26. in Joan. St. Augustin expresses himself in the very Words that are cited in the Article which he introduces with these words He that does not abide in Christ and in whom Christ does not abide certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh nor drink his Blood tho he may visibly and carnally press with his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a Matter to his Condemnation And in another Place he says Lib 21. de Civ Dei c. 25. Neither are they speaking of vitious Persons to be said to eat the Body of Christ because they are not his Members to which he adds He that says Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him shews what it is not only in a Sacrament but truly to eat the Body of Christ and to drink his Blood He has upon another Occasion those frequently cited Words speaking of the difference between the other Disciples and Iudas in receiving this Sacrament Tract 54. in Joan. These did eat the Bread that was the Lord panem Dominum but he the Bread of the Lord against the Lord panem Domini contra Dominum To all this a great deal might be added to shew that this was the Doctrine of the Greek Church even after Damascene's Opinion concerning the Assumption of the Elements into an Union with the Body of Christ was received among them But more needs not be said concerning this since it will be readily granted that if we are in the Right in the main Point of denying the corporal Presence that this will fall with it ARTICLE XXX Of both Kinds The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to Lay People For both Parts of the Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike THere is not any one of all the Controversies that we have with the Church of Rome in which the decision seems more easie and shorter than this The words of the Institution are not only equally express and positive as to both kinds but the diversity with which that part that relates to the Cup is set down seems to be as clear a demonstration for us as can be had in a matter of this kind and looks like a special direction given to warn the Church against any corruption that might arise upon this Head To all such as acknowledg the Immediate Union of the Eternal Word with the Human Nature of Christ and the Inspiration by which the Apostles were conducted it must be of great weight to find a Specialty marked as to the Chalice of the Cup it is said Drink ye all of it whereas of the Bread it is only said Take eat so we cannot think the word all was set down without design It is also said of the Cup and they all drank of it which is not said of the Bread We think it no piece of trifling nicety to observe this Specialty The words added to the giving the Cup are very particularly Emphatical Take eat This is my Body which is given for you is not so full an Expression as Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of Sins If the surest way to judg of the extent of any Precept to which a reason is added is to consider the extent of the Reason and to measure the extent of the Precept by that then since all that do communicate need the remission of Sins and a share in the New Covenant the reason that our Saviour joins to the distribution of the Cup proves that they ought all to receive it And if that Discourse in St. Iohn concerning the eating of Christ's Flesh and the drinking his Blood is to be understood of the Sacrament as most of the Roman Church affirm then the drinking Christ's Blood is as necessary to Eternal Life as the eating his Flesh by consequence it is as necessary to receive the Cup as the Bread And it is not easie to apprehend why it should still be necessary to consecrate in both kinds and not likewise to receive in both kinds It cannot be pretended that since the Apostles were all of the Sacred Order therefore their receiving in both kinds is no Precedent for giving the Laity the Cup for Christ gave them both kinds as they were Sinners who were now to be admitted into Covenant with God by the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood They were in that to shew forth his death and were to Take eat and drink in remembrance of him So that this Institution was delivered to them as they were Sinners and not as they were Priests They were not constituted by Christ the Pastors and Governours of his Church till after his Resurrection when he breathed on them and laid his hands on them Joh. 20.22 and blessed them So that at this time they were only Christ's Disciples and Witnesses who had been once sent out by him on an extraordinary Commission but had yet no stated Character fixed upon them To this it is said that Christ by saying Do this constituted them Priests so that they were no more of the Laity when they received the Cup. This is a new conceit taken up by the Schoolmen unknown to all Antiquity There is no sort of Tradition that supports this Exposition nor is there any reason to imagin that Do this signifies any other than a Precept to continue that Institution as a Memorial of Christ's Death and Do this takes in all that went before the taking the giving as well as the blessing and the eating the Bread nor is there any reason to appropriate this to the Blessing only as if by this the Consecrating and Sacrificing Power were conferred on the Priests From all which we conclude both that the Apostles were only Disciples at large without any special characters conferred on them when the Eucharist was instituted and that the Eucharist was given to them only as Disciples that is as Laymen The mention that is made in some places of the new Testament only of breaking of Bread can furnish them with no Argument for it is not certain that these do relate to the Sacrament or if they did it is not certain that they are to be understood strictly for by a Figure common to the Eastern Nations Bread stands for all that belongs to a Meal and if these places are applied to the Sacrament and ought to be strictly understood they will prove too much that the Sacrament may be consecrated in one kind and that the breaking of Bread without the Cup may be understood to be a compleat Sacrament But when St. Paul spoke of this Sacrament he does so distinctly mention the drinking the Cup as well as eating the Bread that it is plain from him how the Apostles understood the words and intent of Christ and how this Sacrament was received
My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me It is not easy for us to apprehend in what that Agony consisted For we understand only the Agonies of Pain or of Conscience which last arise out of the Horror of Guilt or the Apprehension of the Wrath of God It is indeed certain That he who had no Sin could have no such horror in him and yet it is as certain That he could not be put into such an Agony only through the Apprehension and Fear of that violent Death which he was to suffer next day Therefore we ought to conclude That there was an inward Suffering in his Mind as well as an outward visible one in his Body We cannot distinctly apprehend what that was since he was sure both of his own spotless Innocence and of his Father's unchangeable love to him We can only imagine a vast sense of the heinousness of Sin and a deep Indignation at the Dishonour done to God by it a melting Apprehension of the Corruption and Miseries of Mankind by reason of Sin together with a never-before-felt withdrawing of those Consolations that had always filled his Soul But what might be further in his Agony and in his last Dereliction we cannot distinctly apprehend only this we perceive That our Minds are capable of great pain as well as our Bodies are Deep horror with an inconsolable sharpness of Thought is a very intolerable thing Notwithstanding the Bodily or Substantial Indwelling of the fulness of the Godhead in him yet he was capable of feeling vast pain in his Body So that he might become a compleat Sacrifice and that we might have from his Sufferings a very full and amazing apprehension of the Guilt of Sin all those Emanations of joy with which the Indwelling of the Eternal Word had ever till then filled his Soul might then when he needed them most be quite withdrawn and he be left merely to the firmness of his Faith to his patient Resignation to the Will of his heavenly Fâ—ther and to his willing readiness of drinking up that Cup which his Father had put in his hand to drink There remains but one thing to be remembred here though it will come to be more specially Explained when other Articles are to be opened which is That this Reconciliation which is made by the Death of Christ between God and Man is not absolute and without conditions He has Established the Covenant and has performed all that was Incumbent on him as both the Priest and the Sacrifice to do and to suffer and he offers this to the World that it may be closed with by them on the terms on which it is proposed and if they do not accept of it upon these conditions and perform what is enjoined them they can have no share in it ARTICLE III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell As Christ died for us and was buried so also is it to be believed that he went down into Hell THIS was much fuller when the Articles were at first prepared and published in King Edward's Reign For these words were added to it That the body of Christ lay in the Grave untill his Resurrection but his Spirit which he gave up was with the Spirits which were detained in Prison or in Hell and preached to them as the place in St. Peter testifieth Thus a determined sense was put upon this Article which is now left more at large and is conceived in words of a more general Signification In order to the explaining this it is to be premised That the Article in the Creed of Christ's descent into Hell is mentioned by no Writer before Ruffin who in the beginning of the Fifth Century does indeed speak of it But he tells us That it was neither in the Symbol of the Roman nor of the Oriental Churches and that he found it in the Symbol of his own Church at Aquileia But as there was no other Article in that Symbol that related to Christ's Burial so the words which he gives us descendit ad Inferna he descended to the lower parts do very naturally signify Burial according to these words of St. Paul Eph. 4.9 He ascended what is it but that he also descended first to the lower parts of the Earth and Ruffin himself understood these words in that sense None of the Fathers in the first Ages neither Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens nor Origen in the short Abstracts that they give us of the Christian Faith mention any thing like this And in all that great variety of Creeds that was proposed by the many Councils that met in the Fourth Century this is not in any one of them except in that which was agreed to at Arimini and was pretended though falsly to have been made at Sirmium In that it is set down in a Greek word that does exactly answer Ruffin's Inferna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it stood there instead of Buried When it was put in the Creed that carries Athanasius's Name tho' made in the Sixth or Seventh Century the word was changed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell But yet it seems to have been understood to signify Christ's Burial there being no other word put for it in that Creed Afterwards it was put into the Symbol of the Western Church That was done at first in the words in which Ruffin had expressed it as appears by some Ancient Copies of Creeds which were published the Great Primate Usher We are next to consider what the Importance of these words in themselves is for it is plain that the use of them in the Creed is not very Ancient nor Universal We have a most unquestionable Authority for this that our Saviour's Soul was in Hell In the Acts oâ— the Apostles St. Peter in the first Sermon that was preached after the wonderful Effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost applies these words of David concerning God's not leaving his Soul in Hell nor suffering his Holy one to see corruption to the Resurrection of Christ. Now since in the composition of a Man there is a Body and a Spirit and since it is plain that the raising of Christ on the Third day was before that his Body in the course of Nature was corrupted The other Branch seems to relate to his Soul though it is not to be denied but that in the Old Testament Soul in some places stands for a dead Body But if that were the sense of the word there will be no opposition in the two Parts of this period The one will be only a redundant repetition of the other Therefore it is much more natural to think that this other Branch concerning Christ's Soul's being left in Hell must relate to that which we commonly understand by Soul if then his Soul was not to be left in Hell then from thence it plainly follows that once it was in Hell and by consequence that Christ's Soul descended into Hell Some very Modern Writers have thought that this is to be understood
given either to Superstition or Irreverence And for the Sick or the Prisoners we think it is a greater Mean to quicken their Devotion as well as it is a closer adhering to the Words of the Institution to Consecrate in their Presence for tho' we can bear with the practice of the Greek Church of reserving and sending about the Eucharist when there is no Idolatry joyned with it yet we cannot but think that this is the continuance of a practice which the state of the first Ages introduced and that was afterwards kept up out of a too scrupulous imitation of that time without considering that the difference of the state of the Christians in the former and in the succeeding Ages made that what was at first innocently practised since a real necessity may well excuse a want of exactness in some matters that are only positive became afterwards an occasion of much Superstition and in conclusion ended in Idolatry Those ill effects that it had are more than is necessary to justifie our practice in reducing this strictly to the first Institution As for the lifting up of the Eucharist there is not a word of it in the Gospel nor is it mentioned by St. Paul Neither Iustin Martyr nor Cyril of Ierusalem speak of it there is nothing concerning it neither in the Constitutions nor in the Areopagite In those first Ages all the Elevation that is spoken of is the lifting up their Hearts to God The Elevation of the Sacrament began to be practised in the Sixth Century for it is mentioned in the Liturgy called St. Chrysostome's but believed to be much latter than his time â—erm Const. in Theor. Tit. 12. Bibl. patr Ivo Carn Ep. de Sacr Missae T. 2. Bibl. pat German a Writer of the Greek Church of the Thirteenth Century is the first that descants upon it he speaks not of it as done in order to the Adoration of it but makes it to represent both Christ's being lifted up on the Cross and also his Resurrection Ivo of Chartres who lived in the end of the 11 th Century is the first of all the Latins that speaks of it but then it was not commonly practised for the Author of the Micrologus tho' he writ at the same time yet does not mention it who yet is very minute upon all particulars relating to this Sacrament Nor does Ivo speak of it as done in order to Adoration but only as a form of shewing it to the People Dur. Rat. div offic lib. 4. de Sexta parte Can. Durand a Writer of the 13 th Century is the first that speaks of the Elevation as done in order to the Adoration So it appears that our Church by cutting off these Abuses has restored this Sacrament to its Primitive Simplicity according to the Institution and the practice of the first Ages ARTICLE XXIX Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord's-Supper The wicked and such as be void of a lively Faith altho they do carnally and visibly press with their Teeth as St. Austin saith the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the Sign or Sacrament of so great a thing THIS Article arises naturally out of the Former and depends upon it For if Christ's Body is corporally present in the Sacrament then all Persons good or bad who receive the Sacrament do also receive Christ On the other hand if Christ is Present only in a Spiritual Manner and if the Mean that receives Christ is Faith then such as believe not do not receive him So that to prove that the Wicked do not receive Christ's Body and Blood is upon the Matter the same thing with the proving that he is not corporally Present And it is a very considerable Branch of our Argument by which we prove that the Fathers did not believe the corporal Presence because they do very often say That the Wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament Here the same distinction is to be made that was mentioned upon the Article of Baptism The Sacraments are to be considered either as they are Acts of Church-Communion or as they are federal Acts by which we enter into Covenant with God With respect to the Former the visible Profession that is made and the Action that is done are all that can fall under human cognisance So a Sacrament must be held to be good and valid when as to outward appearance all things are done according to the Institution But as to the internal Effect and Benefit of it that turns upon the Truth of the Profession that is made and the sincerity of those Acts which do accompany it For if these are not seriously and sincerely performed God is dishonoured and his Institution is prophaned Our Saviour has expresly said that whosoever eats his Flesh and drinks his Blood has eternal Life From thence we conclude that no Man does truly receive Christ who does not at the same time receive with him both a Right to eternal Life and likewise the beginnings and earnests of it The Sacrament being a federal Act he who dishonours God and prophanes this Institution by receiving it unworthily becomes highly guilty before God and draws down Judgments upon himself And as it is confessed on all hands that the inward and spiritual Effects of the Sacrament depend upon the State and Disposition of him that Communicates so we who own no other Presence but an inward and spiritual one cannot conceive that the Wicked who believe not in Christ do receive him In this Point several of the Fathers have delivered themselves very plainly Origen says Christ is the true Food whosoever eats him shall live for ever of whom no wicked Person can eat Comment in Matth. c. 15. for if it were possible that any who continues Wicked should eat the Word that was made Flesh it had never been written Whoso eats this Bread shall live for ever This comes after a Discourse of the Sacrament which he calls the typical and symbolical Body and so it can only belong to it In another place he says The Good eat the living Bread which came down from Heaven but the Wicked eat dead Bread which is Death Tom. â— Spiâ—il Sacr. d' Achâ—ry Zeno Bishop of Verona who is believed to have lived near Origen's time has these words There is cause to fear that he in whom the Devil dwells does not eat the Flesh of our Lord nor drink his Blood though he seems to communicate with the Faithful since our Lord has said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me and I in him St. Ierom says They that are not Holy in Body and Spirit do neither eat the Flesh of Iesus nor drink his Blood In cap. 66. Isaiae of which he said He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life Tract
capable of a vast Inflammation and Elevation by which a man's powers might be exalted to much higher degrees of Knowledge and Capacity The Animal Spirits receiving their Quality from that of the Blood a new and a strong Fermentation in the Blood might râ—ise them and by consequence exalt a man to a much greater sublimity of Thought But with that it might dispose him to be easily inflamed by Appetites and Passions it might put him under the power of his Body and make his Body much more apt to be fired at outward Objects which might sink all Spiritual and pure Ideas in him and raise gross ones with much Fury and Rapidity Hereby his whole frame might be much corrupted and that might go so deep in him that all those who descended from him might be defiled by it as we see Madness and some Chronical Diseases pass from Parents to their Children All this might have been natural and as much the Physical effect of Eating the forbidden Fruit as it seems Immortality would have been that of Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Life This might have been in its nature a slow poison which must end in Death at last It may be very easy to make all this appear probable from Physical Causes A very small Accident may so alter the whole Mass of the Blood that in a very few Minutes it may be totally changed so the Eating the forbidden Fruit might have by a natural chain of things produced all this But this is only an Hypothesis and so is left as such All the Assistance that Revealed Religion can receive from Philosophy is to shew That a reasonable Hypothesis can be offered upon Physical Principles to shew the possibility or rather probability of any particulars that are contained in the Scriptures This is enough to sâ—op the mouths of Deists which is all the use that can be made of such Schemes To return to the main Point of the Fall of Adam He himself was made liable to Death But not barely to cease to live for Death and Life are terms opposite to one another in Scripture In Treating upon these Heads it is said That the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life Rom. 6.23 And though the addition of the word Eternal makes the Signification of the one more express yet where it is mentioned without that addition no doubt is to be made but that it is to be so meant As where it is said That to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace And believing we have life through his Name Rom. 8.6 Joh. 20.31 Joh. 5.50 Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life So by the rule of Opposites Death ought to be understood as a word of a general Signification which we who have the Comment of the New Testament to guide us in understanding the Old are not to restrain to a natural Death and therefore when we are said to be the servants of sin unto death we undersâ—and much more by it than a natural Death So God's threatning of Adam with Death ought not to be restrained to a natural Death Adam being thus defiled all Emanations from him must partake of that vitiated State to which he had brought himself But then the Question remains How came the Souls of his Posterity to be defiled for if they were created pure it seems to be an unjust Cruelty to them to condemn them to such an Union to a defiled Body as should certainly corrupt them All that can be said in Answer to this is That God has setled it as a Law in the Creation That a Soul should inform a Body according to the Texture of it and either conquer it or be mastered by it as it should be differently made and that as such a degree of Purity in the Texture of it might make it both pure and happy so a contrary degree of Texture might have very contrary effects And if with this God made another general Law that when all things were duly prepared for the propagation of the Species of Mankind a Soul should be always ready to go into and animate those first Threads and Beginnings of Life those Laws being laid down Adam by corrupting his own frame corrupted the frame of his whole Posterity by the general course of Things and the great Law of the Creation So that the suffering this to run through all the Race is no more only different in degrees and extent than the Suffering the folly or madness of a man to infect his Posterity In these things God acts as the Creator of the World by general Rules and these must not be altered because of the Sins and Disorders of men But they are rather to have their course that so Sin may be its own punishment The defilement of the Race being thus stated a Question remains Whether this can be properly called a Sin and such as deserves God's Wrath and Damnation On the one hand an opposition of Nature to the Divine Nature must certainly be hateful to God as it is the root of much malignity and sin Such a Nature cannot be the Object of his Love and of it self it cannnot be accepted of God Now since there is no mean in God between Love and Wrath Acceptation and Condemnation if such persons are not in the first order they must be in the second Yet it seems very hard on the other hand to apprehend how persons who have never actually sinned but are only unhappily descended should be in consequence to that under so great a misery To this several answers are made Some have thought that those who die before they commit any actual Sin have indeed no share in the favour of God but yet that they pass unto a state in the other World in which they suffer little or nothing The stating this more clearly will belong to another Opinion which shall be afterwards Explained There is a further Question made Whether this Vicious Inclination is a Sin or not Those of the Church of Rome as they believe that Original Sin is quite taken away by Baptism so finding that this corrupt Disposition still remains in us they do from thence conclude that it is no part of Original Sin but that this is the Natural State in which Adam was made at first only it is in us without the restraint or bridle of Supernatural Assistances which was given to him but lost by Sin and restored to us in Baptism But as was said formerly Adam in his first state was made after the Image of God so that his bodily powers were perfectly under the command of his mind This Revolt that we feel our Bodies and Senses are always in cannot be supposed to be God's Original Workmanship There are great Disputings raised concerning the meaning of a long Discourse of St. Paul's the 7th of the Romans concerning a constant struggle that he felt within himself which some arguing