p. 290. torn. iv. Augustin. gustin.de Civit. Dei, lib. xx. cap. 10. 
 torn. viii. pp. 477, 478, 588. Leo p. 588. torn. vii. 
 
 Magn. Serm. iii. p. 107. Isidor. *> Compare Whitaker upon that 
 
 Pelus. lib. iii. Ep. Ixxv. p. 284. place of St. Austin. Answer to 
 
 And compare Review, above, pp. Reynolds, p. 77. Chrastoviua de 
 
 35 X > 35 2 - Christian Sacrifice Ex- Opine. Missae, lib. i. cap. n. p. 104. 
 
 plained, above, p. 421. Fulke's Defence of Translations, 
 
 * ' Erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi, p. 6 2 .
 
 Lay and Clerical. 595 
 
 they are all equally sacrificers, they are not equally adminis- 
 trators of sacrifice, in a public, and solemn, and authorized way. 
 
 The Protestant doctrine, commonly, has run, that clergy and 
 laity are equally priests : not equally Bishops, Presbyters, or 
 Deacons, but equally priests, (in the sense of icpfis,) that is, 
 equally sacrificers . For like as when a senate presents a pe- 
 tition, by their speaker, to the crown, every member of that 
 senate is equally a petitioner, though there is but one authorized 
 officer, one speaker commissioned to prefer the petition in the 
 name of the whole senate ; so in this other case, the whole body 
 of Christian people are equally sacrificers, though the clergy 
 only are commissioned to preside and officiate in a public 
 character"!. The sacrifice is the common sacrifice of the whole 
 body, and so the name of sacrificer is also common : but the 
 leading part, the administration of the sacrifice, is appropriate to 
 the commissioned officers ; and so also are the names of Bishops, 
 Presbyters, and Deacons. This is all that any aober Protestants 
 have meant ; though their expressions have been sometimes 
 liable to misconstruction, by reason of the latent ambiguity of 
 words and names. The word priest is equivocal, as denoting 
 either a presbyter or a sacrificer : and the word sacrificer is still 
 further equivocal, as meaning either one who barely sacrifices, 
 or one that administers a sacrifice in a public capacity, as the 
 head or mouth of an assembly. 
 
 Perhaps, after all, some shorter and clearer way might be 
 thought on, for compromising the debates concerning lay- 
 priesthood. If 'steward of the mysteries of God 6 ' may be 
 thought a good general definition of 'sacerdos,' or a title equi- 
 valent to priest f , then the disputes about the precise meaning 
 
 c Cranmer against Gardiner, pp. homines privaii pastorum munus 
 
 424, 440. Jewel's Answer to Hard- et officium usurpare.' Sutliff. contr. 
 
 ing, Art. xvii. p. 429. Defence of Bellarmin. p. 294. 
 
 Apol. p. 576. Pet. Mart. Loc. Comm. e i Cor. iv. i. 
 
 p. 788. Hospinian. Histor. Sacram. f ' Aequipollent ista dispensator 
 
 part i. pp. 584, 590. mysteriorum Dei, et sacerdos : mys- 
 
 d ' Utut omnes offerant preces, teria namque Dei sancta sunt, et 
 
 laudes, eleemosynas, et hujusmodi sacerdos dictus est a sacris dandis.' 
 
 sacrificia, non taraen eodem modo Chrastovius, Polan. p. 197. 
 omnes haec offerunt : nee debent 
 
 Q q 2
 
 596 Distinctions of Sacrifice: 
 
 of Itpfvs, sacrificer, and how far that name is common to clergy 
 and laity, may be superseded, and the name of priest may be 
 appropriated in the sense of ambassadors of God, or stewards of 
 Divine mysteries, to the Bishops only in the first degree, and 
 to Presbyters in the seconds, or in a third degree to Deacons 
 also 11 , as some of the ancients have estimated, perhaps not amiss. 
 
 There is yet another way of compromising this matter, viz. 
 by passing over the Greek upevs, sacrificer, and running higher 
 up to the Hebrew word 'cohen 1 ,' as of the elder house, and 
 primarily signifying a person of nearest access to God, or a 
 commissioned agent between God and man. Let but that, or 
 something of like kind, be the proper notation of priest, and 
 then it will be a clear case that God's peculiar ambassadors in 
 ordinary 1 *, solemnly set apart for that office, are more properly 
 priests than any other persons can be justly presumed to be. 
 
 It has been thought that the Aaronical priests were as agents 
 for men with God, and that the evangelical priests are as agents 
 for God with men 1 . There may be something in that distinc- 
 tion : but considering that the evangelical priests do offer up 
 both the spiritual sacrifices and sacrificers to God ra , as well as 
 bring God's messages and God's blessings to men, it seems that 
 their agency looks both ways, and perhaps equally ; and they 
 appear to be indifferently and reciprocally agents from God to 
 man, and from man to God. 
 
 Some have made it a difficulty to conceive how a priest, being 
 
 s Nazianz. Carmin. torn. ii. p. 6. ambassadors or legates extraor- 
 
 Eusebius, Demonstr. lib. x. cap. 6. dinary. 
 
 Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae. Optatus, ' ' Prophetaruni et Apostolorum 
 
 lib. i. p. 15. Leo I. de Quadrig. erat res Dei apud homines agere, 
 
 Serm. x. Sidonius, Ep. xxv. Facun- sacerdotum autem res hominum apud 
 
 dus, lib. xii. cap. 3. Cp. Basnag. Deum. Illi Dei legati apud homines, 
 
 Annal. torn. ii. p. 652. Hickes's hi hominum patroni apud Deum. .. . 
 
 Christian Priesthood, vol. i. p. 36. Ministerium Evangelicum a sacer- 
 
 h Optatus, lib.i. p. 15. See Hickes's dotio Aaronico multum differt, idque 
 
 Christian Priesthood, vol.i. pp. 36, 37. in eo praecipue cernitur, quod illud 
 
 ' ' Vox pa genuina sua significa- pro Deo apud homines praecipue 
 
 tione notat familiarioris accessus constitutum sit, hoc pro hominibus 
 
 amicum.' Vitringa, Observat. Sacr. apud Deum.' Outram de Sacrif. lib. 
 
 lib. ii. cap. 2. p. 272. Cp. in Isa. i. cap. 19. pp. 220, 222. 
 
 vol. ii. pp. 830, 885, 950, 951. m See my Review, above, pp. 313, 
 
 k In ordinary, to distinguish them 351, 352, and compare Vitringa in 
 
 from prophets as such, who were Isa. Ixvi. 20. p. 951.
 
 Lay and Clerical. 597 
 
 ignorant of what passes in the heart, can be said to present to 
 God the intrinsic and internal sacrifices of his people. The 
 truth is, that which the priests offer, they offer in the name or 
 in the person of the Church, as before noted n : and therefore 
 what they therein do, is to be considered as the act and deed of 
 the whole Church, independent of the knowledge, or attention, 
 or intention, or personal virtues of the officiating ministers. 
 Their ministration is the outward mean appointed by God, and 
 by that appointment made the ordinary condition of God's 
 acceptance. As God accepts not the devotions of the people, 
 however otherwise sincere or fervent, without the outward 
 Sacraments, (which are the ordinary instruments of conveyance, 
 both with respect to our sacrifices and God's graces,) so he 
 accepts not, ordinarily, of what Christians presume to offer in 
 a solemn public way, without the external ministration of the 
 proper officers. And why should not they be supposed as pro- 
 per instruments to convey the invisible sacrifices of men to God, 
 as to j convey the invisible graces of God to men ? To suppose 
 otherwise, would be strangely depreciating the sacerdotal func- 
 tion, as if that were concerned only in the external part, the 
 shell and carcase of a sacrifice, and the internal and invisible 
 part (which, strictly, is the sacrifice) were really presented by 
 none but the devout worshippers themselves. In this way, the 
 devout laity (supposing the priests to be unattentive) would be 
 the only sacrificers, and the priests, as such, would not be 
 sacrificers at all. But it is certain that the priests, in this case, 
 are and ought to be considered, as conveying and recommending 
 all the invisible sacrifices, and therefore are properly sacrificers 
 in their sacerdotal capacity, yea, and more than sacrificers, 
 because leaders, conductors, commissioned officers in the public 
 sacrifice, which must be accepted through them, even when they 
 themselves (if unworthy) shall not be accepted . But enough 
 of this. 
 
 n See above, p. 550. to the high priesthood above, if Dr. 
 
 To enforce this consideration, I Lightfoot judged rightly in the words 
 
 may add, that the priesthood below here following : 
 
 will thus correspond the more aptly ' Christ is a Priest for ever, still
 
 598 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 XV. 
 
 I pass on to another very celebrated distinction of Christian 
 sacrifices, into gratulatory and propitiatory: though we have 
 really none of the latter sort but one, and that not properly 
 ours, but our Lord's, performed once upon the cross, but in 
 virtue always abiding?. 
 
 The word propitiatory is equivocal, capable of a larger or a 
 stricter sense. In a lax and less proper acceptation, every ser- 
 vice well pleasing to God is propitiatory. In this view, Baptism 
 and all our spiritual sacrifices are propitiatory : particularly 
 almsgiving is said to propitiate in this qualified sense of the 
 word<i. And the Fathers freq'uently so apply the word, with 
 respect to any good works 1 ". Tertullian sometimes, and Cyprian 
 often, speaks of making satisfaction to God by repentance, <kc. 
 Nevertheless, in the strict and proper sense of propitiation, expia- 
 tion, or satisfaction, no service, no sacrifice, nor anything else, 
 ever did or ever could make it, excepting only the all-prevailing 
 sacrifice of the cross. The sacrifice of Christ from without is 
 the meritorious cause of propitiation : our own qualifying sacri- 
 fices from within are the conditional : and the two Sacraments, 
 ordinarily, are the instrumental. As to the material elements, 
 
 offering sacrifice to God; but no accipiuntfidefructumalienisacrincii.' 
 
 more himself, but his people's sa- Melancth. Opp. torn. iv. p. 514. 
 
 crifice. And that offering is two- ' Unicorn est auteru re ipsa propi- 
 
 fold, viz. offering the persons of his tiatorium, videlicet obedientia Filii 
 
 people to God, as an acceptable Dei, quae est Xvrpov pro nobis, et 
 
 living sacrifice, (Isa. viii. 18,) and meretur nobis recouciliationem.' 
 
 offering their services as an accept- Ibid. p. 603. Cp. Cranmer, Opp. 
 
 able spiritual sacrifice to God, Rev. Posth. pp. 139-150. Pet. Mart. Loc. 
 
 vii. 3.' Lightfoot, torn. ii. p. 1261. Comm. p. 704. Zanchius's Tractat. 
 
 P 'SinguliChristianihabentduplex Posth. p. 421. 
 
 sacrificium, propi tiatorium et eucha- Philipp. iv. 1 8. Heb. xiii. 16. 
 
 risticum: sed alterum habent alie- Ecclus. iii. 30; xxxv. 2. 
 num, alterum proprium. Alienum r 'Verum sacrificium insinuans, 
 
 est propitiatorium a Christo oblatum. quod offerentes propitiabuntur De- 
 
 ' Singuli sacerdotes habent duplex um.' Iren. lib. iv. cap. 1 7. p. 248. 
 sacrificium ; propitiatorium et eucha- ' Qui fraudibus abstinet, propitiat 
 
 risticum. ... Non habent proprium Deum.' Minuc. Fel. sect, xxxii. 
 
 sacrificium propitiatorium, nee pla- p. 183. Cp. Origen. in Levit. Horn, 
 
 cant suo sacrificio, sed alieno. Quod xiii. p. 255, cited in Review, above, 
 
 tamen neque ipsi offerunt, sed tantum p. 211.
 
 Gmtnlatory and Propitiatory. 599 
 
 in either Sacrament, they are neither an extrinsic expiation nor 
 an intrinsic qualification, and therefore cannot, with any pro- 
 priety, be called an expiatory or a propitiatory sacrifice, no not 
 in the lowest sense of propitiatory. Indeed, the religious use of 
 them is propitiatory, in such a sense as Christian services are 
 so 8 : therefore our so using them, that is, our service, is the 
 sacrifice, and not they ; and it is an intrinsic and qualifying 
 sacrifice, not extrinsic or expiatory. Nothing 'ab intus' can 
 properly expiate, as is justly observed by a learned writer*: pro- 
 pitiate it may, but still in such a secondary, subordinate sense 
 as has been mentioned. The extrinsic legal expiations reached 
 only to temporals : the intrinsic, under Christ's extrinsic sacri- 
 fice, were even then the saving sacrifices, and must for ever be 
 so. Sacraments, as such (not sacrifices), are the rites of appli- 
 cation : the means and instruments of conveyance and reception, 
 with respect to the benefits of the great atonement u . The Jewish 
 sacrifices, considered as Sacraments, and not otherwise, were 
 such rites. The Eucharist is eminently so now ; and Baptism, 
 perhaps, yet more eminently, as it was anciently reckoned the 
 grand absolution, and as life is before nutriment v . 
 
 XVI. 
 
 There is another distinction of Christian sacrifice, not so 
 commonly observed, but worth the noting ; and that is, between 
 
 s In this sense, propitiatory sacri- but which shews, however, that he 
 
 fices are allowed by Protestant Di- aimed at a very different kind of 
 
 vines : Cranmer against Gardiner, propitiation and expiation than what 
 
 pp. 437, 438. Gulielm. Forbes. Con- Divines allow to intrinsic and spiri- 
 
 sider. Modest, p. 694. Joann. tual sacrifices. 
 
 Forbes. Opp. torn. i. p. 619. Spala- u How absurd the notion is of 
 
 tens. p. 283. Thorndike's Epil. b. iii. applying one expiatory sacrifice by 
 
 pp. 42, 46. Payne on the Sacrifice of another expiatory sacrifice, as such, 
 
 the Mass, p. 77. Jackson, vol. iii. has been often shewn : particularly 
 
 p. 299. Morton on the Eucharist, by Morton, b.vi. cap. u, and SutlifF. 
 
 b. vi. pp. 60, 72. cum multis aliis. [adv. Bellarmin. pp. 233, 249, 308] 
 
 e Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, and others ; but by none better than 
 
 part i. pp. 299, 300. The use which by Dean Brevint's Depth and Mys- 
 
 the learned author intended by that tery of the Rom. Mass, pp. 31-34. 
 principle, (that nothing ' ab intus' can v See my Review, above, pp. 
 
 expiate,) was to introduce another 220, 231-233, and Salmasius (alias 
 
 extrinsic, expiatory sacrifice, after Simplicius Verinus) contr. Grot. p. 
 
 njiriaf Q A. ver y wrong thought ; 402.
 
 6oo Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 sacrifice in a large, general sense, and sacrifice in a more re- 
 strained, eminent, or emphatical meaning 1 . Our Lord's sacri- 
 fice, for instance, is eminently the sacrifice, infinitely superior to 
 all other : not that it is more properly a sacrifice than others 
 which equally fall within the same general definition, but it is a 
 more excellent sacrifice : in scholastic terms, ' non magis sacri- 
 ficium, sed majus : ' not more a sacrifice, but a greater sacrifice. 
 
 The like may be observed of our spiritual sacrifices, compared 
 one with another. All religious duties, all Christian services, 
 are sacrifices properly so called : but some are more emphati- 
 cally or more eminently called by that name, because of some 
 eminent circumstances attending them, which give them the 
 greater value and dignity. St. Austin makes every religious 
 act, work, or sei*vice, a sacrifice ?. Nevertheless, he supposed the 
 work of the Eucharist, the sacrifice there offered, to be emphati- 
 cally and eminently the sacrifice of the Church : the singular 
 sacrifice 2 , as being, comparatively, of singular value ; and also 
 the universal sacrifice a , as comprehending many sacrifices of the 
 spiritual kind, and taking in the whole redeemed city, the whole 
 city of God. 
 
 Baptism, in St. Austin's account, was a sacrifice of a single 
 
 x N. B. Most of Bellannine's quibus significabatur singulars sacri- 
 arguments to prove that spiritual ficium, quod nunc offert Israel se- 
 sacrifices are not proper sacrifices, cundum spiritum.' Augustin. contr. 
 resolve into an equivocation in the Adversar. Leg. et Prophet, lib. i. 
 word proper; not distinguishing be- cap. 20. p. 570. torn. viii. 
 tween proper, (that is, special,) as ' Unde et in ipso verissimo et sin- 
 opposed to large, and proper as op- gulari sacrificio, Domino Deo nostro 
 posed to metaphorical or figurative, agere gratias admonemur.' Au- 
 From thence appears the use of the gustin. de Spirit, et Lit. cap. xi. 
 present distinction. p. 94. torn. x. 
 
 y Verum sacrificium est omne a ' Ut tota ipsa redempta civitas, 
 
 opus quod agitur ut sancta societate hoc est, congregatio societasque 
 
 inhaeremus Deo, relatum scilicet ad sanctorum, universale sacrificium 
 
 ilium finem boni, quo veraciter beati offeratur Deo, per sacerdotem mag- 
 
 esse possimus.' Augustin. de Civit. num, &c. Hoc est sacrificium 
 
 Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242. See Re- Christianorum, multi unum corpus 
 
 view, above, p. 309, and Christian in Christo : quod etiam sacramento 
 
 Sacrifice Explained, above, pp. 416, altaris, fidelibus noto, frequentat 
 
 417. Ecclesia ; ubi ei demonstratur, quod 
 
 z ' Haec quippe Ecclesia est Israel in ea re quam offert, ipsa offeratur.' 
 
 secundum spiritum, a quo distingui- Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. 
 
 tur ille Israel secundum carnem, qui cap. 6. p. 243. torn. vii. 
 serviebat in umbris sacrificiorum,
 
 Ordinary and Extraordinary, 601 
 
 person, or of a few in comparison b : the several single good 
 works of every Christian were so many sacrifices in his estima- 
 tion, true sacrifices, not nominal or metaphorical : but still the 
 sacrifice offered in the Eucharist was emphatically the sacrifice 
 of Christians, being a complicated sacrifice, the joint-worship of 
 all, and containing many circumstances which gave it a more 
 eminent right and title to the name of the sacrifice of the 
 Church c . The Eucharist therefore was emphatically or pecu- 
 liarly the sacrifice d : that is to say, in a peculiar manner, or 
 with peculiar circumstances, but not in a peculiar or different 
 sense of the name sacrifice ; for those things ought to be dis- 
 tinguished, though they have been often confounded. All the 
 confusion, in this matter, lies in the equivocalness of terms, and 
 particularly of the word ' proprie,' properly, which is variously 
 used, and is subject to various meanings 6 . It may mean proper, 
 as opposed to improper and metaphorical : or it may mean 
 proper, as opposed to large or general ; which is the same with 
 peculiar as to manner and circumstances only, not as to pro- 
 priety of phrase or diction. All spiritual sacrifices are sacrifices 
 properly so called, falling under the same general reason and 
 definition of sacrifice f : nevertheless, the Eucharist is a sacrifice 
 
 b See Appendix, above, p. 483, or metaphorical : in Latin, ' proprie 
 
 and compare Ambros. torn. i. pp. 214, dictum, et improprie dictum.' 
 
 215. Origen. torn. ii. p. 405. ed. 4. Proper or peculiar, as opposed 
 
 Bened. Chrysost. in Heb. x. Horn, to large or general: 'proprie, etlato 
 
 20. p. 186. torn. xii. ed. Bened. Bede, mode,' or ' largo modo.' 
 
 Homil. tom.vii. p. 59. f See Review, above, pp. 310, 311. 
 
 c 'Quomodo autem Spiritui Sancto Christian Sacrifice Explained, above, 
 
 in pane et vino sacrificium Ecclesiae pp. 416, 417. N.B. The old Protes- 
 
 non offertur, quando ipsam Eccle- tant Divines, for the most part, 
 
 siam, et templum et sacrificium ipse maintained this point against the 
 
 Spiritus habere cognoscitur.' Ful- Romanists, (who first denied it,) that 
 
 gentius inter Fragment, p. 641. spiritual sacrifices are proper sacri- 
 
 d See Review, above, pp. 3 1 1, 312. fices, that is, properly so called; 
 
 Christian Sacrifice Explained, above, which might be particularly proved 
 
 pp. 420, 421. Appendix, above, from their standing definitions. See 
 
 p. 483. Christian Sacrifice Explained, above, 
 
 e The various meanings are these : p. 416. I shall only add here the 
 
 T. Proper, as opposed to 'aliene:' testimony of an adversary, who, 
 
 in Latin, ' proprium et alienum.' speaking of the Protestants, says, 
 
 2. Proper, as opposed to common : 'Putant actum contritionis, lau- 
 ' proprium et commune.' dationis, gratiarum actionis pertinere 
 
 3. Proper, as opposed to allusive ad sacrificia proprie dicta, ex Davide,
 
 6o2 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 in a more eminent way ; not more a sacrifice, but a more excel- 
 lent sacrifice, as I before distinguished in another case. I 
 thought it necessary to be thus minute and explicit in this 
 article, for the removing vulgar prejudices, and for the prevent- 
 ing common mistakes. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 I shall mention but one distinction more, (if it may be called 
 a distinction,) and that is, between sacrifice real and nominal, 
 between sacrifice truly such, and sacrifice in name only. It may 
 sound oddly, to distinguish sacrifice into sacrifice and no sacri- 
 fice, which is really the case here ; but it is necessary, for the 
 preventing confusion, and for the obviating mistakes which fre- 
 quently arise from a figurative or catachrestical use of names. 
 This distinction of nominal and real is of large extent, compre- 
 hending under it several subdivisions ; as instrumental and real, 
 symbolical and real, verbal and real, and lastly, commemorative 
 and real : of which in their order, as follows : 
 
 I. The first I call instrumental and real, as when the instru- 
 ment of a sacrifice (whether for brevity or for any other reason) 
 bears the name of sacrifice or oblation. Thus, for instance, 
 jewels of gold, chains, bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, 
 were called an oblation for the Lord, to make an atonement for 
 souls, before the Lord , as if they had really been sacrifices : 
 but it is certain, that those offerings were no more than instru- 
 
 Psal. 1. et ex illo D. Augustini, lib. x. true and acceptable services under 
 
 cap. 6. Caeterum toto caelo er- the Gospel ; and that material sacri- 
 
 rant,' &c. Joan. Puteanus, q. Ixxxiii. fices, however proper, in respect of 
 
 Dub. 2. p. 299. A.D. 1624. He goes diction, or use of language, are now 
 
 on to argue the point : a bye-point, out of date, and are rejected of God, 
 
 which Allen, in 1 5 76, and Bellar- and are therefore so far from being 
 
 mine, about twelve or twenty years properly worship, that they are more 
 
 after, had insisted upon, for Lhe sake properly sacrilege and profanation, 
 
 of perplexing a cause, and for the See my Christian Sacrifice Explained, 
 
 turning a reader off from the main above, pp. 415-419, 423. The Romish 
 
 point in dispute. For whatever be- sacrifice is neither true nor proper ; 
 
 comes of the question about proper but they apply that epithet to a mere 
 
 and improper sacrifice, (a strife about fiction and idol of their own. 
 
 a name only,) one thing is certain, Numb. xxxi. 50. 
 that spiritual services are the only
 
 Nominal and Real, 603 
 
 ments subservient to sacrifices : and that appears to have been 
 the ground and foundation of the way of speaking h . 
 
 By the like figure of speech, by a metonymy of instrument for 
 principal, we sometimes find the Fathers giving the name of 
 sacrifice to the altar-offerings, to the bread and wine ; which 
 were the instruments of the benevolent acts, as also of the 
 memorial services, that is, of the real sacrifices. Cyprian', 
 certainly, so uses the word sacrifice ; and probably Tertullian 
 before him k ; and others after 1 . Such expressions were very 
 innocent in ancient times, while Christians were too wise and 
 too well instructed to make any such gross mistakes as the 
 ignorance of later times introduced. The Fathers could not 
 then suspect, that such figures of speech should ever come to 
 be interpreted with rigour, and up to the letter, while sufficiently 
 guarded by the well known standing doctrine of spiritual sacri- 
 fices. 2. By a like figure of speech, the sign or symbol of a 
 sacrifice often bore the name of sacrifice ; that is to say, by a 
 metonymy of the sign for the thing signified 01 . Our blessed 
 Lord had used the like figure in the very institution of the 
 Eucharist, as it were, giving the names of body and blood to 
 
 h 'Aurum offerri diciturad expia- ' 'Dum sacris altaribus nullam 
 
 tionem pro animabus. At qui tandem admovent hostiam. Propterea de- 
 
 auro aut fiat aut figuretur expiatio, cernimus, ut omnibus Dominicis die- 
 
 nisi mediate et instrument! modo ? bus, altaris oblatio ab omnibus viris 
 
 Dum scilicet suffimentis sacris, et et mulieribus offeratur tain panis 
 
 ignitis subservifc oblationibus : adeo quam vini; ut per has immolationes, 
 
 ut nihil hie sit aliud ad expiationem et peccatorum fascibus careant, et 
 
 offerri, quam ad usum eorum, quae cum Abel vel caeteris juste offeren- 
 
 expiando.' Mede, Dissertat. Triga, tibus promereantur esse consortes.' 
 
 p. 28. Concil. Matisc. ii. Can. 4. Cp. 
 
 1 'Locuples et dives es, et Domi- Bona. Rer. Liturg. p. 436. A.D. 585. 
 
 nicum celebrare te credis, quae cor- Apostol. Constit. lib. ii. cap. 27. 
 ban omnino non respicis, quae in ' Ille bonus Christianus est, qui . . . 
 
 Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, quae oblationem quae offeratur Deo, in 
 
 partem de sacrificio quod pauper altari exhibet.' Eligius Novio- 
 
 obtulit, sumis ?' Cyprian, de Opere mens. apud Bonam, ibid. p. 436. 
 
 et Eleemos. p. 242. ed. Bened. A.D. 640. 
 
 k ' De stationum diebus non putant m How usual a figure this is, in 
 
 plerique sacrificiorum orationibus in- Scripture itself, with relation especi- 
 
 terveniendum, &c. . . . Accepto cor- ally to exhibitive signs, see proved 
 
 pore Domini et conservato, utrum- at large, in Review, above, chap. 7. 
 
 que salvum est, participatio sacri- pp. 130-141. And compare St. Aus- 
 
 ficii, et executio officii.' Tertull. de tin, Epist. xcviii. p. 286. torn. ii. In 
 
 Orat. cap. xiv. pp. 135, 136. Levit. q. Ivii. p. 516. torn. iii.
 
 604 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 the elemental signs and symbols of them. And what wonder 
 is it, if the Fathers, considering that the real body and blood 
 were a sacrifice upon the cross, should sometimes call the 
 elements by the name of sacrifice; which was but following 
 the like figure, and saying the same thing that our Lord had 
 said, only in equivalent terms ? If any one should doubt of 
 this solution, with respect to the name of sacrifice, sometimes 
 (though rarely in comparison) given to the elements j let him 
 say, what other solution can be justly given for their being 
 much more frequently called by the name of body and blood , 
 yea and of Christ slain, or simply Christ, or Lord, or God, or 
 the like P. Instances out of antiquity might be here given in 
 great numbers : but I shall content myself with a single passage 
 of St. Ambrose, wherein the elements appear to be denominated 
 Christ, and Christ's body, and sacrifice, all in the compass of a 
 few lines q, and all by the same metonymy of sign for thing 
 signified, exhibited, participated. He uses the word offer in a 
 lax sense, for commemorating, or presenting to Divine conside- 
 ration : for it cannot be supposed that he thought of literally 
 sacrificing Christ, either above or below. Indeed, he explains 
 his sense of that matter elsewhere r , by Christ's presenting him- 
 self as intercessor above, in virtue of his blood shed, and by 
 our representing the same thing below, in a kind of imagery, 
 made of the symbols of bread and wine. Christ's offering himself 
 
 n 'Ad summam, regula haec te- Grace. Murator. A.D. I79- 
 
 nenda est, Patres quo sensu Intel- ' ' Etsi nunc Christu3 non videtur 
 
 lexerunt corpus et sanguinem Christi offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terns, 
 
 adesse in coena, panemque esse ipsum quando Christi corpus offertur : imo 
 
 corpus Christi, eodem etiam sense- ipse offerre manifestatur in nobis, 
 
 runt in coena offerri Christum, coe- cujus sermo sanctificat sacrificium 
 
 namque ipsam esse sacrificium hilas- quod offertur.' Ambros. in Psal. 
 
 ticum, sed incruentum ; nempe in xxxviii. p. 853.' ed. Bened. 
 
 mysterio, in figura, et imagine.' r ' Umbra in lege, imago in Evan- 
 
 Zanchius, ad Ephes. v. p. 422. gelio, veritas in caelestibus. Ante 
 
 'Pene quidem Sacramentum om- agnus offerebatur, offerebatur vitu- 
 
 nes corpus ejus dicunt.' Augustin. lus ; nunc Christus offertur Et 
 
 Serm. cccliv. p. 1375. torn. v. offert se ipse quasi sacerdos, ut pec- 
 
 P Kol ffv, rd\av, iroA.(/j(ri rtais cata nostra dimittat. Hie in Sma- 
 
 fl /j.6ffriv SccS V gi" 16 * ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem 
 
 A']7 6ap<ra\ftas, 3) Ofbv ayKa\ifffis pro nobis quasi advocatus inter- 
 
 Xti'pfffiv, ah Si6pvas ^u&v raQov ; venit.' Ambros. de Offic. lib. ii. cap. 
 
 Nazianz. Epigr. p. 151. in Anecd. 48.
 
 Nominal and Real. 605 
 
 above, is rather commemorating a sacrifice, than sacrificing 8 : 
 and our doing the like below, is but an imitation even of that * ; 
 so far is it from sacrificing either the signs or things. But as 
 the bread and wine represent the real body and blood, which 
 were a real sacrifice, so they have the names of body, and blood, 
 and sacrifices : and there is no more room for arguing, barely 
 from the name of sacrifice, to real sacrifice in the one case, than 
 there is for arguing, barely from the names of body and blood, 
 to real body and blood, (that is to say, to transubstantiation,) in 
 the other case. The argument proves too much to prove any- 
 thing. 
 
 It may be said perhaps, that the ancients, while they call the 
 elements body and blood, do yet by some additional words give 
 us to understand, that they meant not the real body and blood ; 
 but where do they give us to understand, that when they called 
 the elements a sacrifice, they did not believe them to be a real 
 sacrifice u 1 I answer, they do it in hundreds of places : by what 
 they say of extrinsic and intrinsic sacrifice : by what they say of 
 visible and invisible : by what they say of material and imma- 
 terial : by what they teach of bloody and unbloody, of smoky 
 and unsmoky, of false and true, of old and new, of literal and 
 spiritual ; and in short, by the whole tenor of their doctrine 
 concerning spiritual sacrifices, for six whole centuries together. 
 Could we suppose, that they made the elements themselves a 
 proper sacrifice, they would be all over perplexity, confusion, 
 and self-contradiction : but allow only, that they made use of 
 the same easy and common figure when they called them sacri- 
 
 5 Vid. Grotius de Satisfact. in fine, effect, is a celebration of his death, 
 
 Compare Review, p. 66. and the applying it to the present 
 
 4 ' As Christ is a Priest in heaven and future necessities of the Church, 
 
 for ever, and yet does not sacrifice as we are capable, by a ministry like 
 
 himself afresh, (nor yet without sa- to his in heaven.' Taylor, Great 
 
 crifice could he be a Priest,) but by Exempl. p. 497. Cp. Grotius, Opp. 
 
 a daily ministration and intercession torn. iv. pp. 6-20, 643, 660. Field, 
 
 represents his sacrifice to God, and pp. 204, 205. Hospinian. Histor. 
 
 offers himself as sacrificed ; so he Sacram. p. 580, &c. Bucer. contr. 
 
 does upon earth, by the ministry of Latom. pp. 147, 175, 249. Brevint 
 
 his servants. He is offered to God : on the Mass, p. 74. 
 that is, he is, by prayers and the u See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. 
 
 Sacrament, represented or offered p. 455. 
 up to God as sacrificed ; which, in
 
 6o6 
 
 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 fice, as when they called them body and blood, and Christ slain, 
 or the like x , and then their whole doctrine is consistent, uniform, 
 and clear, all the way through, and without embarrassments. 
 But I proceed. 
 
 3. To the head of nominal and real, I refer verbal and real. 
 The Latin name ' sacrificium,' through the unskilfulness of de- 
 clining ages, came to be used as equivalent to the word ' sacra - 
 mentum : ' so that when the Church writers of those times called 
 the elements a sacrifice, they really meant no more than a sacra- 
 ment, that is, sign of a sacrifice. The idea remained the same 
 as before ; but there was a change in the terms, a confusion in 
 words or names. This is plain from the odd definition of sacri- 
 fice given by the famous Isidore of Seville, about the close of 
 the sixth century, or beginning of the seventh. He defines 
 sacrifice by a thing made sacred y ; which is rather the definition 
 of a sacrament, as denoting an holy sign, or a thing, before 
 
 * It may be noted that Vasquez 
 (who admits not the elements to 
 be a sacrifice) assigns three reasons 
 why the Fathers might so call them : 
 the first of the three is adapted to 
 the Romish principles : but the 
 second and third are good. 
 
 1. ' Quia sunt materia, quae tran- 
 sit in id quod in sacrificium oft'er- 
 tur. 
 
 2. ' Quia ipsum Christi corpus vo- 
 catur panis, et sanguis vinum. 
 
 3. ' Quia proponuntur Deo conse- 
 cranda : latius autem patet oblatio 
 quam sacrificium.' Vasquez, Opp. 
 torn. iii. p. 414. 
 
 ' Alia ratione dici potest panis et 
 vinum Deo ofierri, si non addatur in 
 sacrificium : quia hoc ipso quod pro- 
 ponitur coram Deo consecrandum, 
 Deo offertur ; latius nim patet ob- 
 latio quam sacrificium : et hoc modo 
 explicari possent aliquae orationes 
 Ecclesiae in officio missae, in quibus 
 dicitur panis et vinum offerri. vel 
 illorum propositio dicitur oblatio. 1 
 Vasquez, ibid. 
 
 y ' Sacrificium est . . . omne quod 
 Deo datur, aut dedicatur, aut conse- 
 cratur. Sacrificium dictum, quasi 
 
 sacrum factum : quia prece mystica 
 consecratur in memoriam pro nobis 
 Dominicae passionis : unde hoc, eo 
 jubente, corpus et sanguinem dici- 
 mus. Quod dum fit ex fructibus ter- 
 rae, sanctificatur et fit Sacramentum, 
 operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei.' 
 Isidor. Hispalens. Orig. lib. vi. cap. 
 19. pp. 142, 143. 
 
 This description, or definition, 
 seems to have prevailed among the 
 Irish Divines of the seventh and 
 eighth centuries. See Usher's Re- 
 lig. of Ancient Irish, chap. iv. 
 
 Cangius, under the word 'sacrifi- 
 cium,' in his Glossary, has brought 
 no higher authorities for such use 
 of the name than the seventh cen- 
 tury ; excepting Patricius, whose 
 pretended writings are of suspected 
 credit. 
 
 Rabanus of the ninth century, 
 (De Instit. Cleric, lib. i. cap. 32,) 
 Honorius of the twelfth, (Gemm. 
 Anim. cap. 93,) and Alensis of the 
 thirteenth, (torn. iv. p. 192,) seem 
 to follow Isidore. As also do seve- 
 ral of the elder Romanists of the 
 sixteenth century : such as Fisher, 
 Tonstall, &c.
 
 Nominal and Real. 607 
 
 common, consecrated into an holy symbol : and it will serve as 
 aptly for the waters of Baptism as for the elements of the 
 Eucharist. It would be ridiculous to claim Isidore, as making 
 the elements a sacrifice, in the old or true sense of that name : 
 his sacrifice was verbal only, not real ; a verbal sacrifice, a real 
 sacrament. However, in process of time, this change of lan- 
 guage, this misapplication of a name, might, very probably, 
 become a snare to many; and might, with several other con- 
 curring circumstances, during the dark ages, help to bring in 
 bread-sacrifice. When transubstantiation, or something like it, 
 was creeping in, one argument pleaded for it ran thus : either 
 the elements must be the real and natural body and blood, or 
 else the Christian sacrifices will be meaner than the Jewish 
 sacrifices were 7 . Which shews, that the bread-sacrifice, or 
 elemental sacrifice, was then made a principle whereon to build, 
 and therefore had gained some footing in the Church before 
 that time. Then, that very consideration which should have 
 made them look back, to correct their first error, served only, 
 in those days of ignorance, to lead them on to more and greater. 
 If an elemental sacrifice is meaner (as it really is) than a Jewish 
 one, and they were sensible of it, they should have corrected 
 that false principle by returning to spiritual sacrifice, and then 
 all had been right : they should have considered the elements 
 as symbols of Christ's body, natural and mystical, and as instru- 
 ments of a memorial-service, and so all had been well. 
 
 If it should here be objected, that in this way of distinguishing 
 between the material symbol and spiritual service, even the 
 Jewish sacrifices might all be distinguished off into services, and 
 no room left for material sacrifices under the Law, any more 
 than under the Gospel : I say, if this should be objected, it is 
 obvious to reply, that the two cases are exceeding wide, and the 
 circumstances extremely different; for, 
 
 i. Material things are frequently called sacrifices under the 
 Law, and accepted as sweet odour ; but the elements are never 
 so called under the Gospel, nor accepted of, as sweet odours. 
 
 2 Paschas. Radbert de Corp. et Sang. cap. ii. Opp. p. 1559. Al- 
 gerus, p. 268.
 
 608 DMHctiox* of Sacrifice : 
 
 2. Under the Law, God considered the fat and the blood as 
 his portion, to be separated from man's use ; and he accepted 
 them as entirely his* : no such thing is appointed with respect 
 to the elements under the Gospel ; neither does God accept 
 them, or any part of them as his, or as exempt from man's use. 
 
 3. Legal and typical expiations (sure marks of a proper legal 
 sacrifice) were annexed to the Jewish oblations: but no such 
 typical and temporal expiations, distinct from the true expiation, 
 is annexed to the oblation of the elements, to shew them to be a 
 sacrifice in themselves b . 
 
 4. Under the Law, there was need of extrinsic sacrifices, and 
 extrinsic expiations, to signify, by such shadows, that men must 
 be saved by an extrinsic sacrifice, to appear in due time; 
 namely, the grand sacrifice c : but under the Gospel, the true 
 sacrifice is come, and so that great truth is no longer shadowed, 
 or darkly insinuated, but openly and fully declared. And we 
 have now direct immediate access to the true sacrifice, and to 
 the true expiations : not kept at a distance, as before, by the 
 intervention of typical sacrifices, or typical expiations : such is 
 our Gospel privilege d . 
 
 5. All sacrifices, properly expiatory, must be something ex- 
 trinsic, for nothing *ab intus' can expiate, as before noted 6 . 
 The extrinsic thing, in such a case, is demanded by way of price, 
 or compensation, for the forfeited life of the man, or in lieu of 
 it f . Therefore as the Jewish sacrifices were properly expiatory. 
 
 See Review, above, pp. 135, 136, ' Spiritaalis effectus est solatia a 
 
 and compare Mede's Christian Sacri- reatu interoo, Ac. quam aacrificiaad- 
 
 fice. p. 471. Codworth on the Sacra- nmbrant, non praestant. . . . Sed si 
 
 ment, chap, v. pp. 89, 90. Johnson's sacrificia adumbrant ac significant 
 
 Unbloody Sacrifice, part L p. 238. ablationem reatos aeterni, necesse 
 
 part iL p. 77, &e. est ut arabaternatur effectus tempo- 
 
 k Eosebhis well observes, that God ralia, per qoem spiritualis ille ef- 
 accepted of animal sacrifices, while a fectu repraesentetur : is vero est 
 yet no better sacrifice of expiation ablalio reatus, ratione poenae tern- 
 could be had ; that is, while the sa- poralis.' Yossius ad Jodie. Ravensp. 
 crificeof Oiri*t,agiufiedbytheother, p. 86 ; cp. p. 98. 
 was yet future: but afterwards the * See Christian Sacrifice Explained. 
 caae was altered, and all such sacri- above, pp. 443, 444. App. pp. 460-46 2. 
 'Stmm mmn ouBiBtded by the sacrifice * See above, p. 599. 
 of Christ. VkL Euaeb. Dem. Evang. f Vid. Euseb. Dem. E rang. lib. L 
 lib. L c. 10. p. 36. c. 10. p. 35.
 
 Nominal and Seal. 609 
 
 (though in a legal and temporal way e,) they must of course be 
 extrinsic to the persons, and they were so : but Christians 
 owning no expiation at all, save only the true and heavenly 
 expiation made upon the cross, cannot have any expiatory or 
 atoning sacrifice besides that They may have, and they have, 
 intrinsic, gratulatory, and qualifying sacrifices ; and those are 
 their religious duties and services, and nothing else. Therefore 
 the reason is plain, why the Jewish sacrifices cannot be dis- 
 tinguished off, or advanced into spiritual services, nor the Chris- 
 tian sacrifices sunk into material and extrinsic oblations. But I 
 return. 
 
 4. To the same head, of nominal and real, belongs the dis- 
 tinction of commemorative and real : which is an old distinction. 
 Chrysostom observes, that we do not offer, as the Jews formerly 
 did, one lamb one day, and the next day another, and so on ; 
 but that we every day offer the same Lamb, which Lamb is 
 Christ, and consequently the same sacrifice ; or rather, as he 
 adds, correcting the expression, a commemoration of a sacrifice h . 
 Thus he distinguishes a commemorative sacrifice from a real one, 
 or a commemoration of a sacrifice from the sacrifice itself. That 
 he here understood an expiatory sacrifice is plain, because he 
 interprets it of Christ himself, our only sacrifice of propitiation. 
 It may be suggested, that a commemoration of a sacrifice, though 
 it is not that sacrifice, may yet be a sacrifice, or another sacrifice 
 notwithstanding : and it may be said, that a symbol of a sacri- 
 fice may itself also be a distinct sacrifice. Both parts are true : 
 
 f Hence arises another irresistible ntv, eu vvr fit* trtpox rpd&aror, aiptur 
 argument against the notion of the 5e frtpoy, oAA' at} TO avrb, frt 
 elements being expiatory sacrifices : fii* rrlr fi (hxria . . . efs v<arra\Qv 6 
 for, if they were so, they should have Xpurrbs . . . oAAaxov Tpo<r4>fp4net>os, 
 a real and distinct expiation of their \ au/j.d ccrri, KCU ov ToAAa ouftaroL, 
 own, to adumbrate the true sacrifice ovrta icol ftia Ovvia. . . . owe SAA^r ft/- 
 as future still : which would amount ffltuf italBaarep 6 'Apx'fp*^* r6rt, o\Aa 
 to declaring that Christ is not come, rJ)x wr^f a*l roiov/jLff /taAAor 5c 
 and so would be a flat contradiction ay&iun\<nv /rya(T<Wa iWiaj. Chry- 
 to Christianity. sost. in Heb. x. Horn. xvii. pp. 168, 
 
 h Ti olv : V's xaff l/ca^rr;*' iintpa* 169. torn. xii. edit. Bened. Other 
 
 ov irpo<T<pfpoufv ; irpocr<t>epou.(v utv, authorities to the same purpose are 
 
 o\A' avdujnjaiv tcoiov^jifvoi TOV daydrov referred to in Eeview, above, p. 34, 
 
 ovroD. . . . T^V yap aurbv aJ -rpoffipfpo- and more might be added. 
 
 B r
 
 6io Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 for a memorial service is a sacrifice 1 , while it is also a com- 
 memoration of the grand sacrifice ; and the Jewish sacrifices 
 were sacrifices in themselves, while types of Christ's sacrifice, 
 and symbols also of ours. But then, let it be observed, that 
 when Chrysostom here speaks of the real sacrifice in the Eucha- 
 rist, he does not mean the signs, but the thing signified by them, 
 namely, Christ himself, the one sacrifice, as he expressly men- 
 tions : besides, had he intended the elements, he could not have 
 said, that we have one sacrifice, or always the same sacrifice ; 
 for he very well knew, that we offer one day one loaf, and 
 another day another loaf, and so that would have amounted to 
 the same with one day one sheep, and another day another ; and 
 the very objection which he was there answering would have re- 
 turned upon him with all its force. 
 
 But will not the same objection lie against offering any sacri- 
 fices at all, even spiritual sacrifices, so many distinct acts, and 
 therefore one day one sacrifice, and another day another, and so 
 on 1 No : for Chrysostom was there speaking only of expiatory 
 sacrifices, or sin offerings ; as the chapter, which he was com- 
 menting upon, led him to do : and there is really no sin offering, 
 or expiatory sacrifice, under the Gospel, but Christ alone ; who 
 is not properly offered in a sacrificial way, but commemorated 
 only, in the Eucharist. There may be in the Eucharist gratula- 
 tory sacrifices, consistently with what is here said by Chrysostom : 
 
 * Eusebius observes, that our Lord icol Koytnas, avr$ rt Trpoarivtls Ovfflas 
 
 has ordered us a memorial, instead of vpoffQtpfiv 6e$, &c. p. 39. Where I 
 
 a sacrifice ; (t.vi\pi}v KO! ^/uli/ irapaSovs, understand by ffffj.va QvfjLara. the syni- 
 
 djrt dvaias, -rif 0<p SitivfK&s wpoff<pt- bols, metonymically called victims, 
 
 ptiv. Demonstr. lib. i. c. 10. p. 38. as body and blood : and Eusebius 
 
 One would think by this, that he had takes notice, that by them (that is, by 
 
 excluded a memorial from being a them as symbols and instruments) we 
 
 sacrifice. But he does not : for he offer, we perform our unbloody and 
 
 presently afterexplainswhathemeans rational sacrifices. He had said be- 
 
 by, instead of a sacrifice, adding curl fore, Tovrov Sr/ra OI>(MTOS rrjv 
 
 instead of the ancient sacrifices and &c. That is, the memorial of the 
 
 burnt offerings. Ibid. p. 38. But as victim, Christ crucified, is performed 
 
 to the memorial services, he does as by those symbols ; by consecrating, 
 
 plainly call them sacrifices.in the next by breaking, distributing, pouring, 
 
 page, as words can do it. eating, and drinking them with de- 
 
 Ta fffuva TT}S Xpiffrov -rpairtfrs Ov~ vout hearts, prayers, praises, &c. 
 /<ara. 81" &v KaA.AtepoCt'Tey.Toj ai<a.iu.ovs
 
 Nominal and Real. 611 
 
 but whether the elements or the service, properly, are such 
 gratulatory sacrifices, he has not determined in this place, not 
 entering into that question ; though he has sufficiently deter- 
 mined it elsewhere, by what he constantly teaches with respect 
 to self-sacrifice, intrinsic sacrifice, and all spiritual services ; 
 which he called sacrifices without any scruple, and without any 
 self-correction k . 
 
 Some have thought, that the very phrase of commemorative 
 sacrifice, as applied to the Eucharist, imports, that the Eucharist 
 is a sacrifice : but that is a very great mistake. It neither 
 implies it nor contradicts it, but abstracts from it, expressing no 
 more than this, that the Eucharist is a commemoration of a 
 sacrifice, namely, of the grand sacrifice. It is a contracted, 
 compendious form of speech, which, drawn out at full length, 
 expresses a sacrament commemorative of a sacrifice ; as appears 
 from Aquinas ', who may be allowed to be a good interpreter of 
 a scholastic phrase. That sense passed current, and was not 
 only admitted by Calvin and other Protestants, but contended 
 for, when the Romanists began to give a new sense and new 
 turn to it. Cardinal Allen was not pleased with the Schools for 
 speaking the plain truth m , nor with the Protestants for following 
 
 k It has been observed by some, tion of sacrifice. The sacrifices called 
 that the spiritual sacrifices, among the ' zebachim,' for instance, in Hebrew, or 
 Fathers, often go under metaphorical 0i><rfaiinGreek,or'hostiae'inLatin,or 
 names, such as odour of suavity, and 'victimae.'were not therefore sacrifices 
 the like : and it has been urged, as merely because so called, or because 
 of moment, that if a sacrifice of the they were of such a particular kind, 
 heart is not an odour of suavity in a but because they were considered as 
 proper sense, why must it be thought presents to God, and as expressions 
 a sacrifice in a proper sense ? The of worship and homage offered to the 
 argument is wrong, because it proves Divine Majesty, 
 too much. Our Lord, as a sacrifice, ' ' Sacramentum hoc est commemo- 
 is called our Passover, and the Lamb rativum Dominicae passionis, quae 
 of God, and likewise an odour of sua- fuit verum sacrificium, et sic nomi- 
 vitj 1 , Ephes. v. 2. Might it not there- natur sacrificium.' Aquin. Summ. 
 fore as well be pleaded against his part iii. qu. 73. art. 4. 
 sacrifice, that since he is not a lamb, ' Successit autem ei [paschati] in 
 nor a passover, nor an odour, in a Novo Testamento Eucharistia, sacra- 
 proper sense, why must he be a sacri- mentum quod est rememorativum 
 fice in a proper sense ? The truth is, praeteritae passionis, sicut et illud 
 proper sacrifices may often have meta- erat praefigurativum futurae.' Aquin. 
 phorical names : but they are proper ibid. art. 5. Cp. Lombard, lib. iv. 
 sacrifices notwithstanding, if they fall distinct. 12. lit. G. 
 within the general reason and defini- m Alanus de Eucharistia, p. 551.
 
 6 1 2 Distinctions of Sacrifice : 
 
 them in that just sense of the phrase : so he endeavoured to 
 warp it to a new and foreign meaning 11 . He pleaded that a 
 commemorative sacrifice may consistently be proper also ; which 
 was no part of the question. The question was, whether any 
 certain conclusion could be drawn from the name of sacrifice, 
 sometimes given to the elements by the ancients, when those 
 very ancients declared their own meaning in such instances to 
 be, that the Eucharist, so considered, was a commemoration of a 
 sacrifice, rather than a sacrifice. But I pass on. The phrase of 
 commemorative sacrifice, in such a sense as Aquinas used it in, 
 and as signifying a sacrament commemorative of a sacrifice, has 
 been admitted by the best learned Protestants all along, without 
 any scruple. The sum is, that a commemorative sacrifice, in the 
 relative sense of the phrase, is the same as a nominal sacrifice, 
 opposed to a real one ; a sign opposed to the thing signified ; a 
 memorial of a sacrifice, not that sacrifice. Such was the original, 
 such has been the customary use of the phrase, from the time it 
 first came in : and the question is not, whether a commemorative 
 sacrifice may not also, in an absolute view, be a distinct sacrifice ; 
 but whether that phrase ordinarily had expressed both ? It is 
 certain, that it had not ; but, among the Schoolmen formerly, 
 and among the best learned Protestants since, it expressed no 
 more commonly than a sacramental commemoration or memorial 
 of a sacrifice, namely of the grand sacrifice. In this sense, our 
 present most learned Metropolitan admits of it. His words are : 
 ' In the Christian Church, there is only one proper sacrifice, 
 which our Lord offered upon the cross ; and consequently 
 Christians cannot partake of any sacrifice in a literal and strict 
 sense, without allowing transubstantiation.' (p. 262.) The 
 
 n 'Majores certe nostri cum Eucha- p. 52. Andrewes, Resp. ad. Bellarm. 
 
 ristiae confectionem appellarunt non- p. 184. Spalatensis, lib. v. pp. 82, 83, 
 
 nunquam commemorativum sacrifi- 149, 204, 882, 911. Buckeridge, p. 
 
 cium . . . non ita dicebant, quod judi- 4. See my Christian Sacrifice, above, 
 
 carent haec vocabula non consistere p. 431. Morton, book v. p. 440, alias 
 
 cum sacrificio vero, ut propterea non 35, 38. Field, p. 205. Laud, Conf. 
 
 esset proprie dictum sacrificium, quia pp. 305, 306. Towerson on the Sa- 
 
 esset commemorativum.' Alanus de craments, p. 169. Payne on the Sa- 
 
 Eucharistia, p. 547. crifice of the Mass, pp. 49, 51, 53, 75. 
 
 Cranmer against Gardiner, book Patrick, Mens. Myst.pp. 15, 16. Ere- 
 
 v. p. 435. R.Jacobi Epist. ad Perron, vint on the Mass, p. 23.
 
 Nominal, and Real. 613 
 
 Lord's Supper ia ' a commemorative sacrifice, or the memorial 
 of our Lord offered upon the cross ; which is first dedicated to 
 God by prayer and thanksgiving, and afterwards eaten by the 
 faithful,' &c. (p. 267.) When it is said, that Christians cannot 
 partake of any sacrifice in a literal sense, and that there is but 
 one proper sacrifice for Christians to partake of; the meaning, I 
 presume, of those few, chosen words is this : we may indeed 
 partake of Christ's sacrifice, a proper sacrifice, but not in a 
 literal sense ; for the participation is spiritual : we may literally 
 partake of the elements ; but then they are not a proper sacri- 
 fice, but symbolical, and commemorative P, being that they are 
 memorial signs of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself. There- 
 fore, upon the whole, we have no sacrifice to partake of in a 
 literal sense ; for either the sacrifice we partake of is not literal 
 and proper, or else the participation, at least, is not literal and 
 proper : so stands the case. And what is this but very plainly 
 declaring, that the elements are not a proper sacrifice ? Well, 
 but is it not as plainly declaring, that spiritual sacrifices are no 
 proper sacrifices, since we have but one proper sacrifice ? No, it 
 is not declaring any such thing : for, observe the words, Chris- 
 tians cannot partake of any sacrifice ; it is not said, cannot offei*, 
 but the thought entirely runs upon a sacrifice of participation <J. 
 So there is room left to say, that we offer proper sacrifices, 
 namely, spiritual sacrifices. But will there not also be room left 
 for saying, that we offer- the elements as a proper sacrifice ? 
 No : for if they are not a proper sacrifice when participated, 
 they could not be such when offered r : if the feeding barely 
 
 P ' The elements are made the added : ' Hence it is manifest, that' 
 
 symbols of his body and blood, the to eat of the Lord's Supper is to 
 
 partaking whereof is all one to the partake of the sacrifice of Christ, 
 
 receivers, and does as much assure which is there commemorated and 
 
 them of the favour of God, as if they represented.' Ibid. p. 264. 
 
 should eat and drink the real body Sacrifice is he re taken inthepassive 
 
 and blood of Christ offered upon the view, as participated, according to Dr. 
 
 cross.' p. 263. ' To eat of the Lord's Cudworth's notion of a symbolical 
 
 Supper, is to partake of the sacrifice feast upon a sacrifice. See my Re- 
 
 of Christ, which is there commemo- view, above, p. 291, &c. 
 
 rated and represented.' Archbishop r Offered here means offered for 
 
 Potter on Church Government, p. consecration . : 'To consecrate the 
 
 264. Lord's Supper is so constantly called 
 
 i Accordingly, these words are wpoo-(pfpfu> in Greek, and 'offerre' in
 
 $ 1 4 Distinctions of Sacrifice: 
 
 upon them amounts not to a feast upon a proper sacrifice, they 
 never were a proper sacrifice at all. The words are so exactly 
 chosen, as plainly to exclude the elements from being a proper 
 sacrifice, and at the same time not to exclude our religious ser- 
 vices from really being so. This, I presume to say, (without his 
 Grace's leave or knowledge,) appears to be his sense, and his 
 whole sense ; no way favouring the material hypothesis, but the 
 contrary ; however some may have misconstrued his words, for 
 want of considering them with due attention. 
 
 As to the name memorial, it may be noted, that it is capable 
 of a twofold meaning, according as it may be applied. Apply it 
 to the elements, and so it means a memorial sign, no sacrifice at 
 all : apply it to the prayers, praises, and eucharistical actions 8 , 
 and then it means a memorial service, and is a sacrifice, a 
 spiritual sacrifice. But it is time to take leave. 
 
 I have now run through the most considerable distinctions of 
 sacrifice, which have fallen within the compass of my observa- 
 tion ; and I am willing to hope, that the explications here given 
 may be of use, as spreading some further light upon the subject. 
 Had the difference lain in words only*, (ideas remaining the 
 
 Latin, that it is needless to cite any Pfaffius had said, and that a great 
 
 testimonies for them.' Ibid. part of the debate was chiefly about 
 
 N.B. The offering for consecration, names. I have since noted, that the 
 
 means no more than presenting them original scheme of a principal writer 
 
 to God, in order to have them conse- in that cause appeared to me to be 
 
 crated into memorial signs, or sym- little more. Christian Sacrifice Ex- 
 
 bols of Christ's sacrifice, that is, into plained, above, p. 442. But I was 
 
 a commemorative, not real sacrifice. well aware, that some writers had 
 
 1 ' Recordatio ergo, seucommemo- carried matters a great deal further, 
 
 ratio, ponitur ... in rebus sensibili- Where a road first divides, two tra- 
 
 bus. Omnia enim memorialia, seu vellers may almost shake hands ; 
 
 monumenta, sunt sensibilia et pa- but if one goes on here, and another 
 
 tentia sensui : ac propterea bene- there, as far as the diverging roads 
 
 dictio ilia sensibilis, fraotio, distri- will lead them, they may at length 
 
 butio, comestio panis sacramentalis, be found at a very wide difference 
 
 nobisest memorialepassionis Christ!,' from each other : so it is here. An 
 
 &c. Spalatens. p. 83. equivocal word, perhaps, or phrase, 
 
 * Pfaffius, in the view he took of in which both parties agree, first 
 
 it, and with respect to one learned strikes out two very different ideas ; 
 
 writer, looked upon the dispute as a and those two ideas, having their 
 
 kind of logomachy, pp. 53, 344, and different trains or connections, do at 
 
 pref. p. 7, which I noted in Review, length carry the two parties off, 
 
 above, p. 509, adding, that there wide and far from each other, into 
 
 was a good deal of truth in what very opposite systems.
 
 Nominal and Real. 615 
 
 same,) it would not have deserved one moment's care or thought : 
 but as this question had been lately managed, it is too plain, 
 that the true idea both of the sacrament and sacrifice had been 
 changed into quite another thing ; and that such a change could 
 not be supported, without making other very considerable changes 
 in the whole system of theology, and in points of high conse- 
 quence both to truth and godliness. Wherefore it appeared as 
 necessary to endeavour, with all Christian mildness, to set these 
 matters right, as it was to ' contend earnestly for the faith once 
 delivered unto the saints.' 
 
 'Faxit Deus omnipotens, ut uni Christi sacrificio vere inni- 
 tamur, ac illi rursus rependamus sacrificia nostra gratiarum 
 actionis, laudis, confessionis nominis sui, verae resipiscentiae ac 
 poenitentiae, beneficentiae erga proximos, aliorumque omnium 
 pietatis officiorum : talibus enim sacrifices, exhibebimus nos nee 
 in Deum ingratos, nee Christi sacrificio indignos u .' 
 
 u Cranmer in Collier's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. Collection of Records, p. 84.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A 000 084 577 6 
 
 \\ \