among themselves one to another but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death Insomuch that to such as rightly worthily and with faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation or the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be Proved by Holy Writ but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up and Worshipped In the Edition of these Articles in Edward the VIth's Reign there was another long Paragraph against Transubstantiation added in these words Forasmuch as the Truth of Man's Nature requireth that the Body of one and the self-same Man cannot be at one time in divers places but must needs be in one certain place therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places And because as Holy Scripture doth teach Christ was taken up into Heaven and there shall continue unto the end of the World a Faithful Man ought not either to Believe or openly Confess the Real and Bodily Presence as they term it of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper WHEN these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign this Paragraph was made a part of them for the Original Subscription by both Houses of Convocation yet extant shews this But the design of the Government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the Body of the Nation to the Reformation in whom the old Leven had gone deep and no part of it deeper than the belief of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so particular a Definition in this matter in which the very word Real Presence was rejected It might perhaps be also suggested that here a Definition was made that went too much upon the Principles of Natural Philosophy which how true soever they might not be the proper subject of an Article of Religion Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this Paragraph though it was a part of the Article that was Subscribed yet it was not published but the Paragraph that follows The Body of Christ c. was put in its stead and was received and published by the next Convocation which upon the matter was a full Explanation of the way of Christ's Presence in this Sacrament that he is present in a heavenly and spiritual Manner and that Faith is the mean by which he is received This seemed to be more Theological and it does indeed amount to the same thing But howsoever we see what was the Sense of the first Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign it differed in nothing from that in King Edward's Time And therefore though this Paragraph is now no Part of our Articles yet we are certain that the Clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the Truth of it we are sure it was their Opinion Since they subscribed it though they did not think fit to publish it at first and though it was afterwards changed for another that was the same in Sense In the treating of this Article I shall first lay down the Doctrine of this Church with the Grounds of it and then I shall examine the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which must be done copiously For next to the Doctrine of Infallibility this is the most valued of all their other Tenets this is the most Important in it self since it is the main Part of their Worship and the chief Subject of all their Devotions There is not any one thing in which both Clergy and Laity are more concerned which is more generally studied and for which they pretend they have more plausible Colours both from Scripture and the Fathers and if Sense and Reason seem to press hard upon it they reckon that as they understand the Words of St. Paul every thought must be captivated into the obedience of Faith 2 Cor. 10.5 In order to the expounding our Doctrine we must consider the Occasion and the Institution of this Sacrament The Iews were required once a Year to meet at Ierusalem in remembrance of the deliverance of their Fathers out of Egypt Exod. 12.11 Moses appointed that every Family should kill a Lamb whose Blood was to be sprinkled on their Door-posts and Lintels and whose Flesh they were to eat at the sight of which Blood thus sprinkled the destroying Angel that was to be sent out to kill the First-born of every Family in Egypt was to pass over all the Houses that were so marked And from that passing by or over the Israelites the Lamb was called the Lord's passover as being then the Sacrifice and afterwards the Memorial of that Passover The People of Israel were required to keep up the Memorial of that Transaction by slaying a Lamb before the Place where God should set his Name and by eating it up that Night They were also to eat with it a Sallet of bitter Herbs and unleavened Bread and when they went to eat of the Lamb they repeated these Words of Moses That it was the Lord's Passover Now tho' the first Lamb that was killed in Egypt was indeed the Sacrifice upon which God promised to pass over their Houses yet the Lambs that were afterwards offered were only the Memorials of it though they still carried that Name which was given to the First And were called the Lord's Passover So that the Iews were in the Paschal-Supper accustomed to call the Memorial of a thing by the Name of that of which it was the Memorial And as the Deliverance out of Egypt was a Type and Representation of that greater Deliverance that we were to have by the Messias the first Lamb being the Sacrifice of that Deliverance 1 Cor. 5.7 John 1.29 Compare Matt. 26.26 Mark 14.22 and the succeeding Lambs the Memorials of it so in order to this new and greater Deliverance Christ himself was our Passover that was sacrificed for us He was the Lamb of God that was both to take away the Sins of the World and was to lead Captivity Captive To bring us out of the Bondage of Sin and Satan into the Obedience of his Gospel He therefore chose the time of the Passover that he might be then offered up for us And did Institute this Memorial of it while he was celebrating the Iewish Pascha with his Disciples who were so much accustomed to the Forms and Phrases of that Supper in which every Master of a
him again and put him to an open shame when they are so faulty as the Corinthians were in observing this Holy Institution with so little Reverence and with such scandalous Disorders as those were for which he reproached them Of such as did thus Prophane this Institution he says farther that they do eat and drink their own Damnation or Iudgment that is Punishment for the word rendred Damnation signifies sometimes only temporary Punishments So it is said 1 Pet. 4.17 that Iudgment the Word is the same must begin at the House of God God had sent such Judgments upon the Corinthians for those disorderly Practices of theirs that some had fallen sick and others had died perhaps by reason of their drinking to excess in those Feasts But as God's Judgments have come upon them so the words that follow shew that these Judgments were only Chastisements in order to the delivering them from the Condemnation under which the World lies It being said that when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord 32. v. that we should not be condemned with the World Therefore though God may very justly and even in great Mercy punish Men who prophane this Holy Ordinance yet it is an unreasonable Terrour and contrary to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant to carry this so far as to think that it is an impardonable Sin which is punished with eternal Damnation We have now seen the ill Effects of unworthy Receiving and from hence according to that Gradation that is to be observed in the Mercy of God in the Gospel that it not only holds a Proportion with his Justice but rejoyceth over it we may well conclude that the good Effects upon the worthy receiving of it are equal if not superiour to the bad Effects upon the unworthy receiving of it And that the Nourishment which the Types the Bread and the Wine give the Body are answered in the Effects that the thing signified by them has upon the Soul In explaining this there is some diversity Some teach that this Memomorial of the Death of Christ when seriously and devoutly gone about when it animates our Faith encreases our Repentance and inflames our Love and Zeal and so unites us to God and to our Brethren that I say when these follow it which it naturally excites in all holy and good Minds then they draw down the returns of Prayer and a farther increase of Grace in us according to the Nature and Promises of the New Covenant And in this they put the Vertue and Efficacy of this Sacrament But others think that all this belongs only to the inward Acts of the Mind and is not Sacramental And therefore they think that the Eucharist is a federal Act in which as on the one Hand we renew our Baptismal Covenant with God so on the other Hand we receive in the Sacrament a visible Consignation as in a Tradition by a Symbol or Pledge of the blessings of the New Covenant which they think is somewhat superadded to those returns of our Prayers or of our other inward Acts. This they think answers the nourishment which the Body receives from the Symbols of Bread and Wine and stands in opposition to that of the unworthy Receivers being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and their eating and drinking that which will bring some judgment upon themselves This they also found on these words of St. Paul The cup of blessing that we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ St. Paul considers the Bread which was offered by the People as an emblem of their Unity that as there was one Loaf so they were one Body and that they were all partakers of that one Loaf From hence it is inferred that since the word rendred Communion signifies a communication in fellowship or Partnership that therefore the meaning of it is that in the Sacrament there is a distribution made in that Symbolical action of the death of Christ 2 Cor. 13. last verse Phil. 2.1 Eph. 3.9 and of the benefits and effects of it The Communion of the Holy Ghost is a common sharing in the effusion of the Spirit the same is meant by that if there is any fellowship of the Spirit that is if we do all partake of the same Spirit We are said to have a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ Phil. 3.10 in which every one must take his share The communication or fellowship of the mystery of the Gospel was its being shared equally among both Iews and Gentiles and the fellowship in which the first Converts to Christianity lived was their liberal distribution to one another they holding all things in common In these and some other places it is certain that Communion signifies somewhat that is more real and effectual than merely mens owning themselves to be joined together in a Society which it is true it does also often signify and therefore they conclude that as in Bargains or Covenants the ancient Method of them before Writings were invented was the mutual delivering of some Pledges which were the Symbols of that Faith which was so plighted instead of which the sealing and delivering of Writings is now used among us so our Saviour instituted this in compliance with our frailty to give us an outward and sensible Pledge of his entring into Covenant with us of which the Bread and Wine are constituted the Symbols Others think that by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ can only be meant the joint owning of Christ and of his Death in the receiving the Sacrament and that no Communication nor Partnership can be inferred from it Because St. Paul brings it in to shew the Corinthians how detestable a thing it was for a Christian to join in the Idols Feasts That it was to be a partaker with devils So they think that the Fellowship or Communion of Christians in the Sacrament must be of the same Nature with the fellowship of devils in Acts of Idolatry Which consisted only in associating themselves with those that worshipped Idols for that upon the Matter was the Worshipping of Devils And this seems to be confirmed by that which is said of the Iews 1 Cor. 10.18 20. that they who did eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar which it seems can signify no more but that they professed that Religion of which the Altar was the chief Instrument the Sacrifices being offered there To all this it may be replied that it is reasonable enough to believe that according to the Power which God suffered the Devil to exercise over the Idolatrous World there might be some Inchantment in the Sacrifices offered to Idols and that the Devil might have some Power over those that did partake of them And in order to this St. Paul removed an Objection that might have been made that there could be no harm in
is to be believed  Pr. so also is it to be believed Art 4. MS. Christ did truly arise again  Pr. Christ did truly rise again  MS. until he return to judge all men at the last day  Pr. until he return to judge men at the last day Art 6. MS. to be believed as an Article of the Faith  Pr. to be believed as an Article of Faith  MS. requisite as necessary to Salvation  Pr. requisite or necessary to Salvation  MS. In the name of holy Scripture  Pr. In the name of the holy Scripture  MS. but yet doth it not apply  Pr. but yet doth not apply  MS. Baruch  Pr. Baruch the Prophet  MS. and account them for Canonical  Pr. and account them Canonical Art 8. MS. by most certain warranties of Holy Scripture  Pr. by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture Art 9. MS. but it is the fault  Pr. but is the fault  MS. whereby man is very far gone from his original righteousness  Pr. whereby man is far gone from original righteousness  MS. in them that be regenerated  Pr. in them that are regenerated Art De Gratia non habetur in MS. Art 10. MS. a good will and working in us  Pr. a good will and working with us Art 14. MS. cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety  Pr. cannot be taught without arrogancy and iniquity  MS. we be unprofitable Servants  Pr. we are unprofitable Servants Art 15. MS. sin only except  Pr. sin only excepted MS. to be the Lamb without spot  Pr. to be a Lamb without spot  MS. but we the rest although baptized and born again in Christ yet we all offend  Pr. but all we the rest although baptized and if born in Christ yet offend Art De Blasphemia in Sp. Sanct. non est in MS. Art 16. MS. wherefore the place for Penitence  Pr. wherefore the grant of Repentance Art 17. MS. so excellent a benefit of God given unto them be called according  Pr. so excellent a benefit of God be called according  MS. as because it doth fervently kindle their love  Pr. as because it doth frequently kindle their love Art Omnes Obligantur c. non est in MS. Art 18. MS. to frame his life according to the Law and the light of Nature  Pr. to frame his life according to that Law and the light of Nature Art 19. MS. congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word  Pr. congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word Art 20. MS. The Church hath Power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of Faith And yet   These words are not in the Original MS.  MS. ought it not to enforce any thing  Pr. it ought not to enforce any thing Art 21. MS. and when they be gathered together forasmuch  Pr. and when they be gathered forasmuch Art 22. MS. is a fond thing vainly invented  Pr. is a fond thing vainly feigned Art 24. MS. in a Tongue not understanded of the People  Pr. in a Tongue not understood of the People Art 25. MS. and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us  Pr. and effectual signs of grace and God's will towards us  MS. and extream annoyling  Pr. and extream unction Art 26. MS. in their own name but do minister by Christ's Commission and authority  Pr. in their own name but in Christ's and do minister by his Commission and authority  MS. and in the receiving of the Sacraments  Pr. and in the receiving the Sacraments MS. and rightly receive the Sacraments  Pr. and rightly do receive the Sacraments Art 27. MS. from others that be not christned but is also a sign  Pr. from others that be not christned but it is also a sign  MS. forgiveness of sin and of our adoption  Pr. forgiveness of sin of our adoption Art 28. MS. to have amongst themselves  Pr. to have among themselves  MS. the bread which we break is a partaking Communion of the body of Christ.  Pr. the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Thrist  MS. and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking Communion of the blood of Christ.  Pr. and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.  MS. or the change of the Substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant  Pr. or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the supper of the Lord cannot be proved by holy Writ but it is repugnant  MS. but the mean whereby the body of Christ is received  Pr. and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received  MS. lifted up or worshipped  Pr. lifted up and worshipped Art 31. MS. is the perfect redemption  Pr. is that perfect redemption  MS. to have remission of pain or guilt were forged Fables  Pr. to have remission of pain and guilt were blasphemous Fables Art 33. MS. that hath authority thereto  Pr. that hath authority thereunto Art 34. MS. diversity of countries times and mens manners  Pr. diversity of countries and mens manners  MS. and be ordained and appointed by common autority  Pr. and be ordained and approved by common authority  MS. the consciences of the weak brethren  Pr. the consciences of weak brethren Art 35. MS. of Homilies the Titles whereof we have joined under this Article do contain  Pr. of Homilies the several Titles whereof we have joined under this Article doth contain  MS. wholesome Doctrine and necessary for this time as doth the former book which was set forth  Pr. wholesome Doctrine necessary for these times as doth the former book of Homilies which were set forth MS. and therefore are to be read in our Churches by the Ministers diligently plainly and distinctly that they may be understanded of the people  Pr. and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly that they may be understood of the people  MS. ministred in a tongue known  Pr. ministred in a known tongue Art De Libro Precationum c. non est in MS. Art 36. MS. in the time of the most noble K. Edward the Sixth  Pr. in the time of Edward the Sixth  MS. superstitious or ungodly  Pr. superstitious and ungodly Art 37. MS. whether they be Ecclesiastical or not  Pr. whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil  MS. the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended  Pr. the minds of some dangerous folks to be offended  MS. we give not to our Princes  Pr. we give not our Princes  MS. or of Sacraments  Pr. or of the
Family did officiate among his Houshold Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was very Natural to them to understand all that our Saviour said or did according to those Forms with which they were acquainted There were after Supper upon a new covering of the Table Loaves of Unleavened Bread and Cups of Wine set on it in which though the Bread was very unacceptable yet they drank liberally of the Wine Christ took a Portion of that Bread and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said This is my body which is broken for you Do this in remembrance of me He did not say only this is my body but this is my body broken so that his Body must be understood to be there in its broken State if the Words are to be expounded literally And no reason can be assigned why the Word Broken should be so separated from Body or that the Bread should be literally his Body and not literally his Body broken The whole Period must be either literally True or must be understood mystically And if any will say that his Body cannot be there but in the same state in which it is now in Heaven and since it is not now broken nor is the Blood shed or separated from the Body there therefore the Words must be understood thus This is my Body which is to be broken But from thence we argue that since all is one Period it must be all understood in the same Manner And since it is impossible that Broken and Shed can be understood literally of the Body and Blood that therefore the whole is to be mystically understood and this appears more evident since the Disciples who were naturally slow at understanding the easiest Mysteries that he opened to them must naturally have understood those Words as they did the other Words of the Paschal Supper This is the Lord 's Passover That is this is the Memorial of it And that the rather since Christ added these Words Do this in remembrance of me If they had understood them in any other Sense that must have surprized them and naturally have led them to ask him many Questions Which we find them doing upon Occasions that were much less surprizing as appears by the Questions in the 14th of St. Iohn that discourse coming probably immediately after this Institution Whereas no Question was asked upon this so it is reasonable to conclude that they could understand these Words This is my Body no other way but as they understood that of the Lamb This is the Lord 's Passover And by consequence as their celebrating the Pascha was a constant Memorial of the Deliverance out of Egypt and was a Symbolical Action by which they had a Title to the Blessings of the Covenant that Moses made with their Fathers it was natural for them to conclude that after Christ had made himself to be truly that which the first Lamb was in a Type the true Sacrifice of a greater and better Passover they were to commemorate it and to communicate in the Benefits and Effects of it by continuing that Action of taking blessing breaking and distributing of Bread Which was to be the Memorial and the Communion of his Death in all succeeding Ages This will yet appear more Evident from the Second Part of this Institution he took the Cup and blessed it and gave it to them saying This Cup is the New Testament or New Covenant in my blood drink ye all of it Or as the other Gospels report it This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins As Moses had enjoined the sprinkling of the Blood of the Lamb so he himself sprinkled both the Book of the Law and all the People with the Blood of Calves and of Goats Hâ—b 9.20 saying This is the Blood of the New Testament or Covenant which God had enjoined you The Blood of the Paschal Lamb was the Token of that Covenant which God made then with them The Iews were under a very strict Prohibition of eating no Blood at all But it seems by the Psalms that when they payed their Vows unto God they took in their Hands a cup of Salvation that is Psal. 116. of an acknowledgment of their Salvation and so were to rejoice before the Lord. These being the Laws and Customs of the Iews they could not without Horror have heard Christ when he gave them the Cup say This is my Blood The Prohibition of Blood was given in such severe Terms as that God would set his face against him that did eat blood Levit. 7.26 27. Levit. 17.14 and cut him off from among his people And this was so often repeated in the Books of Moses that besides the natural Horror which Humanity gives at the mention of drinking a Man's Blood it was a special Part of their Religion to make no use of Blood yet after all this the Disciples were not startled at it Which shews that they must have understood it in such a way as was agreeable to the Law and Customs of their Country and since St. Luke and St. Paul report the Words that our Saviour said when he gave it differently from what is reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark it is most probable that he spake both the one and the other that he first said This is my Blood and then as a clearer Explanation of it he said This cup is the New Testament in my Blood The one being a more easy Expression and in a style to which the Iews had been more accustomed They knew that the Blood of the Lamb was sprinkled and by their so doing they entred into a Covenant with God And tho' the Blood was never to be sprinkled after the first Passover yet it was to be poured out before the Lord in remembrance of that sprinkling in Egypt In remembrance of that deliverance they drank of the Cup of Blessing and Salvation and rejoiced before the Lord. So that they could not understand our Saviour otherwise than that the Cup so blessed was to be to them the Assurance of a New Testament or Covenant which was to be established by the Blood of Christ and which was to be shed In lieu of which they were to drink this cup of Blessing and Praise According to their Customs and Phrases the Disciples could understand our Saviour's Words in this Sense and in no other So that if he had intended that they should have understood him otherwise he must have expressed himself in another Manner And must have enlarged upon it to have corrected those Notions into which it was otherwise most Natural for Iews to have fallen Here is also to be remembred that which was formerly observed upon the word Broken that if the Words are to be expounded literally then if the Cup is literally the Blood of Christ it must be his Blood shed poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body And if it is
the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ he carried himself in his own hands in some sort when he said This is my Body St. Chrysostom says the Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord And in another Place reckoning up the improper Senses of the word Flesh he says the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries that is the Sacrament by the Name of Flesh and sometimes the whole Church is said to be the Body of Christ. So Tertullian says Christ calls the Bread his Body and names the Bread by his Body Tertul. Lib. 4. adv Marci c. 40. The Fathers do not only call the consecrated Elements Bread and Wine They do also affirm that they retain their proper Nature and Substance and are the same thing as to their Nature that they were before And the Occasion upon which the Passages that I go next to mention are used by them does prove this Matter beyond Contradiction Apollinaris did broach that Heresy which was afterwards put in full Form by Eutycheâ— and that had so great a Party to support it that as they had one General Council a pretended one at least to favour them so they were condemned by another Their Error was that the human Nature of Christ was swallowed up by the Divine if not while he was here on Earth yet at least after his Ascension to Heaven This Error was confuted by several Writers who lived very wide one from another And at a distance of above a hundred Years one from another St. Chrysostom at Constantinople Theodoret in Asia Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch and Gelasius Bishop of Rome All those write to Prove that the human Nature did still remain in Christ not changed nor swallowed up but only sanctified by the Divine Nature that was united to it They do all fall into one Argument which very probably those who came after St. Chrysostom took from him Epist. ad Celarium So that though both Theodoret and Gelasius's Words are much fuller yet because the Argument is the same with that which St. Chrysostom had urged against Apollinaris I shall first set down his Words He brings an Illustration from the Doctrine of the Sacrament to shew that the human Nature was not destroyed by its Union with the Divine and has upon that these Words As before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body though the nature of Bread remains in it And yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son So the divine Nature being joined to the Body Both these make one Son and one Person In Photi Bibli Cod. 229. Ephrem of Antioch says The Body of Christ which is received by the faithful does not depart from its sensible Substance So Baptism says he does not lose its own sensible Substance and does not lose that which it was before Dial. 1st and 2d â—ont Eutych Theodoret says Christ does honour the Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but adding grace to nature In another Place pursuing the same Argument he says The mystical Symbols after the sanctification do not depart from their own nature For they continue in their former substance figure and form and are visible and palpable as they were before But they are understood to be that which they are made Pope Gelasius says The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing Lib. de duâ—bus nat Christ for which reason we become by them partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance of Bread and Wine does not cease to exist And the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in holy Mysteries Upon all these Places being compared with the Design with which they were written which was to prove that Christ's Human Nature did still subsist unchanged and not swallowed up by its Union with the Divinity some Reflections are very obvious â—irst If the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament had been then received in the Church the natural and unavoidable Argument in this Matter which must put an end to it with all that believed such corporal Presence was this Christ has certainly a natural Body still because the Bread and the Wine are turned to it and they cannot be turned to that which is not In their Writings they argued against the possibility of a substantial Change of a Human Nature into the Divine but that could not have been urged by Men who believed a substantial Mutation to be made in the Sacrament For then the Eutychians might have retorted the Argument with great Advantage upon them The Eutychians did make use of some Expressions that were used by some in the Church which seemed to Import that they did argue from the Sacrament as Theodoret represents their Objections But to that he answers as we have seen denying that any such substantial Change was made The Design of those Fathers was to prove that things might be united together and continue so united without the change of their Substances and that this was true in the two Natures in the Person of Christ And to make this more Sensible they bring in the Matter of the Sacrament as a thing known and confessed For in their arguing upon it they do suppose it as a thing out of dispute Now according to the Roman Doctrine this had been a very odd Sort of an Argument to prove that Christ's Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine because the Mysteries or Elements in the Sacrament are changed into the Substance of Christ's Body only they retain the outward appearances of Bread and Wine To this an Eutychian might readily have answered that then the Human Nature might be believed to be destroyed And though Christ had appeared in that likeness he retained only the Accidents of Human Nature but that the Human Nature it self was destroyed as the Bread and the Wine were destroyed in the Eucharist This had been a very absurd way of arguing in the Fathers and had indeed delivered up the Cause to the Eutychians Whereas those Fathers make it an Argument against them to prove that notwithstanding an Uninion of two Beings and such an Union as did communicate a Sanctification from the one to the other yet the two Natures might remain still distinguish'd and that it was so in the Eucharist Therefore it might be so in the Person of Christ. This seems to be so evident an Indication of the Doctrine of the whole Church in the Fourth and Fifth Century when so many of the most eminent Writers of those Ages do urge it so home as an Argument in so great a Point that we can scarce think it possible for any Man to consider it fully without being determined by it
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
an Argument for it from our Saviour's Example He begins with the dignity of his Person expressed thus That he was in the form of God and that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God Then his Humiliation comes That he made himself of no reputation but took on him the form of a servant the same Word with that used in the former Verse after which follows his Exaltation and a Name or Authority above every Name or Authority is said to be given him so that all in Heaven Earth and under the Earth which seems to Import Angels Men and Devils should bow at his Name and confess that he is the Lord. Now in this Progress that is made in these words it is plain That the Dignity of Christ's Person is represented as Antecedent both to his Humiliation and to his Exaltation It was that which put the value on his Humiliation as his Humiliation was rewarded by his Exaltation This Dignity is expressed first That he was in the Form of God before he humbled himself He was certainly in the form of a Servant that is really a Servant as other Servants are He was obedient to his Parents he was under the Authority both of the Romans of Herod and of the Sanhedrim Therefore since his being really a Servant is expressed by his being in the form of a Servant his being in the form of God must also import That he was truly God But the â—ollowing words That he thought it not robbery to be equal or be held equal for so the word may be rendred with God carry such a natural Signification of his being neither a Made nor Subordinate God and that his Divinity is neither precarious nor by concession that fuller words cannot be devised for expressing an entire Equality Those who deny this are aware of it and therefore they have put another sense on the words in the form of God They think That they signify his appearing in the World as one sent in the Name of God representing him Working Miracles and delivering a Law in his Name and the words rendred he thought it no robbery they render he did not catch at or vehemently desire to be held in equal honour with God And some Authorities are found in Eloquent Greek Authors who use the words rendred he thought it not robbery in a figurative sense for the earnestness of desire or the pursuing after a thing greedily as Robbers do for their Prey This rendring represents St. Paul as Treating so sacred a Point in the Figures of a high and seldom-used Rhetorick which one would think ought to have been expressed more exactly But if even this sense is allowed it will make a strange Period and a very odd sort of an Argument to enforce Humility upon us because Christ though Working Miracles did not desire or snatch at Divine Adorations in an Equality with God The Sin of Lucifer and the cause of his Fall is commonly believed to be his desire to be equal to God and yet this seems to be such an extravagant piece of pride that it is scarce possible to think That even the Sublimest of Created Beings should be capable of it To be next to God seems to be the utmost heigth to which even the Diabolical Pride could aspire So that here by the Sense which the Socinians put on those words they will import That we are persuaded to be humble from the Example of Christ who did not affect an Equality with God The bare repeating of this seems so fully to expose and overthrow it that I think it is not necessary to say more upon this place Acts 20.28 1 Joh. 3.16 1 Joh. 5.20 Tit. 2.13 Jam. 2.1 The next head of Proof is made up of more particulars All the Names the Operations and even the Attributes of God are in full and plain words given to Christ. He is called God his Blood is said to be the Blood of God God is said to have laid down his life for us Christ is called the true God the great God the Lord of Glory the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords and more particularly the Name Iehovah is ascribed to him in the same word in which the LXX Interpreters had Translated it throughout the whole Old Testament Rev. 1.8 Rev. 19.16 So that this constant Uniformity of Stile between the Greek of the New and that Translation of the Old Testament which was then received and was of great Authority among the Iews and was yet of more Authority among the first Christians is an Argument that carries such a weight with it that this alone may serve to determine the Matter The Creating the Preserving and the Governing of all things is also ascribed to Christ in a variety of placâ—s but most remarkably when it is said That by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth Visible and Invisible Whether they be Thrones Col. 1.16.17 â—ohn 2.25 Mat. â—1 27. Mat. 9.6 Joh. 15.26 Joh. 14.13 Joh. 5 25 26. Joh. 6.39 40. or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him And he is before all things and by him all things consist He is said to have known what was in man to have known mens secret thoughts and to have known all things That as the Father was known of none but of the Son so none know the Son but the Father He pardons Sin sends the Spirit gives Grace and Eternal Life and he shall raise the dead at the last day When all these things are laid together in that variety of Expressions in which they lie scattered in the New Testament it is not possible to retain any reverence for those Books if we imagine that they are writ in a Stile so full of approaches to the Deifying of a mere Man that without a very Critical studying of Languages and Phrases it is not possible to understand them otherwise Idolatry and a Plurality of Gods seem to be the main things that the Scriptures warn us against and yet here is a pursued Thread of Passages and Discourses that do naturally lead a man to think that Christ is the True God who yet according to these men only acted in his Name and has now a high Honour put on him by him This carries me to another Argument to prove that the Word that was made Flesh was truly God Nothing but the True God can be the proper Object of Adoration This is one of those Truths that seems almost so evident that it needs not to be proved Adoration is the humble Prostration of our selves before God in Acts that own our dependance upon him both for our Being and for all the Blessings that we do either enjoy or hope for and also in earnest Prayers to him for the continuance of these to us This is testified by such outward Gestures and Actions as are most proper to express our Humility and Submission to God All this has
Isa. 12.3 ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from some select Persons Since then the Figure of eating and drinking was used among the Iews for receiving and imbibing a Doctrine it was no wonder if our Saviour pursued it in a Discourse in which there are several hints given to shew us that it ought to be so understood It is further observable that our Saviour did frequently follow that common way of Instruction among the Eastern Nations by Figures that to us would seem strong and bold These were much used in those Parts to excite the Attention of the Hearers and they are not always to be severely expounded according to the full Extent that the words will bear The Parable of the unjust Judge of the unjust Steward of the ten Virgins of plucking out the right Eye and cutting off the right Hand or Foot and several others might be instanced Our Saviour in these considered the Genius of those to whom he spoke So that these Figures must be restrained only to that Particular for which he meant them and must not be stretched to every thing to which the Words may be carried We find our Saviour compares himself to a great many Things to a Vine a Door and a Way And therefore when the Scope of a Discourse does plainly run in a Figuâ—e we are not to go and descant on every Word of it much less may any pretend to say that some Parts of it are to be understood literally and some Parts figuratively For instance if that Chapter of St. Iohn is to be understood literally then Christ's Flesh and Blood must be the Nourishment of our Bodies so as to be meat indeed and that we shall never hunger any more and never die after we have eat of it If therefore all do confess that those Expressions are to be understood figuratively then we have the same reason to conclude that the whole is a Figure For it is as reasonable for us to make all of it a Figure as it is for them to make those Parts of it a Figure which they cannot conveniently expound in a literal Sense From all which it is abundantly clear that nothing can be drawn from that Discourse of our Saviour's to make it reasonable to believe that the words of the Institution of this Sacrament ought to be literally understood On the contrary our Saviour himself calls the Wine after those Words had been used by him the Fruit of the Vine which is as strict a Form of Speech as can well be imagined to make us understand that the Nature of the Wine was not altered And when St. Paul treats of it in those two Chapters in which all that is left us besides the History of the Institution concerning this Sacrament is to be found he calls it five times Bread and never once the Body of Christ. 1 Cor. 10.16 In one Place he calls it the Communion of the Body as the Cup is the Communion of the Blood of Christ. Which is rather a saying that it is in some sort and after a manner the Body and the Blood of Christ than that it is so strictly speaking If this Sacrament had been that mysterious and unconceivable Thing which it has been since believed to be we cannot imagine but that the Books of the New Testament the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles should have contained fuller Explanations of it and larger Instructions about it There is enough indeed said in them to support the plain and natural Sense that we give to this Institution and because no more is said and the design of it is plainly declared to be to remember Christ's death and to shew it forth till he come we reckon that by this natural Simplicity in which this Matter is delivered to us we are very much confirmed in that plain and easy Signification which we put upon our Saviour's words Plain things need not be insisted on But if the most sublime and wonderful Thing in the World seems to be delivered in Words that yet are capable of a lower and plainer Sense then unless there is a concurrence of other Circumstances to force us to that higher meaning of them we ought not to go into it for simple Things prove themselves Whereas the more extraordinary that any thing is it requires a fulness and evidence in the Proof proportioned to the uneasiness of conceiving or believing it We do therefore understand our Saviour's Institution thus that as he was to give his body to be broken and his blood to be shed for our Sins so he intended that this his Death and Suffering should be still commemorated by all such as look for remission of sins by it not only in their Thoughts and Devotions but in a visible Representation Which he appointed should be done in Symbols that should be both very plain and simple and yet very expressive of that which he intended should be remembred by them Bread is the plainest Food that the Body of Man can receive and Wine was the common nourishing Liquor of that Countrey So he made choice of these Materials and in them appointed a Representation and Remembrance to be made of his body broken and of his blood shed that is of his Death and Sufferings till his Second coming And he obliged his Followers to repeat this frequently In the doing of it according to his Institution they profess the Belief of his Death for the Remission of their Sins and that they look for his Second coming This does also import that as Bread and Wine are the simplest of bodily Nourishments â—o his Death is that which restores the Souls of those that do believe in him As Bread and Wine convey a vital Nourishment to the Body so the Sacrifice of his Death conveys somewhat to the Soul that is vital that fortifies and exalts it And as Water in Baptism is a natural Emblem of the Purity of the Christian Religion Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are the Emblems of somewhat that is derived to us that raises our Faculties and fortifies all our Powers St. PÃ ul does very plainly tell us that unworthy receivers that did neither examine nor discern themselves nor yet discern the Lord's Body were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and did eat and drink their own damnation That is such as do receive it without truly believing the Christian Religion without a grateful acknowledgment of Christ's Death and Sufferings without feeling that they are walking suitably to this Religion that they profess and without that decency and charity which becomes so Holy an Action but that receive the Bread and Wine only as bare bodily Nourishments without considering that Christ has instituted them to be the Memorials of his Death such Persons are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ That is they are guilty either of a Prophanation of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood or they do in a manner Crucify
and the full Evidence of an Object that is before us and that is clearly apprehended by us So there is a great difference to be made between our Reasonings upon Difficulties that we can neither understand nor resolve and our Reasonings upon clear Principles The one may be false and the other must be true We are sure that a Thing cannot be one and three in the same respect our Reason assures us of this and we do and must believe it but we know that in different respects the same thing may be one and three And since we cannot know all the possibilities of those different respects we must believe upon the Authority of God revealing it that the same thing is both one and three tho' if a Revelation should affirm that the same thing were one and three in the same respect we should not and indeed could not believe it This Argument deserves to be fully opened for we are sure either it is true or we cannot be sure that any thing else whatsoever is true In confirmation of this we ought also to consider the nature and ends of Miracles They put Nature out of its channel and reverse its fixed Laws and Motions and the end of God's giving Men a power to work them is that by them the World may be convinced that such Persons are Commissionated by him to deliver his Pleasure to them in some Particulars And as it could not become the Infinite Wisdom of the Great Creator to change the Order of Nature which is his own Workmanship upon slight Grounds so we cannot suppose that he should work a Chain of Extraordinary Miracles to no purpose It is not to give credit to a Revelation that he is making for the Senses do not perceive it on the contrary they do reject and contradict it and the Revelation instead of getting credit from it is loaded by it as introducing that which destroys all credit and certainty In other Miracles our Senses are appealed to but here they must be appealed from nor is there any Spiritual end served in working this Miracle for it is acknowledged that the effects of this Sacrament are given upon our due coming to it independent upon the Corporal Presence So that the Grace of the Sacrament does not always accompany it since unworthy Receivers tho' according to the Romish Doctrine they receive the true Body of Christ yet they do not receive Grace with it And the Grace that is given in it to the worthy Receivers stays with them after that by the destruction of the Species of the Bread and Wine the Body of Christ is withdrawn So that it is acknowledged that the Spiritual effect of the Sacrament does not depend upon the Corporal Presence Here then it is supposed that God is every day working a great many Miracles in a vast number of different Places and that of so extraordinary a nature that it must be confessed they are far beyond all the other Wonders even of Omnipotence and yet all this is to no end that we can apprehend neither to any sensible and visible end nor to any Internal and Spiritual one This must needs seem an amazing thing that God should work such a Miracle on our behalf and yet should not acquaint us with any end for which he should work it To conclude this whole Argument We have one great advantage in this matter that our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament of a Mystical Presence of Christ in the Symbols and of the effects of it on the worthy and unworthy Receivers is all acknowledged by the Church of Rome but they have added to this the Wonder of the Corporal Presence So that we need bring no Proofs to them at least for that which we teach concerning it since it is all confessed by them But as to that which they have added it is not necessary for us to give Proofs against it it is enough for us if we shew that all the Proofs that they bring for it are weak and unconcluding They must be very demonstrative if it is expected that upon the authority and evidence of them we should be bound to believe a thing which they themselves confess to be contrary both to our Sense and Reasons We cannot by the Laws of Reasoning be bound to give Arguments against it it is enough if we can shew that neither the words of the Institution nor the Discourse in the sixth of St. Iohn do necessarily infer it and if we shew that those Passages can well bear another sense which is agreeable both to the words themselves and to the style of the Scriptures and more particularly to the Phraseology to which the Iews were accustomed upon the occasion on which this was Instituted and if the words can well bear the Sense that we give them then the other advantages that are in it of its being simple and natural of its being suitable to the design of a Sacrament and of its having no hard consequences of any sort depending upon it then I say by all the Rules of expounding Scripture we do justly infer that our Sense of those words ought to be preferred This is according to a Rule that St. Augustin gives to judge what Expressions in Scripture are Figurative and what not Lib. 3. de Doct. Chris. c. 16. If any place seems to command a Crime or horrid Action it is Figurative And for an Instance of this he cites those Words Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man you have no life in you Which seems to command a Crime and an horrid Action and therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay up in our Memory with delight and profit that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us And this was given for a Rule by the great Doctor of the Latin Church so the same Maxim had been delivered almost two Ages before him Hom. 7. in Levit. by the great Doctor of the Greek Church Origen who says that the understanding our Saviour's words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter is a Letter that kills These Passages I cite by an Anticipation before I enter upon the enquiry into the Sense of the ancient Church concerning this Matter because they belong to the words of the Institution at least to the Discourse in St. Iohn Now if the Sense that we give to these Words is made good we need be at no more pains to prove that they are capable of no other Sense Since this must prove that to be the only true Sense of them So that for all the Arguments that have been brought by us against this Doctrine arising out of the Fruitfulness of the Matter we were not bound to use them For our Doctrine being confessed by them it wants no Proof and we cannot be bound to prove a Negative Therefore though the Copiousness of this Matter has afforded us many
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
were a mere question of Words to dispute concerning the term Sacrifice to consider the Extent of that Word and the many various respects in which the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice In general all Acts of Religious Worship may be called Sacrifices because somewhat is in them offered up to God Let my Prayer be set forth before thee as Incense and the lifting up of my Hands as the evening Sacrifice Psal. 141.2 Psal. 51.17 The Sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit A broken and a contrite Heart O God thou wilt not despise These shew how largely this Word was used in the Old Testament So in the New we are exhorted by him that is by Christ to offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually that is the Fruit of our Lips giving Thanks to his Name A Christian's dedicating himself to the Service of God Hebr. 13.15 Rom. 12.1 is also expressed by the same Word of presenting our Bodies a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable to God All Acts of Charity are also called Sacrifices an odour of a sweet smell Phil. 4.10 a Sacrifice acceptable well pleasing to God So in this large Sense we do not deny that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving And our Church calls it so in the Office of the Communion In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a Sacrifice One is because there is an Oblation of Bread and Wine made in it which being sanctified are consumed in an Act of Religion To this many passages in the Writings of the Fathers do relate This was the Oblation made at the Altar by the People And though at first the Christians were reproached as having a strange sort of a Religion in which they had neither Temples Altars nor Sacrifices because they had not those things in so gross a manner as the Heathens had yet both Clemens Romanus Ignatius and all the succeeding Writers of the Church do frequently mention the Oblations that they made And in the Antient Liturgies they did with particular Prayers offer the Bread and Wine to God as the Great Creator of all things Those were called the Gifts or Offerings which were offered to God in imitation of Abel who offered the Fruits of the Earth in a Sacrifice to God Both Iustin Martyr Irenaeus the Constitutions and all the antient Liturgies have very express Words relating to this Another respect in which the Eucharist is called a Sacrifice is because it is a Commemoration and a Representation to God of the Sacrifice that Christ offered for us on the Cross In which we claim to that as to our Expiation and Feast upon it as our Peace-offering according to that antient Notion that Covenants were confirmed by a Sacrifice and were concluded in a Feast on the Sacrifice Upon these Accounts we do not deny but that the Eucharist may be well called a Sacrifice But still it is a commemorative Sacrifice and not propitiatory That is we do not distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament as if the Priests consecrating and consuming the Elements were in an especial manner a Sacrifice any other way than as the communicating of others with him is one Nor do we think that the consecrating and consuming the Elements is an Act that does reconcile God to the Quick and the Dead We consider it only as a federal Act of professing our Belief in the Death of Cstrist and of renewing our Baptismal Covenant with him The Virtue or effects of this are not General they are limited to those who go about this piece of Worship sincerely and devoutly they and they only are concerned in it who go about it And there is no special Propitiation made by this Service It is only an Act of Devotion and Obedience in those that eat and drink worthily and though in it they ought to pray for the whole Body of the Church yet those their Prayers do only prevail with God as they are devout Intercessions but not by any peculiar Virtue in this Action On the other hand the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is that the Eucharist is the highest Act of Homage and Honour that Creatures can offer up to the Creator as being an Oblation of the Son to the Father So that whosoever procures a Mass to be said procures a new piece of Honour to be done to God with which he is highly pleased and for the sake of which he will be reconciled to all that are concerned in the procuring such Masses to be said whether they be still on Earth or if they are now in Purgatory And that the Priest in offering and consuming this Sacrifice performs a true Act of Priesthood by reconciling Sinners to God Somewhat was already said of this on the Head of Purgatory It seems very plain by the Institution that our Saviour as he blessed the Sacrament said Take eat St. Paul calls it a Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord and a Partaking of the Lord's Table and he through his whole Discourse of it speaks of it as an Action of the Church and of all Christians but does not so much as by a Hint intimate any thing peculiar to the Priest So that all that the Scripture has delivered to us concerning it represents it as an Action of the whole Body in which the Priest has no special share but that of officiating In the Epistle to the Hebrews there is a very long Discourse concerning Sacrifices and Priests in order to the explaining of Christ's being both Priest and Sacrifice There a Priest stands for a Person called and consecrated to offer some living Sacrifice and to slay it and to make reconciliation of Sinners to God by the shedding offering or sprinkling the Blood of the Sacrifice This was the Notion that the Iews had of a Priest And the Apostle designing to prove that the Death of Christ was a true Sacrifice brings this for an Argument that there was to be another Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec He begins the fifth Chapter with settling the Notion of a Priest Heb. 5.10 according to the Iewish Ideas And then he goes on to prove that Christ was such a Priest called of God and Consecrated But in this Sense he appropriates the Priesthood of the New Dispensation singly to Christ in opposition to the many Priests of the Levitical Law And they truly were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of Death But this Man Heb. 7.24 because he continueth ever hath an unchangeable Priesthood It is clear from the whole Thread of that Discourse that in the strictest Sense of the Word Christ himself is the only Priest under the Gospel and it is also no less evident that his Death is the only Sacrifice in opposition to the many Oblations that were under the Mosaical Law to take away Sin Which appears very plain from these Words Who needeth not daily as those High-Priests to offer up