it is said Be propitious to our sinnes Be not propitious to their sinnes without signâ—fying how or upon what consideration he becomes propitious The Apostle saies againe Ebr. IX 11. That Christ entered into the Holy of Holies not with the blood of goates and bullocks but with his own blood having found that is obtained everlasting ransome To wit by the sacrifice of the Crosse They say the indefinite tense signifies not alwaies the time past And I grant it is enough that the time which it signifies be past to him that speaks as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have so often in the Gospels he answered and said arguing no priority between answering and speaking But necessarily that our Saviour answered and said before the Evangelist related it for sometimes it concerns not which is first as whether our Lord first answered or first said So Heb. II. 10. When therefore the Apostle saies that Christ entered into the Holy of Holies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he might as easily have said Nor meant that he should or would finde ransome by delivering his brethren from sinne But that hee had found ransome by paying the price of theire sinne For deliverance from sinne is future in respect of the Apostle and the time when he writ Which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signify Besides if there be question what but the nature of the thing signified can determine the order that is between them Now in our case ransome is ascribed alwaies to the sacrifice as I have shewed never to the sprinkling of the bloud before the Propitiatory So Heb. I. 3. when it is said Christ having made purgation of sinnes sate down at the right hand of God For if it be said that he made purgation of sin by that assurance of pardon which the appearance of his bloud before God gives Christians Manifest it is that what is attributed to the sprinkling of the bloud before the Propitiatory must be understood to be effected by virtue of the blood shed at the Altar The case is plaine Heb. XII 24 You are come to the bloud of sprinkling that speakes better things then that of Abel Abels bloud shed called for vengeance Therefore Christs bloud shed for remission of sinnes Herewith agreeth S. Paul Rom. III. 25. whom God hath proposed a Propitiatory through Faiâ—h in his bloud Late Writers so translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the notion of a place as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same â—orme For my part I rather follow Hesychiâ—â— or rather those that he followed who most certainly had regard to this text when they expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purging sacrifice or an Altar as the meanes to make God propitious Which is clear for our purpose But whether the place or the meanes why did God appear propitiou upon the Ark but because made propitious by that which it signified Christ incarnate and by the bloud of the sacrifice signifying the bloud of his Crosse Therefore they prayed towards the ark under the Law as under the Gospel towards the East and found God propitious because of the consideration in which they directed their prayers directed by out Lord John XVII 23-26 To which purpose we may observe the purging of the Altar Tabernacle and all within the vaile by the bloud of the sacrifices Levit. XVI 16 20 33. Ezek. XLIII 20 22 26. XLV 20. For what purging needed they but as they became polluted by the sinnes of the people As the Land which was holy being polluted by bloud shed must be cleansed by the bloud of him that shed it Num. XXXV 33 Therefore the Congregation became guilty when he that did a murther was not taken because the Land was promised to the Congregation and therefore an expiation is appointed Deut. XXâ— 1 10. In correspondence whereunto it must be granted that the world and the heavens being polluted with mans sinne which is that bondage of vanity and corruption under which S. Paul saith that the whole creature groaneth desiring to be delivered into that freedome which the resurrection shall restore Rom. VIII 19 22. were to be expiated by the sacrifice of Christs body brought in and his bloud sprinkled there Heb. IX 23. that in consideration of his obedience and sufferings God might be found propitious there So the everlasting intercession of Christ is grounded upon the everlasting ransome Ebr. VII 24. This Priest remaining for ever hath an everlasting Priesthood Wherefore he is able perfectly to save those that come to God by him all wayes living to interceds for them To wit by pleading his owne blood the ransome of all sinne This is the ground of all our prayers and the confidence which we may make them with in particular for the cleansing of sinne after reconcilement Of which S. Paul Rom. VIII 34. Christ it is that died or rather that is risen again who also is at the right hand of God making intercession for us And this is the necessity of Christs sufferings which the Apostle pleades Ebr. II. 14 18. that he might be sensible of ours For if the guilt be taken away by his intercession succeeding his sufferings then did he suffer that it might succeede And thus are our sinnes forgiven for his name or by his Name John II. 12. Which Sociâ—us will have to be Gods name as in the Old Testament Es XLIII 25. Psal XXV 11. LXXIX 9. CVI. 8. CXLIII 12 But if the name of God be in Christ under the â—ew Testament as in the Angel that represented God in the Old as I have showed then when we pray in christs name we pray in Gods name though in consideration of Christs merits Upon the premises depends the true meaning of all those Scriptures where Christ is said to have died for us and for our righteousnesse Not as if the preposition for could determine whether we are to understand the finall cause in respect of man to move him to accept of Christ or the impulsive cause in respect of God moving him to grant the Gospell For when S. John sayes that we ought to lay downe our lives for the breâ—hâ—en as Christ for us John III. 16. it is manifest that our life is no ransom for the brethren as Christs for us And when S. Peter saith He will lay down his life for Christ John XIII 37. 38. he meanes not to move God thereby to spare his Masters life And yet notwithstanding when Esau sold his birthright for a messe of potage Ebr. XII 16. he gave away his birth right in consideration of it And should God have taken S. Paules life upon condition of saving the Jews they must have been saved in consideration of his becoming anathema for them Rom. IX 3. And Caiaphas thought that Christ must be destroyed least the Romanes should think that they would rebell under him as theire true Prince and so it was necessary that Christ should dy for the people Johâ—
consideration of their being changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ represented sacrificed upon the Crosse makes them properly no Sacrifice In the former consideration being properly Oblations let them be improperly Sacrifices For in this sense in the Canon of the Masse Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas ac benedic as hâ—c dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata Wee therefore humbly beseech and desire thee most mercifull Father through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord to accept and blesse these gifts these presents these holy unstained Sacrifices And not onely here before the Consecration but just before the Lords Prayer and the Communion Per Christum Dominum nostrum Per quem haec omnia semper Domine bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis praestas nobis Through Christ our Lord Through whom thou O Lord alwaies createst sanctifiest quickenest and furnishest us with all these good things The repetition of which consideration shows that they are presented to God to be consecrated and made the Eucharist as Oblations out of believers goods According to the form used in divers Greek Liturgies from the words of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee give thee thire own of thine own But when our Lord sayes This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is poured out for you Will any man of sense understand That is now by that which here I do offered up to God for you and the bloud as poured forth Or rather this is that body and bloud that is given to be crucified and poured forth for you shortly upon the Crosse Let it therefore have the nature of a Sacrifice so soon as the Consecration is past It shall have that nature improperly so long as it is not the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Though truly so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth And accorâ—ing to this truth true Altars they are true Temples true Sacrifices though improperly where and by whom it is ministred But I will not therefore grant that this Sacrificing that is this consecrating the Elements into the Sacrifice is an action done in the person of Christ Though they are agreed that it is done by the rehersing of the words of Christ For the rehersing of Christs words is not an act done in the person of Christ Nor do I take upon mee his person whose words I recite And I have showed that the Consecration is done by the Prayers of the Church immediately though these Prayers are made in virtue of Christs order commanding to do what hee did and thereby promising that the Elements shall become that which hee saith those which hee conâ—ecrated are As for the other opinion which I am not to be the more in love with because I am not satisfied with this it is to be considered that the Elements are offered thrice in the Canon of the Masse The first is that offering which I rehersed last beginning Te igitur going before the Consecration as â—â— agree The second is that which this opinion intendeth agreeing with the other that the Consecration is past by rehersing the words of institution But mine opinion allows not this For I conceive the Consecration is yet in doing till that Prayer be past Vt quotquot ex hâc Altaris participatione Sacro-Sanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ repleamur That as many of us as shall have received the Holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace Which is the later of the two in which I conceive the Consecration to consist as in all other Liturgies in something correspondent to it And truly the very words of the second offering do bear that the Elements are by it offered to God not as consecrated but as to be consecrated supposing the blessing of them to be the consecrating of them as I proved afore Therefore the offering and the presenting of them to God as consecrated is that which is done by the Prayer which follows Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum And nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis whereby the several estates of Christs Church are recommended to God in virtue and consideration of Christs passion here represented and commemorated Not that I intend here to justifie that Prayer for the dead which this containeth but because referring that to consideration in due time all Liturgies have a place where according to S. Paul intercession is made for all States of Christs Church in consideration of the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse represented by this Sacrament And because this intercession is properly the offering up of the the said Sacrifice to God for their necessities And therefore this opinion saith well that the Consecration exhibiteth onely the Sacrifice to be offered up to God by the Prayers of the Church But not by the Prayer which desireth the blessing of the Elements wherein the consecating of them is contained which is that of the elevation in the Canon of the Masse but by those Prayers whereby the effects of Christs Crosse are prayed for in behalf of his Church According to which opinion the consecrating of the Elements will be the Sacrificing of Christ no further than as the body and bloud of Christ are thereby represented as Sacrificed But there will be no further cause of complaint in this then there is cause to complain that there is not such ground for division as the parties would have For though there be onely a general reason of offering no particular consideration of destroying seen in the act of the Church offering either the Elements to be consecrated or the consideration of Christs Crosse represented to render God propitious to his Church Yet are the consecrated Elements no lesse the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse than the presence of Christs body and bloud in them will allow though in order to that Evangelical banquet upon them at which and by which the Covenant of Grace is renewed For the Apostles having made the Eucharist a Sacrifice in this regard I must not count the making of it one offensive I say then that having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and bloud of Christ crucified or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ And the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth is also both propitiatory and impeâ—ratory by virtue of the consecration of it whereby it becometh the
worthy frequenting of this holy Sacrament that suffers As for the Church of England I referr my self to the very form of those Lawes according to which as many as have received Orders in it have promised to exercise the Ministery to which they were appointed by the same and that before God and his Church at so solemne an occasion that nothing can be thought obligatory to him that would transgresse it For the Offertory which the Church of England prescribeth if it signifie any thing signifieth the dedication of that which is offered as at large to the necessities of the Church so in particular to the celebration of the Eucharist then and there At the consecration the Church prayeth That wee receiving these thy creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Christs holy institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud And after the Communion Wee thy humble servants intirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully râ— accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving Most humbly beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ and through faith in his bloud wee and thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his death and passion All this having premiâ—ed prayer for all States of Christs Church Which whether it make not the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of the Consecration the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse propitiatory and impetratory for them who communicate in it by receiving the Elements whether or no by virtue of this Oblation propitiatory and impetratory for the necessities of the rest of the Church as well as the Congregation present I leave to men of reason but not to Puritanes to judge This I am sure the condition of the Gospel which is the fourth reason for which I have showed that the Eucharist is counted a Sacrifice in the sense of the Church is exactly expressed in the words that follow to the confusion of all Puritanes that would have us expect the blessings promised from such a kinde of faith which supposes it not neither implies â— And â—â—â—e wee offer and present to thee O Lord our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto thee humbly beseeching thee that all we which be partakers of this holy Communion may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction For the reason which obliges us to professe this at receiving the Eucharist which is the New-Testament in the blood of Christ is because the promises which the Gospel covenanteth for depend upon it as the condition which renders them due And upon these premises I may well conclude that all the reasons for which I have showed that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the sense of the Church are recapitulâ—ted and comprised in which followeth And though we be unworthy through our manifold sinnes to offer unto thee any sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service not waying our merits but pardoning our offences CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections WHen I proposed to write of the Laws of the Church that is to say of those controversies concerning the same which are the subject of division in mater of Christian amity to the English at this time I proposed my subject in aeqivocall terms till it be further distinguished that the Laws of the Church may be understood to be those which God hath given the Church to conduct the body of the Church in the exercise of their Christianity And they may be understood to be those which God hath inabled the Church to give themselves according to that which I showed from the beginning That Gods giving such Laws to Christians as are to be kept and exercised by the community of Christians at their respective Assemblies is a demonstration that God hath founded a Society or Corporation under the name of the Church And that supposing the Church to be such a Society or Corporation of necessity inferreth that it is inabled by Gods Law to give Laws unto it selfe in such maters as not being determined by Gods Law become necessary to be determined for preservation of the Body in unity and communion in the offices of Gods service The Laws therefore that God gives his Church are so farre the subject of this inquiry as may make it to appear what is left to the power and duty of the Church to determine And to this purpose it seemed requisite in the first place to determine what the rule of Faith containeth to be believed of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which is the ground of whatsoever can be pretended that he hath injoyned his Church as concerning the frequentation of it having determined the like afore not only concerning the Sacrament of Baptism but also concerning Penance in as much as they contain qualifications requisite by the Gospel to render the promises thereof due to particular Christians Whereas the Sacrament of the Eucharist being as I said afore the most eminent of those offices which God hath injoyned to be celebrated by the Assembles of his Church having first founded his Church upon the duty and the command or upon the charter or priviledge of holding those Assemblies even when the Powers of the world allow it not required a teaâ—y express to determine the true intent why it was instituted that it might the better appear in due time how those circumstances in the celebration of it which are a great part of the subject of that division which prevails among us in point of Christianity may best be determined to the intent of Gods Law And also that the true intent of other Powers given the Church evidently â—ending to the maintenance of Christianity and the purity thereof but alwaieâ— with a respect to the unity of the Church in the communion of those offices whereof this is the chief might the better be estimated by a right understanding of the end which they seek You have then the first that is the original and primitive and also if you demand that the prime and chief power of Gods Church consisting in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist Not in washing away the filth of the Body as S. Peter saith that is not in ministring the outward ceremony of washing the body with water or any part of it but in admitting and allowing that professinn of a good Conscience which qualifies a man to be a member of the Church For this allowance is no lesse then a declaration on the part of the Church that he who upon these times
people by virtue of the meer act of assisting at the Sacrifice which hath been called opus operaetum or the very external work done without consideration without knowledge without any intention of doing that which he is to do in it that is of concurring every one for his share to the doing of the same Supposing alwayes that this Sacrifice consists in substituting the Body and Blood of Christ to be bodily present under the accidents of the elements the substance of them being abolished and ceasing to be there any more And not in offering and presenting the sacrifice of Christ crucified here now represented by this Sacrament unto God for obtaining the benefits of his passion in behalfe of his Church And this opinion I may safely say I know to be still maintained because I have heard it maintained though as I suppose by the more licentious and ignorant sort of Priests that it concerns not the people to consider to know to intend to joyn their devotions to the effecting of that which this Sacrament pretends But onely to mind their own Prayers assisting and accompanying that which the Priest doth with those affections which they came to Church with But can I therefore say that this is the doctrine of that Church because it allows such things to be taught and said without punishment or disgrace Surely he that peruses not onely the Testimonies which Doctor Field hath produced in the Appendix alleged afore to show that the true understanding of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was maintained in the Church even till the Reformation together with the opinions of many Divines of credit in that Church and instructions of Catechisms and devotions that have been published since the Council of Trent shall easily conclude that it is allowed though not injoyned by the Church to oppose this palliating of abuses in the Church by opinions so prejudiciall to Christianity And without doubt those who pretend no more then to excuse the Church in not reforming the abuse of private Masses by saying that the Church commands them not nor forbids any man to communicate at any time but rather exhorts them to it are farr from saying that the people are no further concerned in the Mass then to assist it with their bodily presence and the generall good intentions affections which they come to Church with imploying themselvs in the mean time at their own devotions Though it is much to be feared that this opinion is farr the more popular The opposition which the Reformation hath occasioned and the countenance given by the Sea of Rome to those who are the most zealous and extreme in opposing the Hereticks bearing down the indeavours of more conscientious Priests to maintain more Christian opinions in the minds of their people In the mean time it is visible that the resolution of this point dependeth upon the true reason of offering the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist Which I have showed to consist in presenting unto God the Sacrifice of Christ crucified represented here now by the elements sacramentally changed by the act of consecrating into the body and blood of Christ by those Prayers whereby the Congregation which celebrateth this Sacrament intercedeth with God for their own necessities and the necessities of his Church For if the virtue and efficacy of these Prayers be grounded upon nothing else then the fidelity of the Congregation in standing to the Covenant of Baptism as if Christianity be true it consists in nothing else and if the celebration of the Eucharist be the profession of fidelity and perseverance in it what remaineth but that the efficacy of the Sacrifice depend upon the receiving of the Eucharist unlesse the efficacy and virtue of Christian mens Prayers can depend upon their perseverance in that Covenant which they refuse to renew and to professe perseverance in it that profession being no lesse necessary then the inward intention of persevering in the same For the receiving of the Eucharist is no lesse expresly a renewing of the Covenant of Baptism then being baptized is entering into it So that whosoever refuses the Communion of the Eucharist in as much as he refuses it refuses to stand to the Covenant of his Baptisme whereby he expects the world to come I say not therefore that whosoever communicates not in the Eucharist so oft as he hath means and opportunity to do it renounces his Christianity either expresly or by construction and consequence For how many of us may be prevented with the guilt of sinne so deeply staining the conscience that they cannot satisfie themselves in the competence of that conversion to God which they have time and reason and opportunity to exercise before the opportunity of communicating how many have need of the authority of the Church and the power of the Keys not onely foâ— their satisfaction but for their direction in washing their wedding Garments white again How many are so distracted and oppressed with businesse of this world that they cannot upon all opportunities retire their thoughts to that attention and devotion which the office requires How many though free of business which Christianity injoyneth are intangled with the cares and pleasures of the world though not so farr as to depart from the state of Grace yet further then the renewing of the Covenant of Grace importeth Be it therefore granted that there is a great allowance to be made in exacting the Apostolical Rule for all that are present to communicate But be it likewise considered what a pitifull excuse it is in behalfe of the Church that it forbiddeth no man to communicate that is prepared as the rules thereof require subsisting for no other purpose but to procure the people thereof to be prepared for the service of God whereof the principal part is this office But when it is further allowed to be taught and said that it concerns not Gods people to assist the office of the Church with their actuall intentions and devotions but with their bodily presence and the generall affection which they bring with them to Church what reason can be alleged why they should go to Church to cary those affections to the Congregations which are exercised at home with their particular devotions to the same purpose Nay to what purpose subsisteth the Communion of the Church if it subsist not in order to the service of God in the publick Assembly of his people the chief office whereof is taught to be of that nature that the presence of a Christian is of no effect to the purpose of it Or what reason can be alleged why the parts of Christendom should not provide for themselves by restoring the primitive practice of Christianity without the consent of the whole forbidding them to provide for themselves but not providing for them in maters so grossely and palpably concerning our common Christianity But having cautioned that the service of God and the Eucharist be in a language
thus proceedeth Heb. IX 13 14. For if the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkled sanctify the polluted to the purifying of the flesh how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the everlasting spirit offered himself to God blamelesse cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God For though the Soul of Christ raised from the dead have immortality which is life indissoluable yet it hath not the virtue of it which is to be ascribed to the Spirit which raised him from the dead as vvell as us according to S. Paul Rom. VIII 10. 11. If Christ be in you though the body be dead because of sin yet the Spirit is life because of righteousness But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised Iesus from the dead shall quicken your mortall bodies also through his Spirit that dwelleth in you And whether the cleansing of sin can be ascribed to any gift bestowed upon the humane Soule of Christ as here they vvould have it ascribed to the immortality thereof let all the World judge I deny not indeed that Christ offers the Sacrifice of himself to the Father in the Heaven of Heavens as the Priest offered him the blood of those Sacrifices which were burnt without the Camp in that Holy of Holies But if I should deny that he offered himself to God vvhen he vvas crucified I might as vvell deny that the Priests offered therein Sacrifices to God when they killed them at the Altar and burnt them upon it So manifest so certain it is that the eternall Spirit by virtue whereof the blood of Christ being offered cleanseth sin was in Christ before his rising again And this is that which S. Paul saith 1 Tim. III. 16. And without crontroversie Great is the mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the Flesh justified in the Spirit preached to the Gentiles seen of Angels believed of the World taken up into Glory It is sayd indeed that the Syriack the Vulgar Latine the Arabick and the Commentaries under S. Ambrose his name all want 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and understand S. Paul to speak of the Gospel all the while And that the Gospel being sayd to be preached before it is sayd to be taken up into Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be no more then that it is exalted and glorified As if the order of the words did inforce that which is first sayd to have been first done or as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not signifie the taking of him up to God but the making of the Gospel famous Such violence will a prejudicate supposition offer even to Gods words rather then to quit an argument For to what sense can the Gospel be sayd to be manifested in the flesh because preached by the man Christ And suppose it may be sayd to be justified by the Spirit as Wisdome is justified by the Children of Wisdome Mat. XI 9. Luke VII 35. how much more proper is it to understand that God who appeared in the flesh should be sayd to be justified so to be in or by the Spirit the Works whereof shewed him so to be as afore Neither shall we need to make any greater doubt of the reading of those vvords of S. Paul Acts XX. 28. Look therefore to your selves and to the whole Flock ever which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath gotten with his blood Though the written Copy at S. James and the Syriack read here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because that the Church over which the Holy Ghost makes Bishops it bought with the blood of Christ is the same with that of the Apostle afore that the blood of Christ offered by the eternall Spirit cleanseth sin Neither is it so easie to avoyd the words of the Apostle Heb. XI 16. as some imagine For he took not Angels but the Seed of Abraham he took Suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to challenge which is done by laying hands on that which we challenge Is the ground therefore void upon which he challenges these to life as his own that through feare of death were in bondage does not the whole Epistle argue that this is done by the offering of our flesh saith he not expresly that it behoved him to become like his Brethren in all things and that he is not ashamed to call them Brethren because he that sanctifieth and those who are sanctified are all of one Heb. XI 11. 14. 17. does Christ vindicate mankind or the Seed of Abraham For though this is written to the Hebrews alone yet it was written at such time as all christians understood that it belongs no less to the Gentiles Wherfore it is manifest that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might seem to signifie Christs challenging mankind or vindicating them into freedome from death as well here as elswhere is restrained by the Text and consequence of the Apostles discourse to signifie the assuming of mans nature by the means whereof he won mankind into freedome and maintains it in the same In fine when the Apostle sayth 1 Pet. I. 11. That the ancient Prophets did search against what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ that was in them did declare and profess the sufferings to come upon Christ and the glories following the same He sheweth plainly that the same Spirit by which they spake by fits dwelt in the flesh of Christ for ever having once assumed it Of which Spirit the Evangelist sayth Marke XI 8. That Jesus knew by the Spirit how the Pharises reasoned of him within themselves For as I sayd afore that when it is sayd in the Old Testament that the word of God came to this or that Prophet an Angel appeared unto him speaking in the person of God vvho vvas therefore vvorshiped as God because the Word of God for vvhich being incarnate our Lord Jesus is for ever to be Worshiped as God vvas in that Angel at the present for that Service So I must further note here that upon such Word of God coming to a Prophet he became inspired that is possessed and acted by the Spirit of God for the time of that Service vvhich God by such a message imployed him about Not that all Prophets did receive such Word by such message from God before they spake those things which we believe still they spake by the Spirit of God For there is a great deal of appearance in the Scripture for that which the Jewes doctors deliver unto us Abarbanel by name alleging Maimoni for his saying upon Numb XI that there are inferior degrees of Prophesie which comes not by apparitions in which a man saw one that spake to him in Gods Name but sometimes meerly by inspiration of Gods Spirit inwardly moving either to act or to speak as
served by his Church It is plain enough to all that have the use of reason what that communion of the Church and the Society thereof is able to effect and hath effected in preserving the Rule of Christianity wherein the salvation of Christians consisteth free and intire from the infection of mens devices expresly or by consequence destructive to it as well as the conversation of Christians from unchristian manners But if the Church be trusted to exact the profession of Christianity of all that require by Baptisme to be admitted unto the Communion of the Church It must by consequence be intrusted to exact of them also the performance of that which they have professed that is undertaken to professe For the profession being the condition upon which they are admitted to the Communion of the Church the performance or at least a presumption of the performance must needs be the condition upon which they injoy it Upon this ground the Church becomes not onely a number of men but a Society Corporation and Communion of Christians in those Offices wherewith God hath declared that hee will be served by Christians For upon supposition of such a Declaration or such a Law of God it is that the Church becomes a Body or Corporation of all Christians though under several Common-wealths and Soveraignties of this world As there are in all States several by Corporations subsisting by some act or Law of the Soveraign Powers of the same For if God had not appoâ—â—ted what Offices hee will be served with by his people at their common Assemblies there could be no ground why the Church should be such a Society founded by God there being nothing appointed by God for the members of it to communicate in But were there nothing but the Sacrament of the Eucharist acknowledged to have been delivered by God to his people to be frequented and celebrated by them at their common Assemblies that alone would be enough to demonstrate the foundation and institution of the Communion and Corporation of the Church by God For of a truth the rest of those Offices wherewith God requires to be served by Christians are the same by which hee required to be served by his ancient people before Christianity setting aside that difference with the divers measure of the knowledge of God in this and in that estate must needs produce Though there is no serving of God by the blood of bulls and goats nor by other ceremonies and sacrifices of Moses Law under Christianity Yet were the praises of God the hearing of his Word read and the instructing and exhorting of his people in it and to it together with the sacrifice of Prayer frequented by Gods people under the Law as still God is served and is to be served with them under Christianity And upon this account I have truly said elswhere as I conceive it that the Corporation of the Church is founded upon the privilege which God hath granted all Christians of assembling themselves for the service of God though supposing that the Powers of the world should forbid them so to do For this privilege consists in nothing else but in that command which God hath given his Church of serving him with these Offices Whereupon it necessarily insues that notwithstanding whatsoever command of Secular Powers they are forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them that are not of the Church Seeing they cannot be commanded to serve God in the Communion of the Church but they must be forbidden to serve God in the Communion of them which are not of the Church And upon this ground stands all the Power which the Church can challenge in limiting the circumstances and conditions upon which men may communicate in these Offices Which as it may justly seem of it self inconsiderable to the world and the Powers that govern it So when those Powers take upon them to establish the exercise of it by their Lawes If they maintain not the Church in that Power which of right and of necessity it had from God before they professed to maintain Christianity they destroy indeed that which in word they professe But if they take upon them to maintain it in the right which originally it had to limit the said circumstances by such Rules as by the act of Secular Powers become Lawes to their people then must the Power of the Church become as considerable as it is indeed in all States and Common-wealths that retain the Christianity which they had from the beginning in this point This being the ground and this the mater of Ecclesiastical Lawes and the Sacrament of the Eucharist being that Office proper to Christianity in order to the Communion whereof all Lawes limiting the circumstances and conditions of the said Communion are devised and made It seems requisite to my designe in the first place to void those Controversies concerning the same which all men know how much they have contributed to the present divisions of the Church For the determination of them will be without doubt of great consequence to determine the true and right intent of those Lawes which serve onely to limit those circumstances which are onely the condition of communicating in this and those other Offices Concerning which there is no other controversie on foot to divide the Church but that which concerns the said circumstances Now what differences concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist are mater of division to the Church I may suppose all the world knows the opinion of Transubstantiation being so famous as it is Which importeth this That in celebrating this Sacrament upon pronouncing of the words with which our Lord delivered it to his Disciples This is my Body this is my Bloud the substance of the elements Bread and Wine ceaseth and is abolished the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ coming into their stead though under the species of Bread and Wine that is to say those accidents of them which our senses witnesse that they remain In opposition whereunto some have proceeded so farr as to teach that this Sacrament is no more than a meer sign and the celebration and communion thereof barely the renewing of our Christian profession of believing in Christ crucified whom it representeth importing no spiritual grace at all to be tendred by it from God Which may justly seem to be the opinion of the Socinians and properly to give the name of Sacramentaries to all that professe it For in reason and justice wee are to difference it from the opinion of those that hold it for a sign appointed by God to tender the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually to be received by it of as many as with a lively faith communicate in it Though these also cannot pretend to make it any more than a sign by virtue of that consecration which makes it a Sacrament Seeing it is the faith of him that receives it as they say which makes it the Body and Bloud of Christ spiritually though truly
and really to him that so receives it There is besides another opinion extremely distant from this last in regard thaâ— whereas this ascribes the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist to the faith of them that receive it which is after the consecration of the Sacrament in as much as it is exercised in receiving the same the other extreme opinion that I speak of attibutes it to the hypostatical Union of the two natures in the person of Christ the consequence whereof they will have to be this That the perfections of the God-head are communicated to the humane nature in the person of Christ exalted to the Power of gathering and conducting his Church through this world to the world to come Because this Power being to be exercised in our nature requires and imports the attributes of the God-head to the executing and in the executing of it For seeing the Manhood of Christ cannot communicate with his God-head in giving this spiritual assistance to his Church but first it must be present and seeing this assistance is given by the Sacrament of the Eucharist of necessity they think the Body and Bloud of Christ must be present in the Eucharist to give this assistance by virtue of the hypostatical Union ordained for that purpose And so this opinion becomes extremely opposite to the last because it attributes the presence and so the receiving of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to that Faith which takes effect after that consecration which makes the Sacrament Whereas this attributes the same to the hypostatical Union of the Manhood with the God-head in Christ taking effect without exception after his exaltation to glory which it is manifest is so long since past and done before the celebration of it CHAP. II. That the natural substance of the Elements remains in the Sacrament That the Body and Bloud of Christ is neverthelesse present in the same when it is received not by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradiction nor improperty in the words of our Lord. THis being the question wherein I am now to give judgment and no more required of a Divine than to give such a meaning to those few Scriptures which depose in it as may no way contradict the Rule of Faith I shall without considering how to content those factions which these opinions have made content my self by delivering that opinion which I conceive best satisfies the plain words of the Scripture without trenching upon any ground of Christianity within which the meaning of the Scriptures is to remain I say then first that if wee will not offer open violence to the words of the Scripture and to all consideration of reason that may deserve to direct the meaning of it wee must grant in the first place That the bodily substance of Bread and Wine is not abolished nor ceaseth in this Sacrament by virtue of the consecration of it And of this I conceive the manifest words of the Scripture wheresoever there is mention of this Sacrament are evidence enough Mat. XXVI 26-29 And when they were eating Jesus took bread and having blessed brake and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat this is my Body And taking the cup hee gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink yee all of it For this is that bloud of mine of the New Testament which is shed for many unto remission of sins And I say unto you I will not drink from henceforth of this production of the vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome In S. Mark I can imagine no maâ—er of difference but this Mark XIV 24 25. This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many Verily I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the vine brings forth till I drink it new in the kingdome of God In S. Luke thus XXII 17-20 And taking the cup hee said Take this and divide it amongst you For I say unto you that I will not drink of that which the Vine brings forth till the kingdome of God come And hee took bread and having given thanks brake it and gave it to them saying This is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 23-32 For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus in the night that hee was betrayed took bread and having given thanks brake it saying Take eat this is my body which is broken for you This do in remembrance of mee Likewise also the cup after having supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my bloud This do so often as yee drink it in remembrance of mee For so often as you eat this bread and drink this cup yee declare the Lords death till hee come Therefore whoso eateth this bread or drinketh this cup unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ But let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Therefore many among you are sick and weak and many fall asleep For if wee did discern our selves wee should not be condemned But when wee are judged wee are chastised by the Lord that wee be not condemned with the world And again 1 Cor. X. 16 17 18. The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ For as the bread is one so wee many are one body For wee all partake of the same bread Had not a man as good bid the Scripture be silent for hee will believe what hee list notwithstanding the Scripture as set all this evidence upon the rack to make it deny that which it cries aloud For when S. Matthew tells us that our Lord took bread and having blessed brake and gave it saying This is my Body that hee took the cup and having given thanks gave it to them saying This is my Bloud Is it not as manifest that hee sayes This bread is my Body this wine is my Bloud as that hee sayes This is my Body this is my Bloud Unlesse wee think that This can demonstrate any thing but that which had been spoke of afore in the processe without giving any mark to know what it is that hee meant to demonstrate There is none of them that deny this but will be puzzled to say himself what hee would have the Disciples to whom this is said understand by This forbidding them to understand that which went before In S. Mark S. Luke and S. Paul the
that to be true and by the consideration of it is induced to resolve and undertake the profession of Christianity hee it is that eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ till hee depart from the effect of it For no man can be thought to feed upon that which hee vomits up again Neither can there be found a more exact correspondence than that which is seen between the nourishment of the body in the strength whereof it moves and those reasons whereupon the minde frames the resolutions from which a mans conversation proceeds And because God hath promised to give the Holy Ghost to them that faithfully resolve this and that as many as have the Holy Ghost their mortal bodies shall by the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in them be raised to life everlasting Rom. VIII 11. therefore they that thus eat the body and bloud of Christ shall not dy but live unto everlasting This being the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by Faith and that when the Sacrament of the Eucharist is instituted the effect of it must needs be the same spiritual nourishment and sustenance of the soul but by a new means to wit the receiving of that Sacrament As the eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ spiritually by faith presupposes the flesh of Christ crucified and his bloud poured forth so must the eating of it in the Sacrament presuppose the being of it in the Sacrament to wit by the being and becoming of it a Sacrament Unlesse a man can spiritually eat and drink the flesh and bloud of Christ in and by the Sacrament which is not in the Sacrament when hee eats and drinks it but by his eating and drinking of it comes to be there Hee therefore spiritually eats and drinks the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament who considering the profession Christ calls us to with that faith which supposes him to have signed his calling by finishing his course upon the Crosse resolves to undertake the same and in that resolution participates of the Eucharist But if the flesh and bloud of Christ be not there by the virtue of the consecration of the elements into the Sacrament then cannot the flesh of Christ and his bloud be said to be eaten and drunk in the Sacrament which are not in the Sacrament by being a Sacrament but in him that eats and drinks it For that which hee findes to eat and drink in the Sacrament cannot be said to be in the Sacrament because it is in him that spiritually eats and drinks it by faith Either therefore the flesh and bloud of Christ cannot be eaten and drunk in the Eucharist or it is necessarily in the Sacrament when it is eaten and drunk in it in which if it were not it could not be eaten and drunk in it This is further seen by the words of S. Paul when inferring his purpose to wit that Christians ought not to communicate in things sacrificed to Idols upon that which hee had premised The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which wee break is it not the communion of the body of Christ hee addeth 1 Cor. X. 18 20 21. Look upon Israel according to the flesh do not they which eat the Sacrifices partake with the Altar What say I then That an Idol is any thing Or that a thing sacrificed to an Idol is any thing Rather that what the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and I would not have you partake with Devils Yee cannot drink the cup of God and the cup of Devils Yee cannot partake of the Lords Table and the table of Devils These words manifestly suppose the Eucharist to be the communion of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse For as our Lord saith This cup is the New Testament in my bloud or my bloud of the New Testament so is it manifest that God in inacting his Covenant that is his Testament proceeds according as the custome was among the most ancient Nations of the world to solemnize the establishment thereof with sacrifice I have showed you before that the Law was covenanted for with sacrificing Holocausts and Peace-offerings the bloud whereof was sprinkled on all the People But the Elders in the name of the people feasted upon the remaines Exod. XXIV 5-11 And among the Sacrifices of the Law those sin-offerings wherein the Priests shared with the Altar in behalf of them whose sins they expiated by them and the peace-offerings wherein those that offered them as well as the Priests that offered them shared with the Altar had their effect by virtue of the Law and the Covenant which introduced it And therefore they contained a new act by which the Covenant was renewed as to the particular purpose of those Sacrifices and the effect of them in them for whom they were made Correspondently the Covenant of Grace being inacted by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as to Gods part that is to say so farr as to oblige God to grant remission of sins and life everlasting to all those that are baptized into the faithfull profession of Christianity is renewed in the Consecration and Communion of the Eucharist whereby that Sacrifice is renewed and revived unto the worlds end So that as those who eat of the Sacrifices of the Altar whether by the Priests or by themselves did feast with God whose Altar had received and consumed a part of those Sacrifices So those that communicate in the Eucharist do feast upon the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ on the Crosse which God is so well pleased with as to grant the Covenant of Grace and the publication thereof in consideration of it This being evidently that correspondence which the discourse of S. Paul requires remains manifestly proved by the same Though of a truth the words of our Lord when hee saith This is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for you Or This cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is shed for you cannot otherwise be understood than by taking This cup or This which our Lord speaks of to stand for the action of giving and receiving the Sacrament not for that which is given and received in it and by it For otherwise how should a Cup or that which is in it be a Testament But in as much as the Communion of the Eucharist proceeds upon supposition of the Covenant of Grace and therefore imports a profession both on Gods part and on his that receives it of performing the condition to which respectively they binde themselves by the same In that regard nothing can be more properly said than that God tenders by that Sacrament all that the Gospel promises and man by receiving it the Condition which God covenants for at his hands Which whether you call the New Covenant or the New Testament it maters not an heir upon condition of performing the will of the dead being in
impose upon all their Divines a necessity to maintain that there is no trope in the words This is my cup of the New Testament which so many of their Predecessors had granted because it could not be denied Which being granted must needs take place in This is my body by necessary consequence And surely the common principles of Grammar and Rhetorick will inforce it when they inform us that tropes are used as cloaths are either for necessity because there are more things much more conceptions than words to signifie them For thereupon necessity constrains to turn a word to signifie that which it was not at first intended to signifie and that is a trope Or for ornament to expresse a mans mind with more elegance Compare then our ordinary way of expressing the conceptions of the mind by words which is common to all Languages which our ordinary way of expressing the objects thereof to our minds by the said conceptions If a word be diverted to signifie that conception which it was not first imposed to signifie because there was no other at hand imposed to signifie the present conceit Logick and Grammar will make this a Trope though Rhetorick do not because it was not used for ornament but for the necessary clothing of a mans mind in terms intelligible The trial whereof is if the subject you speak of cannot truly be said to be the thing which is attributed to it As the bread and wine which our Lord blessed cannot be said to be his body and bloud For if the subject mater signified by the Scripture elsewhere require that the body and bloud of Christ be thought present then is the property of the terms to be abated so as they may serve to signifie that presence Voiding all dispute concerning the signification of words which those that hold Transubstantiation could never nor never will agree upon among themselves because it stands upon terms of art the use whereof no mans conceit can over-rule that which the necessity of our common Faith requireth being once secured as here For the reason being rendred why the Eucharist was instituted and why it is to be frequented notwithstanding that the Body and Bloud of Christ may always be eaten and drunk by a living Faith to wit because the reviving of our Christianity by receiving the Sacrament reviveth the promise of Christs body and bloud being the means to convay his Spirit it will not concern the purpose thereof that it should be present by Transubstantiation abolishing the nature of the Elements For though it hath been boldly said by those who dispute controversies That the body of Christ is really and substantially resident in and united to our bodies That Grace and Charity cooled by sinne are inflamed in the Soul by the body of Christ immediately touching our bodies That the seed of our resurrection is thereby sowed in our mortal bodies First none of this is true unlesse you understand it with the same abatement That the body of Christ received in the Sacrament by the body of him whose Soul hath living Faith in Christ is the seed of the life of grace and glory both to his soul and body Because otherwise a dead faith should receive the same Secondly none of this would hold if Transubstantiation be true because rendring the body of Christ invisibly present no mans body whatsoever can immediately touch it And therefore it is no marvel that so many excellent School Doctors have acknowledged that setting the sense of the Church aside of which I will say what shall be requisite by and by Transubstantiation cannot be concluded from the Scriptures Whose judgements I carry along with mee for the complement of that prejudice which I advance toward the right understanding of the sense of the Church To wit that whatsoever the present Church may have determined the Catholick Church did never understand that which the Scripture necessarily signifieth not Now let us see what our Lord sayes to his Disciples being scandalized at those things which I showed you that hee taught them in the Synagogue at Capernaum of attaining everlasting life by eating his flesh John VI. 58-63 Is this it which scandalizeth you saith hee What then if you see the Son of man ascend where hee was afore It is the Spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak to you are Spirit and Life The spiritual sense in which hee commandeth them to eat and drink his flesh and bloud is grounded upon that difference between the promises of the Law and the Gospel which I settled in the beginning For by virtue thereof that Manna which maintained them in the Desert till they died is the figure of his body and bloud that maintains us not to dye Whereupon S. Paul saith 1 Cor. III. 6. The Spirit quickeneth but the Leter killeth Not onely because the Law covenants nor for the world to come But also because it was no further the means to procure that righteousnesse which giveth life then the Spirit of Christ was intimated and furnished under the dispensation of it Whereupon S. Paul argues that the Jews have as much need of Christ as the Gentiles because the Law is not able to bring corrupt nature to righteousnesse Wherefore the reason why they were scandalized at this doctrine of our Lords was not meerly because it was difficult to understand hee having so plentifully expressed his meaning and inculcated it by often beating the same discourse there and otherwise made the condition of his Gospel intelligible to his Disciples but because it was hard to undergo importing the taking up of his Crosse as I have said For it is evident by common experience in the world how men find or how they plead their minds to be obstructed in the understanding of those spiritual maters which if they should grant their understandings to be convinced of there were no plea left them why they should not conform their lives and conversations to that light which themselves confesse they have received So that the scandal was the same that the rich man in the Gospel took when hee was told that besides keeping Gods Commandments one thing was wanting to part with all hee had and take up Christs Crosse to wit for the observing of his Commandments And this scandal hee intends to take away when hee referres them to his ascension into Heaven because then and from thence they were to expect the Holy Ghost to inable them to do that which the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud signifieth spiritually And his words hee therefore calleth Spirit and Life because they are the means to bring unto the communion of his Spirit wherein spiritual and everlasting life consisteth So that the flesh of Christ being exalted to the right hand of God and his Spirit which first made it self an habitation in his flesh being sent down to make him an habitation in the hearts of his people those who upon faithful consideration of
Sacrament mystically I conceive I am excused of any further answer and am not obliged to declare the maner of that which must be mystical when I have said what I can say to declare it Onely I will take leave to tell him that hee will remain neverthelesse obliged to believe the truth both of the sign and of the thing signified and that by virtue of the Sacrament that is of the consecration that makes it a Sacrament not of the faith of him that receives it though I answer not all that hee demands upon the question What the Sacramental presence of the body and bloud of Christ in or with or under the Elements of the Eucharist signifies I would now consider wherein the Consecration of the Eucharist consists that I might thereupon inferre what kind of presence it inforceth But I hold it fit first to set aside those two opinions the one whereof I said ascribeth it to the Faith of them that receive being accidental to the Consecration and not included in it The other to the Hypostatical Union and that communication which it inferreth between the properties of the united natures That which I have already said I suppose is enough to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the same before any man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the soul which the eating and drinking Christs flesh and bloud spiritually by living Faith importeth Onely that I may once conclude how faith effecteth the Sacramental presence in the Elements as well as the spiritual in the Soul I will distinguish between the outward profession of Christianity which maketh us Members of Gods visible Church and the inward performance or faithful purpose of performing the same which makes a man of that number whom God owns for Heirs of his Kingdome whether you call that number an invisible Church or not And then I say that it is the visible profession of true Christianity which makes the Consecration of the Eucharist effectual to make the body and bloud of Christ Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But that it is the invisible faithfulnesse of the heart in making good or in resolving to make good the said profession which makes the receiving of it effectual to the spiritual eating and drinking of Christs body and bloud For supposing that God hath instituted and founded the Corporation of his Church upon the precept or the privilege of assembling to communicate in the offices of his service according to Christianity Whensoever this office is rendred to God out of that profession which makes men Members of Gods Church there the effect followes as sure as Christianity is true Where otherwise there can be no such assurance But if eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ in this Sacrament unworthily be the crucifying of Christ again rendring a man guilty of his body and bloud then is not his flesh and bloud spiritually eaten and drunk till living faith make them spiritually present to the Soul which the Consecration maketh Sacramentally present to the body And it is to be noted that no man â—â—n say that this Sacrament represents or tenders and exhibites unto him that receiveth the body and bloud of Christ as all must do that abhorre the irreverence to so great an Ordinance which the opinion that it is but a bare sign of Christ crucified necessarily ingendreth but hee must believe this Unlesse a man will say that that which is not present may be represented that is to say â—â—nâ—râ—d and exhibited presently down upon the place It is not therefore that living faith which hee that receiveth the Eucharist and is present at the consecrating of it may have and may not have that causeth the body and bloud of Christ to be Sacramentally present in the Elements of it But it is the profession of that common Christianity which makes men Members of Gods Church In the unity whereof wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated without enquiring whether those that are assembled be of the number of those to whom the Kingdome of Heaven belongs thou hast a Legal presumption even towards God that thou receivest the flesh and bloud of Christ in and with the Elements of bread and wine and shalt receive the same spiritually for the food of thy Soul supposing that thou receivest the same with living faith For one part of our common Christianity being this That our Lord Christ instituted this Sacrament with a promise to make by his Spirit the Elements of bread and wine Sacramentally his body and bloud so that his Spirit that made them so dwelling in them as in his natural body should feed them with Christs body and bloud that receive the Sacrament of them with living faith This institution being executed that is the Eucharist being consecrated according to it so sure as Christianity is true so sure the effect follows So that the faith which brings it to effect is the faith of them who believing Gods promises proceed to execute his Ordinances that they may obtain the same Whereas those that would have justifying faith to consist in believing a mans own Salvation or the decree of God perempâ—orily passed upon it and the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be appointed for a sign to confirm this faith which is nothing else but the revelation of this decree are not able to say how the signifying of the eating of Christs body and bloud conduces to such a revelation as this or why any such thing is done which conduceth not to the purpose Besides that having showed wherein justifying faith indeed consists I have by that means made it appear that the Sacramental nourishment of the Soul is the means of the spiritual nourishment of the Soul as well as the resemblance of it Here indeed it will be requisite to take notice of that which may be objected for an inconvenience That God should grant the operation of his Spirit to make the Elements Sacramentally the body and bloud of Christ upon the dead faith of them who receive it to their condemnation in the Sacrament and therefore cannot be said to eat the body and bloud of Christ which is onely the act of living faith without that abatement which the premises have established To wit in the Sacrament But all this if the effect of my saying be throughly considered will appear to be no inconvenience For that the body and bloud of Christ should be Sacramentally present in and under the Elements to be spiritually received of all that meet it with a living faith to condemn those for crucifying Christ again that receive it with a dead faith can it seem any way inconsequent to the Consecration thereof by virtue of the common faith of Christians professing that which is requisite to make true Christians whether by a living oâ— a dead faith Rather must wee be to seek for a reason why hee that â—ateth this bread and drinketh
this cup unmorthily should be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ as not discerâ—ing it according to S. Paul 1 Cor. XI 27 28. unlesse wee suppose the same Sacramentally present by virtue of that true Christianity which the Church professing and celebrating the Sacrament tendâ—eth it for spiritual nourishment to a living faith for mater of damnation to a dead faith For if the profession of true Christianity be as of necessity it must be mater of condemnation to him that professeth it not truly that is to say who professing it doth not perform it shall not his assisting the celebration and consecration of the Eucharist produce the effect of rendring him condemned by himself eating the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament out of a profession of Christianity which spiritually hee despiseth for not fulfilling what hee professeth Or that living faith which concurreth to the same as a good Christian should do be left destitute of that grace which the tender of the Sacrament promiseth because the faith of those who joyn in the same action is undiscernable Certainly if the Sacramental presence of Christs body and bloud tendring the same spiritually be a blessing or a curse according to the faith which it meets with it can by no means seem unreasonable that it should be attributed to that profession of Christianity which makes it respectively a blessing or a curse according to the faith of them for whom it is intended As for that opinion that makes this presence to proceed from the Hypostatical Union passed so long before it stands upon those Scriptures which seem to signifie that those properties wherein the Majesty of Christs God-head consists are really communicated to this Manhood in the doing and for the effecting of those works wherein that assistance and grace and protection which hee hath promised his Church upon his Exaltation consisteth S. Paul writeth to the Colossians that It pleased that all fulnesse should dwell in Christ in whom dwelleth all the fulnesse of the God-head bodily as hee expresseth himself more at large Col. II. 9. that they by him might be filled and by him to reconcile all things tâ— himself making peace by the bloud of his Crosse by him I say whether things on earth or in the Heavens And you being once estranged and enemies in your mind through evil works yet now hath hee reconciled through the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and without spot and blamelesse before him Here it is plain enough that our Reconciliation is ascribed to the flesh of Christs body as to his bloud after in whom wee have Redemption even the remission of sins by his bloud Col. I. 14 19-92 to wit for the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in Christ When our Lord saith all things are delivered mee by my Father Mat. XI 27. in order to the revealing of his Gospel that is to the making of it effectual When hee saith All power in heaven and earth is given mee Mat. XXVIII 18. a question is made how given if a necessary conâ—equence of the Hypostatical Union I answer Because the exercise thereof was limited by the appointment of God and the purpose for which hee caused the Word to dwell in our flesh which though of force to do all things should not have had right in our flesh to execute that which God had not appointed And therefore is our Lord Christ justly said to receive that power of God which by degrees hee receiveth commission to exercise The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God I have showed that the Apostle makes an argument of divine power and authority dwelling in our flesh in the person of Christ Heb. I. 3. Acts II. 33. V. 31. Eph. I. 20-22 where S. Paul ascrbies the filling of the Church a work of God alone to it And as hee sits on Gods own Throne so he shall judge all as man saith our Lord John V. 21 22 23 26-30 and raise them up and quicken them to that purpose For the Throne of God on which Christ is set down is the Seat of his Judgement And therefore as I live saith the Lord God in the Prophet Es XLV 23. Christ in the Apostle Rom. XIV 11. to mee shall every knee â—ow and every tongue shall give glory tâ— God To the same purpose is all that you read of anointing our Lord Christ with the Holy Ghost given him by God without measure saith the Baptist John III. 34. if you understand it not of the habitual graces poured forth upon the Manhood of Christ from the fulnesse of the God-head dwelling bodily in it of the truth whereof neverthelesse there is no disputes but of the very Majesty of the God-head communicated unto it in the person of Christ as of a truth I have said that they are to be understood In fine not onely the â—erit but the applâ—cation thereof that is the effecting of the cleansing of our consciences from sin is ascribed unto the bloud of Christ Ebr. IX 14. 1 John I. 7. How or in what regard but because by the eternal Spirit hee offered up himself blamelesse to God as the Apostle saith In which regard onely it is that our nature in Christ is honoured with the worship due to God because being for ever inseparable from the God-head of the Word it is not to be appreheâ—ded or figured so much as in the imagination but as the flesh of the Word This is a brief of the Scriptures which they allege to inferre that seeing hee hath promised to feed his Church with his flesh and his bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which cannot be unlesse they be there And seeing the like works are performed and executed by the flesh that is the Manhood of Christ through the virtue of the God-head united unto it Therefore it is to be believed that by communication of the Majesty of the God-head to the flesh of Christ it becomes present wheresoever his promise and the comfort and strengthening of his Disciples which is the work of his Mediators Office whereunto by sitting down at Gods right hand heâ— is installed requires the presence of it If it be said that by this position the attributes and properties of the God-head are placed in the Manhood as their own proper Subject into which they are transferred by the operation of the God-head not devesting it self of them but communicating them to the Manhood to be thenceforth properties really residing in it and therefore truly to be attributed to it I must do them right and acknowledge that they utterly disclaim this to be their meaning Confessing thereby that if it were they could not avoid the imputation of Eutyches his Heresie condemned by the great Council of Chalcâ—don the confusion of the natures remaining unavoidable when the properties of the God-head being communicated to the Manhood in this sense can be no more said to remain the properties of it I undertake not thus much
for the rest of their Divines who are commonly called Ubiquitaries because they are supposed to teach That the oâ—ni-presence of Christs God-head is communicated to his flesh by virtue of the Hypostatical Union so that the body and bloud of Christ being every where present necessarily subsisteth in the dimensions of bread and wine in the Euchâ—rist This opinion I hold not my self any way obliged here to â—â—â—pute further than by barring it with this exception that it taketh away that supposition upon which the whole question concerning the consecration of the Eucharist â—â—â—ndeth To wit that seeing the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament cannot be attributed to the invisible faith of him that receives it is necessarily to be attributed to the viâ—â—ble faith of the Church that celebrateth For according to this oâ—inion it is manifest that the said presence can no way depend upon any thing done by the Church in celebrating the Eucharist being alâ—eady brought to passe and in being when the Church goes about it And this is all the argument that I will use against this conceit that all the premiâ—es require and so will also all that which followeth the presence of the body and bloud in the Eucharist to be of an other nature and otherwise effected â—â—an can be understood to belong to the Elements by virtue of the Hypostaâ—ical â—nion Though wee suppose that which cannot be granted that by virtue thereof â—hey are every where Which therefore whether their Divines do really belâ—eve or onely in words I will not here dispute Thus much I can say that by the agreement of the Churches pretending the Confession of Ausburg conâ—ernâ—ng the Articles once in difference among them contained in the Boâ—â— knoâ—n by the name of Liber Concordiae they are not tied to maintain so much For it is there openly protested not onely in the Preface but chiefly in the eighth Article concerning this point p. 769 787. that they do not believe the properties of the God-head to be transfuâ—ed into the Manhood nor that the Manhood of Christ is locally extended all over heaven and earth but that Christ by his Omnipotence is able to render his flesh and bloud present where hee please Especially where hee hath promised the presence thereof by inâ—â—ituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist And Chemnitius therefore one of the beâ—â— learned of their Divines in a Book writ on purpose to set forth the grounds of their opinion concerning the communication of attributes expresly â—onâ—â—neth himself to these terms as you may see cap. XXX p. 205 206. declaring his meaning by the comparison of iron red hot which though the fire be so in it that they are not discernable much lesse seperable and though they may do the act of both natures at once upon the same subject by burning and cutting the same thing remain notwithstanding distinct in their natures What then would they have Why this being set aside they say neverthelesse most truly that in the whole work of the Mediators office the divine nature communicateth with the humane Which understanding the necessities of Christs Members both intercedes with God for supply and supplies the same by the proper will of it which his divine will alwayes concurring brings to effect In which regard it is also most truly said that the properties of the God-head do communicate with the Manhood in regard of the concurrence of them to execute that which it resolveth being alwayes conformable to the will and decree of the God-head This indeed is no more than the faith of the Catholick Church importeth nor infeâ—â—â—th the Ubiquity or Omni-presence of Christs flesh as an indowment communicated to reside in it by virtue of the Hypostatical Union as thenceforth the proper subject of it But the concurrence of both natures to the effecting of those works wherein the Mediators Office is seen whereupon depends that honour and worship which the Mâ—nhood challenges in the person of Christ as inâ—eparable from the God-head to which originally that honour is due And therefore I shall never go about to return any maner of answer to any of thoâ—e Scriptures which have been alleged for it but onely this that they inferre nothing to the purpose in hand For if it could be said that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union that is by the will of God effecting it the immensity of the God-head were so transfused into the Manhood as to make it present wheresoever this Sacrament is celebrated and so in the Elements of it then were this an answer to the difficulty in hand But such a one as would ingage him that affirms it in the Heresie of Eutyches But saying no more than this That the will of the man Christ concurres with his Divine Power to do all that his promises to his Church imports And that the effect of this Sacrament importing the presence of his flesh and bloud it is necessary that the will of the man Christ by the Divine Power concurring to the works of it should make the flesh and bloud of Christ present wheresoever his Ordinance requires they cannot say that Christs flesh is present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by virtue of the Hypostatical Union upon those grounds But that by virtue of the Hypostatical Union the will and promise of Christ is executed by the power of the God-head concurring with it and which it acteth with Which is to say that not immediately by the Hypostatical Union but by means of Christs promise which must come to effect by the power of the God-head which the humane will of Christ communicateth with And truly I conceive no man ever was so impertinent as not to suppose the Hypostatical Union when there was question how the promise of the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist should come to effect But that being supposed and not serving the turn alone it remains that wee judge it by the institution of the Eucharist and the promise which it contains that is to say by those Scriptures out of which the intent of them is to be had and not by the Hypostatical Union which being supposed the question remains neverthelesse And by the Hypostatical Union wee doubt not but our Lord Christ hath power to represent his body and bloud that is to make it present where hee please but that must be not meerly by virtue of the Hypostatical Union but by doing the same miracle which Transubstantiation imports though it be the Hypostatical Union that inableth our Lord Christ to do it For though there be a difference between the being of Christs flesh and bloud under the dimensions of the Elements the substance of them remaining being reduced by the power of God under those dimensions And the substance of them being abolished Yet I suppose all men of reason will say that the Hypostatical Union contributes no more to that than to this And therefore not doubting that the Sacramental presence of the body
declares himself further when hee saith IV. 34. Panis percipiâ—ns invocationem Dei jam non communis est The bread that hath admitted the invocation of God is no more common bread To wit that word of instituion in virtue whereof the Church calleth upon God to make the elements his body and bloud Some of them say it is done by Gods word as the world was made by it But the world was made by the word of Gods command And in these words This is my body this is my bloud command there is none In these Do this in remembrance of mee there is a command which includes a warrant or promise Though the effect of it depend upon the execution of the command by the Church whereas immediately upon Gods word the world was made And this is that word S. Augustine meant when hee said Accedat verbum ad elementum sit Sacramentum The word being applyed to the element the Sacrament is made But this application is the execution of Christs Ordinance not saying that hee said This is my body this is my bloud For hee saith the body and bloud of Christ is onely that quod ex fructibus terrae susceptum ac prece mysticá consecratum rite sumimus Which wee duly receive being taken out of the fruits of the earth and consecrated by the mystical prayer which I speak of De Trinit III. 4. To the same purpose Epist LIX A saying or two of S. Chrysostomes indeed I remember that name those words speaking of the consecration as by which the flesh and bloud of Christ became present in the Eucharist In II ad Tim. Hom. II. that as the words which our Saviour then spoke are the same which the Priest now uses so is the Sacrament the same and consecrated by Christ as that was And Hom. de Judâ— hee saith to inferre the same The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest but the elements are consecrated by the Power and Grace of God This is saith hee my body By this word the bread and wine are consecrated Not by the rehearsing of these words but by virtue of his command Do this And by virtue of that blessing or thanksgiving upon which our Lord affirms the elements which hee had consecrated to be his body and bloud For the meaning may well be referred to the institution of Christ and the execution thereof by the Church which S. Chrysostom supposing may well say that upon this affirmative of our Lord This is my body this is my bloud depends the Consecration of the Eucharist Not as that which effecteth it but as that which evidenceth and assureth it in as much as it was said by our Lord Christ upon supposition of that blessing or prayer which hee appointeth it to be consecrated with So the Author de Caenâ Domini in S. Cyprian that since our Lord said Do this in remembrance of mee This is my body this is my bloud the bread and the cup being consecrated by these words become profitable to the salvation of man True it is indeed in as much as the appointment of our Lord Christ is not completely executed by consecrating the Eucharist but by respectively delivering and receiving it you may truly say that by virtue of these words Take eat this is my body this is my bloud that which every man receives becomes the body and bloud to him that receives it For as I have said that it becomes the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in order to our feasting upon it so is that which I receive completely and finally the body and bloud of Christ to mee when I receive it But this sense supposing it already to be the body and bloud of Christ to all that communicate in it according to Christs ordinance cannot be to the purpose of them that would have it become such to all that receive it by virtue of these words by which it becomes so finally to him that finally receives it An Objection indeed there is but which lies against the other opinion as much as against this out of S. Gregory Epist VII 64. Indict II. Orationem verò Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus quia mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent Et valdè mihi inconveniens visum est ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Et ipsam traditionem quam Redempâ—or noster composuit super eâ—us corpus sanguinem taceremus But the Lords Prayer wee therefore say straight after the Prayer because the custome of the Apostles was to consecate the sacrifice of oblation with that alone And it seemed to mee very inconvenient that wee should say over the oblation the Prayer which a School Doctor had composed And silence the Tradition which our Redeemer composed over his body and bloud For if the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist by saying the Lords Prayer as S. Gregory here seems to affirm thâ—n can there be no Tradition of the Apostles whereby a certain Prayer is prescribed as that wherein the consecration of the Eucharist consisteth Therefore if it should appear that S. Gregory did indeed believe that the Apostles used the Lords Prayer in celebrating the Eucharist with an intent to consecrate the Sacrament by the same I confesse I should rather adhere to S. Basil affirming the Apostles to have delivered certain words that is the meaning of certain words to call upon God for the consecrating of the elements into the body and bloud with For in so doing I should not preferâ— S. Basil but the whole Church the practice whereof so general and so original as hath been declared could have no beginning but that which our common Christianity pretendeth from the Apostles before S. Gregory And truly that the Consecration should end with the Lords Prayer I do easily believe to come from the practice of the Apostles so ancient and so general I finde that custom which S. Gregory maintains Nor is it any more that S. Jerome hath said in his third book against the Pelagians though hee is sometimes alleged for that which S. Gregory saith Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater noster qui es in coelis So taught hee his Disciples that believers dare say every day at the sacrifice of his Body Our Father which art in heaven By â—nd by Paâ—em quotidianum sive super omnes substantias venturum Apostoli deprecantur ut digni sint assumptione Corporis Christi The Apostles pray for daily bread or above all substances to come that they may be worthy to receive the Body of Christ All this concerns the concluding of the Consecration with the Lords Prayer as it did alwaies conclude For â—â—r â—ight hee allegeth that as soon as a man is baptized coming to the Communion hee is to say Forgive us our Trespasses But before that form was made which
all Ecclesiastical Writers do with one mouth bear witnesse to the presence of the Body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist Neither will any one of them be found to asscribe it to any thing but the Consecration or that to any Faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it And upon this account when they speak of the Elements supposing the Consecration to have passed upon them they alwaies call them by the name not of their bodily substance but of the body and bloud of Christ which they are become Justine in the place afore quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wee take them not as common bread and drink but as our Saviour Jesus Christ being incarnate by the Word of God hath both flesh and bloud for our salvation so are wee taught that this food which thanks have been given for by the prayer of that Word which came from him by the change whereof are our bloud and flesh nourished is both the flesh and bloud of that incarnate Jesus Where by comparing the Eucharist with the flesh and bloud of Christ incarnate wherein divers of the Fathers have followed him hee justifies that reason of expounding This is my body this is my bloud which I have drawn from the communication of the properties of the several natures in our Lord Christ incarnate But chiefly you see the Elements are made the body and bloud of Christ by virtue of the Consecration as by the Incarnation humane flesh became the flesh and bloud of Christ So Irenâ—us IV. 34. Quemadmodum qui à terrâ— panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenà coelesti Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam â—am non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis â—â—bentia As the bread that comes from the earth receiving the invocation of God upon it is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the â—arâ—â—ly and the heavenly So also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of rising again For hee had argued afore that because our flesh is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ which if they were not in the Eucharist it could not be therefore they shall rise again By virtue therefore of the conâ—ecration they are there not by the faith of him thâ—t receives according to henaeus Tertul. de Resur cap. VIII Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatned with God Origen in diver loc Hom. V. is the â—â—rst that adviâ—es to say with the Cenâ—uâ—ion when thou receiveâ—â— the Eucharist Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof For then the Lord comes under thy roof saith Origen S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer having said that Christ is our bread makes that the daily bread which wee pray for to wit in the Eucharist And in his book de lapsis makes it to be invading and laying violent hands upon the body of Christ for them who had fallen away in persecution to presse upon the Communion without Penance going afore The Council of Nicâ—a in Gelasius Cyzicenus II. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us not basely consider the bread and the cup set before us but lifting up our mindes let us conceive by faith that there lies upon that holy Table the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world sacrificed without sacrificing by Priests And that wee receiving truly his precious body and bloud S. Hilary de Trin. VIII censuring the Arians who would have the Son to be one with the Father as wee are maintains that wee are not onely by obedience of will but naturally united to Christ because as hee truly took our nature so wee truly take the flesh of his body in the Sacrament Our Lord having said My flesh is truly meat and my bloud truly drink And Hee that cats my flesh and drink my bloud dwells in mee and I in him And much more to the same purpose which could signifie nothing did not our bodies feeding upon the Elements feed upon that which is truly the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament or mystically not by virtue of our feeding which follows but by virtue of the Consecration which goes before For this natural union of the body with that which feeds it serves S. Hilary for the argument of that unity which the Son hath with the Father by nature being the union of our flesh with the flesh of Christ by virtue of our flesh united to the Word incarnate S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag IV. V. argueth that Christ having said of the bread and of the cup This is my body this is my bloud who otherwhiles changed water into wine wee are not to doubt that wee receive his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine And therefore wee are not to look on them as plain bread and wine but as the body and bloud of Christ hee having declared it All this by Sanctification of the Holy Ghost according to the Prayer of the Church But I will go no further in rehâ—arsing the texts of the Fathers which are to be found in all books of Controversies concerning this for the examination of them requires a volume on purpose It shall be enough that they all acknowledg the Elements to be changed translated and turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud though as in a Sacrament that is mystically Yet therefore by virtue of the Consecration not of his faith that receives On the other side that this change is to be understood with that abatement which the nature and substance of the Elements requires supposing it to remain the same as it was I will first presume from those very Authors which I have quoted For would not Justine have us take that for bread which hee saith wee are not to take for common bread when hee saith further that our bodies are nourished by it which by the flesh of our Lord they are not Would not Irenaeus have us think the Bread to be the earthly thing as well as the Body the heavenly when hee saies the Eucharist consists of both Tertullian ad Vxorem II. 5. perswades his wife not to marry a Gentile when hee is dead because when hee perceives her to receive the Eucharist and knows it to be bread hee believes it not to be that which Christians call it Origen when hee tells upon Mat. XV. 11. that it was called the bread of our Lorâ— gives no man in his wits occasion to think that the Elements vanish When hee saith further that it is not the bread but that which was said upon it which profits him that worthily receives it hee would have us take it for what it was whatsoever it is become S. Cyprian saith
can be produced to depose for the Sacrifice of the Eucharist than the sense of those Scriptures of the New Testament already handled which are in a maner all that have any mention of it will inferr and allow There is much noise made with the Priesthood of Melchisedeck of whom wee reade Gen. XIV 19 24. And Melchisedeck King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for hee was the Priest of the most High God And hee blessed him saying Blessed be Abraham of the most High God which owneth heaven and earth In reference whereunto the Psalmist speaking of Christ Psal CX 4. The Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck And the Apostle taking for granted that hee is a figure of Christ in the mystical sense Ebr. VII 13. argueth the voiding of the Levitical Law from the purpose of setting up another Priesthood declared by the Psalm But no where in all that Chapter which is all spent about the Exposition of it so much as intimateth the Priesthood of Christ to consist in any thing but in offering up to God in heaven his own body and bloud sacrificed upon the Crosse to make expiation for the sins of his people and to obtain of God that grace and assistance that comfort and deliverance which their necessities from time to time may require Be it granted neverthelesse that seeing of necessity Melchisedeck is the figure of Christ those things which Melchisedeck is related to have done are also necessarily figures of things done by our Lord Christ For otherwise were not the mystical sense of the Old Testament a laughing stock to unbelievers if it should hold in nothing but that which the Spirit of God hath expounded in the New Testament by our Lord and his Apostles I have therefore to the best advantage translated the words of Moses For not and hee was the Priest of the living God That whoso will may argue thereupon that his bringing forth bread and wine was an act of his Priesthood Which if I would deny no man can constrain mee by virtue of these words to acknowledg But I cannot therefore allow that Translation which sayes Obtulit panem vinum that as Priest hee offered bread and wine in sacrifice to God The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so evidently signifying protulit not obtulit hee brought forth not that hee offered that hee brought forth bread and wine to refrâ—sh Abraham â—nd his people returning weary from the slaughter of the Kings not that hee offered them in sacrifice to God as his Priest the mention of his Priesthood râ—ther advancing the reason why hee blessed them than why hee fed them As both Moses in the words next afore and the Apostle also Ebr. VII 1. intimateth or declareth the intent why hee brought them forth Though if I should grâ—nt that custome which was common to all Idolaters to have been in forâ—e under the Law of nature because wee see it retained and inâ—cted by the Law of Moses not to taste of any thing till some part of it had been dedicated to God in the nature of first-fruits to the sanctifying of the whole till when it was not to be touched I say though I should grant this for a reâ—son why hee may be thought to have offered bread and wine to God not why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated protulit hee brought forth no man would have cause to thank mee for any advantage from thence For still the correspondence between Melchisedeck â—nd our Lord Christ would lye in this that our Lord by appointing this Sacrâ—ment brings forth bread and wine to strengthen the peoâ—lâ— of Abraham in their warfare against the powers of darknesse as in the dayes of his flâ—sh hee fed those that attended upon his doctrine least they should faint in their travail Now this will first inferr that it is bread and wine which our Lord feeds us with in the Eucharist And again that it hath the virtue of sustaining us by being made the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament by virtue of the consecration past upon it Which is all that which I say to a hair that by being made a Sacrament it becomes the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be feasted upon by Christians In like maner be it granted that the words of the Prophet Malachy I. 11. From the rising of the Sun to his going down my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure meat offering For my name shall be great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts is a Prophesie of the institution of this Sacrâ—ment because it is contained in those kindes of breâ—d and wine which served for meat and drink offerings in the Law of Moses But this being granted what shall wee do with the incense and the meat offering which the Prophet speaks of unlâ—sse wee say that they signifie that which corresponds to the meâ—t and drink offerings of the Law and their incense under the Gospel And will not thâ—t prove to be the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which God under the Gospel is served with by all Nations Though those prayers and prâ—â—es of God being by the institution of the Eucharist limited and determined to be such as the celebration thereof requires it is no inconvenience nay it will be necessâ—ry to grant that the sacrifice thereof is fore-told by these words not signifying neverthelesse the nature of it to require any thing more thâ—n is exprâ—ssed by the premises Be the same therefore said if you please of all the Sacrifices of the Old Law of all the Prophesies in which the service to be rendred to God in the New Testament is described by the offering of Sacrifices As for the words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria John IV. 23. The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth For the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Though I grant as afore that this is fulfilled by the celebration of the Eucharist when once wee suppose our Lord to have limited the worship of God under the Gospel to the form of it yet there can be no consideration of a sacrifice signified by these words which neither suppose nor expresse the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse the Eucharist no way bearing the nature of a sacrifice but as it is the same with it But for the same reason and by the same correspondence between the sacrifices of the Law and that of Christs Crosse it may be evident that it is not nor can be any disparagement to the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ upon the Crosse to the full and perfect satisfaction and propitiation for the sins of the world which it hath made that the Eucharist should be
Christ but that they are thereby made fit to be offered and therefore there must be some other act whereby they are offered in Sacrifice And this they finde in the Canon of the Masse For having rehersed the Institution whereby the parties agree that consecration is done it follows Vnde memores Domine nos servi tui sed plebs tua sancta ejusdem Christi filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelis gloriosae ascensionis Offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam Panem sanctum vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris Et accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus os munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrisicium Patriarchae nostrî Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus Sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam Whereupon wee also thy servants O Lord and holy people mindefull as well of the blessed passion and resurrection from the dead as the glorious ascension into heaven of the same thy Son Christ our Lord Offer to thy excellent Majesty of thy own free gifts a pure sacrifice a holy sacrifice a spotlesse sacrifice the holy Bread of everlasting life and Cup of eternal salvation Vpon which vouchsafe to look with a gracious and clear countenance and accept them as thou deignedst to accept the gifts of thy just childe Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that holy sacrifice that spotlesse oblation which thy High Priest Melchisedech offered thee Then follows that which I quoted afore Supplices te rogamus Domine jube haec perferri And this they think to be the offering of the Sacrifice which the consecration exhibiteth onely to be offered at the elevation by these words But the common opinion is offended at this for placing the Sacrifice in that act of the Church which sayes Wee offer to thee in which there is onely a general reason of sacrificing by offering without changing that which is offered And therefore as offering is nothing but dedicating and presenting to the worship of God so that if the substance of the thing be changed in offering it then is it Sacrificing Supposing the substance of the Elements to cease and the body and bloud of Christ to succeed in this doing this opinion places the nature of the Sacrifice For the change of the Elements saith mine Author acknowledgeth Gods power and the dependance uâ—on him of his creature And the body of Christ being under the dimensions of the bread his bloud of the wine Christ is present as sacrificed his flesh and bloud being divided Wherefore that change whereby the Sacrifice is produced sufficeth to the offering of it which is produced as sacrificed The power of God being sufficiently testified by the change though in sacrificing living creatures it is testified by destroying them for Gods service And this hee thinks our Lord signifies when hee saith This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which shall be poured out for you For to whom but to God seeing hee saith not that is given you But for you And immediately hereupon there is no doubt but it hath the nature of a Sacrifice The offering whereof must consist in that action which is done in the person of Christ as the Consecration they agree is done by using the words of Christ And thus though this Sacrifice by typical and representative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which the parting of his body and bloud signifieth yet is it neverthelesse a true Sacrifice as the Sacrifices which figured Christ to come cease not therefore to be true Sacrifices And from this nature of a Sacrifice hee deriveth the reason why the Table is an Altar the Church a Temple the Minister Sacerdos or one that offereth Sacrifice I have made choice of this Authoâ— because I meet not this difference of opinion among them reported any where else That which I shall say to him will show what wee are to think of others For having maintained that the elements are really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament And that in virtue of the Consecration not by the faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth Namely that the Elements so consecrate are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse in as much as the body and bloud of Christ crucified are contained in them not as in a bare sign which a man may take up at his pleasure but as in the means by which God hath promised his Spirit But not properly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse because that is a thing that consists in action and motion and succession and therefore once done can never be done again because it is a contradiction that that which is done should ever be undone It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is represented renewed revived and restored by it and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth Taking representing here not for barely signifying but for tendring and exhibiting thereby that which it signifieth On the other side I insist that if sacrificing signifie killing and destroying in the Sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse it is not enough to make the Eucharist properly a Sacrifice that the Elements are deputed to be worship of God by that change which Transubstantiation importeth and therefore much lesse not supposing any change in their bodily substance For this difference will abâ—te the property of a Sacrifice the truth of it remaining I grant that Gods Power is seen in this change according to the terms already settled For what Power but Gods can make good the promise of tendring the Body and Bloud of Christ as a visible mean to convey his Spirit And hee that goes about to make this change by consecrating the Eucharist must needs be understood to acknowledg this Power of Gods But this is not that acknowledgment which sacrificing importeth but that which every act of Religion implyeth Hee that Sacrificeth acknowledging that which hee sacrificeth with all that hee hath to God to testifie this acknowledgment abandoneth that which hee sacrificeth to be destroyed in testimony of it And therefore the Power of God is not testified in this change as the nature of a Sacrifice requires that it be testified For certainly hee intends not to abandon his interest in Christ that consecrates the Elements into his body and bloud And therefore the consideration of dedicating the Elements to the service of God in this Sacrament makes them properly oblations But the
wee have received from our Lord Christ and his Apostles But if from hence any man would inferr that seeing the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is to say the body and bloud of Christ crucified there present by virtue of the Consecration is a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice for the Congregation there present for their relations and for the Church therefore it is so whether they proceed to receive the Eucharist or not therefore it is so whether they proceed to offer up the Eucharist present by their prayers for the necessities of the Church or not therefore it is so whether they pray with the Church or noâ— the consequence will straight appear to fail because those reasons which make it such a Sacrifice make it so in order to the receiving or to the offering of it by the prayers of the Church in behalf of the Church It is well enough known what opinions and abuses in the use and concerning the virtue of Masses had vogue under the dark time of the School though noâ— authorized by the Catholick Church For in regard the Eucharist can pretend no virtue by the nature of the work impertinent to any spiritual effect but meerly by the institution of Christ the efficacy thereof ex opere operaâ—o according to the language of those dayes and by virtue of the very â—oâ—ke was so extended as to take effect without any good motion in them thâ—t celebrate it And the intent of the Priest whose act the consecration was tâ—ken to be was thought to extend it to whom and to what he pleased And â—â—â—â— so farre from requiring that any but the Priest should communicate that even at this day it is not thought necessary by the looser sort of that side that the people should understand what the Priest does or sayes much lâ—sse assâ—t him with their devotions the intent of the Priest which the Canon it selfe alwaies extends to all that are present serving to give it virtue On the other side how hath this been taken construed As if every Mass pretended to sacrifice Christ a new who by offering himselfe once hath perfited for ever those who are sanctified as saith the Apostle Heb. X. 14. And therefore as if every Mass did challenge the virtue of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross And it is true the properties and efâ—ect of things signified are in some certain sense truly attributed to the signs But he that inlarges his Language beyond that sense may give and he that understands not the limitations requisite may take offense when there is no need Otherwise the reasons of those limitations are evident enough to save any sober and charitable men either from inflanâ—ing or taking up offenses For common sense which tells all men that what is once done can never be done again obliges them to understand an abatement in the property of that Language which attributes the sacrificing of Christ to a Priest because once done upon the Crosse it can never be done agâ—in Neither can it be in reason supposed that he who inflames the improperty of his Language intends therefore to renounce the common faith concerning the redemption of man-kind by the sacrifice of the Cross But when all derive all virtue in the Mass from it to take such Language for equalling the Mass to it will require a great lust to maintain partiality in the Church And make but once the consecrating and offering of the Eucharist for the necessities of the whole Church by the prayers of those who celebrate it to be the act of the respective assembly by the ministry of him whom the Church deputes for the purpose it will easily appear what follows For the virtue thereof will still be ex opere operato in opposition to the Sacraments of the old Old Law The spirituall intent whereof not being discerned by all because not openly preached at that time the spirituall effect of them could not be attributed to the common work but to the particular intent of those that belonged to the Gospel under the Law which is a true ground of opposition between opus operatum and opus operantis The work meerly done and done by such a one Besides seeing the truth of Christs body and blood is eaten and drunk by living faith without the Sacrament He that believes that God instituted not the Sacrament to no purpose though he abhorre to think that the effect thereof can be had without any good motion must of necessity allow the devotion which a living faith is exercised with in assisting the celebration of it an effect by virtue of that work which without it it cannot challenge As for the effect of the Prayers which it is offered with it is not to be ascribed to the quality of the Priest and therefore in that regard also it may be ascribed to the work it selfe not to the quality of him that doth it But seeing the common obligation of all Christians extendeth their Prayers to all necessities of Christs Church it will not lye in the intent either of the Priest or of the whole assembly whose act more properly it is to make it more beneficial to particular Christians then it can be thought that God accepteth the charity and devotion of particular Christians more particularly for their particular relations As for the mater of private Masses and the assistance of the people with their devotion as well as presence of an unknown tongue in Gods service of the extending of the benefit thereof to the dead Thus much being said generally here I referre the rest to their own places In fine what other reason soever can be pretended by any that shall make it his interest to maintain not to excuse the abuses of the Church of Rome why the Eucharist should be counted such a Sacrifice if it be not contained in that which hath been said will easily be wiped off by that which hath been said Those Scriptures which wee ground our selves upon when wee make the Eucharist a Sacriâ—â—ce being the onely ground to determine though not the onely means to evidence for what reason and to what purpose it is to be counted such a Sacrifice For how much regard soever wee ought to have to the consent of the Church in this point as without doubt if in any then in this without doubt the agreement and correspondence visible to common sense betweâ—n the original practice and sense of the Church and that which hath been alleged out of the Scriptures will be evidence enough of the right reason or reasons for which the Eucharist is not or is to be esteemed a propitiatory Sacrifice There is no man can thrust his nose into the writings of the Fathers even of the first times but hee shall finde the Oblations of the faithfull that are once deputed to the celebration of the Eucharist called Sacrifices in that regard This consideration therefore is not owned by them that strive most to make the Eucharist properly a propitiatory Sacrifice
God Grant that there may be question whether it be a just occasion or not certainly supposing it come to a custom in the church presently to do that which is alwaies due to be done you suppose the question determined This is that which I stand upon the matter being such as it is supposing the custom of the church to have determined it it shal be so far from an act of Idolatry that it shal be the duty of a good Christian Therefore not supposing the Church to have determined it though for some occasions whereof more are possible then it is possible for me to imagine it may become offensive and not presently due yet can it never become an act of Idolatry so long as Christianity is that which it is and he that does it professes himselfe a Christian Here then you see I am utterly disobliged to dispute whether or no in the ancient Church Christians were exhorted and incouraged to and really did worship our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For having concluded my intent that it had not been Idolatry had it been done I might leave the consequence of it to debate But not to balk the freedom which hath caryed me to publish all this I doe believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient church which I maintaine from the beginning to have been the true church of Christ obliging all to conforme to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be don at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole Which if it were taken away that it might be done againe and ought not to be of it selfe alone any cause of distance For I doe acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of S. Ambrose de Spiritu Sancto III. 12. S. Austine in Psalme XCVIII and Epist CXX cap. XXVII S. Chrysostome Homil. XXIIII in 1. ad Corinth Theodoret Dial. II. S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. in S. Gorgoniam S. Jerom Epist ad Theophilum Epist Alexandriae Origen in diversa loca Evang. Hom. V. Where he teacheth to say at the receiving the sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roofe Which to say is to do that which I conclude Nor doe I need more to conclude it And what reason can I have not to conclude it Have I supposed the elements which are Gods creatures in which the Sacrament is celebrated to be abolished or any thing else concerning the flesh and bloud of Christ or the presence thereof in the Eucharist in giving a reason why the Church may doe it which the Church did not believe If I have I disclame it as soone as it may appeare to me for such Nay I doe expressely warne all opinions that they imagine not to themselves the Eucharist so meere and simple a signe of the thing fignified that the celebration thereof should not be a competent occasion for the executing of that worship which is alwaies due to our Lord Christ in carnate I confesse it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it selfe justifieth it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible kind nor the invisible Grace of Christs body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise In regard whereof the one going along with the other whatsoever be the distance of their nature both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the worke of God to which he is morally ingaged by the promise which the institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But I will not therefore warrant that they who maintain the worshipping of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe not understand the visible kind or as themselves thinke the visible propertyes thereof by that name Which if they shall declare themselves to understand then is the question far otherwise and to be resolved upon the same termes as the question concerning the worshiping of images shall by and by be resolved That though the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be the occasion to determine the circumstance of the worshipping of Christ yet is it selfe no way capable of any worship that may be counted religious because religion injoyneth it Cardinall Bellarmine de Euch. IV. 29. would have it said that the signe is worshipped materially but the body and blood of Christ formally in the Eucharist Which are termes that signifie nothing For it is impossible to distinguish in God the thing that is worshiped from the reason for which it is worshipped so that the thing may be understood without understanding it to be the reason why it is worshipped Therefore the signe in the Eucharist seemes onely to determine why that worship which is alwaies every where due is here now ten dred Indeed when the Councile of Trent pronounceth him anathema that believes not the elements to be abolished and cease to be in it being consecrated I cannot deny that their obliging all to believe that which no man can have that cause to believe for which he belives the Christian faith hath beene a very valuable reason though not the onely reason to move the Church of England to supersede that ceremony hardly in the minds of Christians so bred to it to be parted from it contenting it selfe to injoine the receiving of it kneeling which he that refuseth to do seems not to acknowledge the being of a sacrament requiring the tender of the thing signified by it and with it And I conceive further that the carying of the Sacrament in procession and upon such occasions as signifies no order towards the receiving of it nor any such intent upon supposition whereof the Sacrament is a Sacrament hath added much waight to that reason For if the use of the sacrament were the reason to make the occasion fit the abuse thereof must needs render it unfit But for that which remaines whether those who thinke the body and blood of Christ present instead of the elements which are there no more be Idolators for worshipping the elements which remain present where they think they are not is a question no way to be resolved till it be granted that supposing them present it is no Idolatry For if the fals opinion of their absence make men idolaters then are they not idolaters which have it not Consider then that were the body and blood of Christ so present as to be in stead of the substance of bread and wine the consideration in which any Christian holding what the church of Rome teaches should worship it would be no other then that for which it should be worshipped by
held to be God namely the image â—t is to be granted that whosoever it was that writ the book against Imageâ— under the name of Charles the great did understand the council to injoine the worship of God to be giveâ— the image of our Lord For of any othâ—r image of God there was no question in that Councile But it is not to be denied that it was a meere mistake and that the Councile acknowledging that submission of the heart which the excellence of God onely challenges proper to the Holy Tâ—inity maintaines a signification of that esteeme to be paid to the Image of our Lord. For the words of the Councile I refer you to Estius in III. Sentent distinct IX ss II. and III. where you shall see besides the honour due to God alone and the honour due to his Saints the Council injoines a kind of honour for the images of either respectively signifying the esteeme we have for God and of his Saints I know there is much noise of Latria to signifie the honour due to God alone and Dulia that which belongs to his Saintâ— And I am satisfied that there is no ground for the difference either in the originall reason or use of the words But as nothing hinders them to be taken as words of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity so if dulia be understood as S. Austine understandes it câ—ntra Faustum XX. 21. for that love and communion which we imbrace the saints that are alâ—ve with there is no fear of Idolatry in honouring the Saints departed with dulia But the honour we give the images is not the honour we give the principal but onely by the equivocating of terms according to the decree of the Council Therefore that honour of images which the decree maintaineth is no Idolatry But he that saies it is no idolatry which they injoine does not therefore justifie or commend them for injoyningit It were a pittifull commendation for the Church that it is not Idolatry which the decree thereof injoynes It is therefore no evidence that the decree obliges because it injoines no idolatry You saw how neere the honour of Saints in the prayers which come from this decree came to Idolatry And though those that counted Images idoles in the East stood for the honour of the Saints yet it is certaine and visible that the authors of the decree did intend to advance the honour of the Saints thereby and effect it What is that effect That the Saints are prayed to by Christians in such forme and with such termes as doe not distinguish whether they hold them Gods or creatures Grant they agree with their profession and you must construe them to the due difference suppose they understand not the common profession or the consequence of it who warants them no Idolaters It is alleged out of S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. XVIII that the honour of the Image passeth to the principall He speaketh of the honour of the Sonne that it is the honour of the Father whose image the Son is And so it is indeed The honour of the Father and of the Son is both one and the same To say that the image of our Lord is to be honoured as he is is perfect idolatry But he who believes the Son to be of the fathers substance and his picture to be his picture cannot say so if he be in his wits Either he commits Idolatry or he contradicts himselfe That may and must be said It is easy to see how many Divines of the Church of Rome make images honourable with the honour of their principall The images of our Lord by consequence with latria the honour proper to God When this is said it must be cured by distinguishing though not properly yet improperly though not by it self yet accidentally reducible to that honour which the principall is worshipped with that is the image of Christ as God Yet you are not to use these termes to the people least they prove Idolaters or have cause to think their teachers such So Cardinall Bellarmine de Imaginibus II. 23 24 25. There is a cure for Idolatry in the distinction supposing him to contradict himself For what greater contradiction then that the honour that may be reduced to the honour of God should be the honour of God seeing that it is not the honour of God which is not proper to God as consisting in the esteeme of him above all things So for the adoration of the Crosse the signe of the Crosse which I spoke of before is onely a ceremony which being from the beginning frequented by Christians upon all occasions the Church had reason to make use of in the solemnizing of the greatest actions of Gods publike service particularly those whereby the authority of the Church is convayed and exercised The Crosse whereon our Lord Christ was crucified is a relique though not parte of his body yet for coming so nere to his body deserving to be honoured Other Crosses are the images of that The Schoole Doctors question what honour it is which the true Crosse of Christ demands And the head of them Thomas Aquinaâ— answers the honour proper to God by the name of latria Either as representing the figure of Christ crucified or as washed with his blood If the Crosse of Christ must be worshipped with the honour proper to God because washed with our Saviours bloud then must it have received divine vertue from his bloud Is not this construction reasonable And what made the Idoles of the Hethen idoles but an opinion of divine vertue residing in them by being set up for the exercise of their religion that supposed many Gods I grant the construction is necessary though not reasonable For I find it construed otherwise To make a difference between the true Crosse of Christ which is honoured for a relique and other Crosses which are honoured as the pictures of it and signes putting us in mind of Christ on the Crosse So the words of Thomas Aquinas may be reasonably taken to teach Idolatry If they be not necessarily so to be taken yet as he teacheth to honour it with Latria either he teacheth Idolatry or contradicteth himself for the same reason as in Images What the effect of these excessive positions hath been is easie to see They clothe their images they paint them they guild them the finest they may They think themselves holy for touching kissing and caressing them as children do their babies They touch their bodies with them and think themselves hallowed by the meanes They put a cotton on the end of a stick and touch first the images then the eyes the lips and the noses of them that come and that in their surplisses Thus are they induced to pray directly to the Saints for their carnall concupiscences as did the heathen idolaters to vow to give themselves to them to put themselves under their protection and defence to set them up in their
Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse For is it not all the reaâ—on in the world that if the Eucharist be the Sacrifice of Christ crucified the consecrating of the Eucharist that is the causing of the Elements to become this Sacrifice should be and be accounted and called the sacrificing of Christ And if the participation of the Eucharist be as I have showed it to be the renewing of the Covenant of Grace by virtue whereof the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse becomes propitiatory and impetratory in behalf of Christians shall not the Sacrifice of the Eucharist whereof they participate be counted propitiatory and impetratory by virtue of the consecration indeed though in order to the participation of it For if the profession of Christianity be the condition that renders God propitious to us and obtains for us the benefits of Christs passion And that the receiving of the Eucharist is the renewing of that profession by virtue whereof the Faults whereby wee have failed of that profession for that which is past are blotted out and wee for the future are qualified for the blessings which Christs passion tendereth Then is the Eucharist a Sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory by virtue of the Consecration though in order to the participation of it Which whether those that are so much for the Sacrifice in the Church of Rome rest conâ—ent with it or not seemeth to mee so natively proper to the simplicity and holinesse of Christianity that nothing can be held forth more pertinent to advance the zeal of frequenting together with the devotion and reverence of communicating in this most precious of Gods Ordinances to Christians For what can more oblige a Christian to the frequent and worthy communion of this Sacrament then to consider that by receiving it hee is re-estated in his right to those promises which the Gospel â—endreth provided that hee on his part re-establish in his own heart that resolution to Christianity by professing which hee was at the first estated in Gods Kingdom Hereupon arises a fourth reason why this Sacrament is a Sacrifice to wit of the bodies and souls of them who having consecrated their goods to God for the celebration of it do by receiving it professe to renew that consecration of themselves to the service of God according to the Law of Christ which their Baptism originally pretendeth For in as much as wee revive and renew the first profession of our Christianity in receiving the Eucharist wee do also by the same means offer up our bodies for a living Sacrifice holy and well pleasing to God which is our reasonable service of God as S. Paul commandeth Rom. XII 1. And by that which hath been said it is easie to resolve that which is further questioned in the School whether the breaking the pouring forth the taking and the consuming of the Elements by eating and drinking belong to the nature of the Sacrifice or not For I have already allowed the consecrating of the Elements apart to be a necessary ingredient of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist as necessary to represent the Sacrifice of the Crosse And if men did consider that the Eucharist had never been instituted but to be participated they would finde it impeâ—tinent to allege any reason why it should be a Sacrifice that â—endeth not to the participation of it There is then in the Masse a peculiar ceremony of breaking the Host into the Chalice not tending to the distributing of it but all the portions to be taken by the Priest Of this I speak not Otherwise breaking pouring forth distributing eating drinking are all parts of the Sacrifice as the whole action is that Sacrifice by which the Covenant of Gace is renewed restored and established against the interruption of our failleurs And now I confesse that all they who do not believe the promises of the Gospel to depend upon any condition to be performed by our free will qualifying us with a right title to them may very well say by consequence that it is a disparagement to the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to make the Eucharist a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice in behalf of the Church in that sense and to that effect as I have said But supposing that condition I challenge all the world to say wherein any such disparagement lies For let any man think either mee or the Doctors of the Church of Rome so mad as to ascribe that propitiation which is once made for the whole world by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the representation and commemoration of it by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist But in regard the Gospel requires a certain condition at thine hands which being not performed to thee Christ is neither born nor crucified nor â—â—en again as S. Prosper saith And that the communion of the Eucharist professeth the performance thereof and that truely if it be worthy so that the Propitiation wrought by Crosse thereby becomes effectually thine in that regard the Eucharist becomes to thee a propitiatory Sacrifice by virtue of the Consecration indeed which makes the Elements to become the body and bloud of Christ mystically as in a Sacrament but yet in order to the participation of iâ— And is not this the applying of the propitiation wrought by the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse when as by the Sacrament of the Eucharist a man becomes intitled to the benefit of it Nor let any man tell mee that this application is wrought by living faith as if that were evidence enough that not by the Sacrament of the Eucharist For if notwithstanding this faith the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to estate us in this right because there is no living faith without being baptized into Gods Church By the same reason supposing the frequentation of the Eucharist commanded for the dayly redressing and maintenance of the same title of necessity it follows that the application of that propitiation is to be ascribed to the Eucharist which is not applicable without it Again If S. Paul injoyn the Church to offer up their Prayers Supplications and Intercessions for all estates in the world at the celebration of the Eucharist as recommending them in the name of Christ there mystically present in the commemoration of his death upon the Crosse can it seem strange that the Prayers which are so powerfully presented by alleging an Intercession of such esteem should have a special virtue and take a special effect in making God propitious to his Church and all estates of the same and obtaining for them those benefits which Christs passion tenders And if so is not the Sacrament of the Eucharist a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice by virtue of the Consecration though in order to the Oblation and presentation of it by the prayers of the Church for the obtaining of their necessities What is there in all this that the tongue of slander can asperse with the imputation of Popery unlesse they will have Popery to be that Christianity which