¦^•l]UM mm '•..•'4111 li RSctI S*i!' YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE WORKS OF THE REV. DANIEL WATERLAND, D.D. FORMERLY MASTER OF MAGDALENE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, CANON OF WINDSOR, AND ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX; NOW FIRST COLLECTED AND ARRANGED, TO WHICH IS PREFIXED, A REVIEW OF THB AUTHOR'S LIFE AND WRITINGS, BY WILLIAM VAN MILDERT, D, D. LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF, VOL, VII, OXFORD, AT THE CLARENDON PRESS. MDCCCXXIII, Mhc.9 W23B v.7 CONTENTS SEVENTH VOLUME. An Introduction, first briefly showing the Design of the Treatise, and next premising some Considerations : viz. I. That Scripture is our only Rule * - - 3 II. That for ihe right understanding of Scripture, it is of great moment io know what ihe most eminent Writers before us have taught, and what they have agreed in - ... 4 I. More particularly. Ancients first - - 6 2. And then Moderns . . _ . »^ III. That of tlie two Extremes, Profaneness and Superstition, the latter is ihe safest for any one to lean to - - - - - - -10 IV. That it is injuring and degrading the Sacra ments to call them Positive Duties, rather than Religious Rites ------ 14 I. The Eucharist not merely a Duty, but a sa cred Rite wherein God bears a Part ibid. a. That Part of it which is Duty, is not a single Duty, hut more ' - - - -16 CHAP. I. Explaining the most noted or most considerable Names of the Holy Communion - - - ao I. Breaking of Bread . - . - ibid. VOL. VII. a li - CONTENTS. a. Communion ------ 22 3. Lord's Supper ------ ^3 4. Oblation - 26 5. Sacrament - - - - - "3^ 6. Eucharist ----- " 35 7. Sacrifice ------- 3^ 8. Memorial 3^ 9. Passover ------- 41 10. Maw -------43 CHAP. II. Considering the Institution of the Holy Commu nion, as recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul ------ 44 It came in ihe Place of the Jewish Passover - 48 I . Resembling it in several Circumstances - 49 a. Deriving its Forms and Phrases from ii - 50 CHAP. III. Concerning the Commemoration of Christ, in the holy Communion ------ 54 I. Remembering him as God-Man - - - 59 a. Commemorating him as such - - - 62 3. Celebrating his Memorial - - - - 67 CHAP. IV. Concerning the Commemoration of the Death oi Christ -- -----71 I. As an expiatory Sacrfice - - - - 73 a. Which is applied in the Eucharist - - 78 CHAP. V. Of the Consecration of the Elements - - - 84 I. In what sense they are hlessed or consecrated ibid. CONTENTS. iii a. By whom they are blessed - - - - 88 3.. What the Blessing amounts to - - - 90 CHAP. VI. Of Spiritual Feeding according to John vi. - - loi I. The Sense of the Ancients on thai Head no — 138 a. The Sentiments of Moderns - - 138 — 145 CHAP. VII. Of Sacramental, Symbolical Feeding in the Eu charist -------- 145 I. The Sentiments of the Ancients on thai Head 157 — 181 a. The Sentiments of Moderns - - i8a — 196 CHAP. VIII. I Cor. X. 16. explained, and vindicated from miscon struction -------- igQ Objections answered - - ai6 — a35 CHAP. IX. Remission oi Sins conferred in the Eucharist - 335 Provedfrom Scripture ----- a43 From Antiquity ------ a46 Judgment of the Reformers, and of the Church of England ------- 351 Objections removed - - - - a55 — 3^^ CHAP. X, Sanctifying Grace conferred in the Eucharist - a66 Provedfrom 1 Cor. x. 16, . _ - - 368 Provedfrom John vi. . - - - ibid. Provedfrom Analogy - . - - . 369 a a iv CONTENTS. Provedfrom i Cor. xii. 13. - - - 369 The Judgment ofthe Ancients hereupon 377 — ^303 The Sentiments of Moderns on the same - - 303 CHAP. XI. The Eucharist considered as a Fetiera^ Rite - -3" Argued from the Nature of Qommunion - - 3^9 From ihe Custom of drinking Blood in Covenants ibid. From ihe Words of Institution - - - ibid. From the Analogy between that and Sacrifices, or Sacrificial Feasts ------ 3a? Objections to Dr. Cudworth's Notion considered and confuted ----- 326—341 CHAP. XII. The Eucharist considered in a Sacrficial View - 341 Some Account of Dr. Grabe's Sentiments - - 34a The Eucharist a spiritual Sacrifice, how - - 348 The Judgment .of the Ancients on that Head 350—389 The Judgment of Moderns - - - . 389 CHAP. XIH. Of the Preparation proper for the Holy Com- mtmion -_-_-__- 3^1 I. Baptism _--.--. 393 a. Competent Knowledge - - - - ibid. 3, Sound Faith -_-..- 394 4. True Repentance ----- 3^^ Consisting chiefly in Restitution ------ ^gg Readiness to forgive - - - - 404 Peaceableness - - _ - - 408 Charity to the Poor - - . jbid. CONTENTS. v CHAP. XIV. Of the Obligation to frequent Communion - -411 How stated in the several Ages of the Church First Century ------ 414 Second ------- 41^5 Third 417 Fourth ------- 418 Fifth 430 Sixth ------- 433 Seventh -...--- 435 Eighth ------ ibid. ADVERTISEMENT. JIN page 136, I have followed the common opinion of learned Protestants, (Mr. Bingham, Dr. Wall, &c.) in re lation to Infant Communion, as prevailing in the fifth cen tury, under a notion of its strict necessity, built upon John vi. 53. Though I had some scruple about it; as may appear by my manner of expressing myself, and by the reference to Thorndike in notei^. Having since looked somewhat deeper into that ques tion, I think it now just to my readers to advertise them, that I apprehend that common opinion to be a mistake; and that though the practice of giving Communion to children at ten or at seven years of age (or somewhat sooner) was ancient, and perhaps general, yet the practice of communicating mere infants, under a notion of its necessity, and as built upon John vi. came not in before the eighth or ninth century, never was general ; or how ever lasted not long in the West, where it first began. My reasons for this persuasion are too long to give here : but I thought this short hint might be proper, to prevent misconceptions as to that Article. A REVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST, AS LAID DOWN IN SCRIPTURE AND ANTIQUITY. Ut autem literam sequi, et signa pro rebus quae iis significantur accipere, servilis infirmitatis est ; ita inutiliter signa interpretari, male vagantis erroris est. Augustin, de Doctrin, Christian, lib, iii. cap, 9, p, 49, VOL. Vll. THE INTRODUCTION. iVlY design in this work is to treat of the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, according to the light which Scrip ture arid right reason afford, making use of such helps and means for the interpreting Scripture, as God's good providence, in former or later ages, has furnished us with. The subject is of very great weight In itself, and of near concern to every Christian ; and " therefore ought to be " studied with a care proportioned to the importance of " it : that so we may govern both ourselves and our *' people aright, in a matter of such consequence ; avoid- " ing with great caution the extremes on both hands, " both of excessive superstition on one hand, and of pro- "fane neglect on the other. We are now visibly under " the extreme of neglect ; and therefore we oUght to study " by all means possible to inspire our people with a just " respect for this holy institution, and to animate them to " desire earnestly to partake often of it ; and in order to " that, to prepare themselves seriously, to set about it " with reverence and devotion, and with those holy pur- " poses, and solemn vows, that ought to accompany it/'." But before I enter upon the main subject, it may not be improper here to throw in some previous considera tions, in order to prepare my readers for what they will find in this treatise, that they may the more easily form a true and sound judgment of the subject-matter of it. I. The first consideration is, that Scripture alone is our complete rule of faiih and manners, " containing all things " necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read ¦• Bp. Burnet ou Article XXXI. p. 4B4. B a 4 THE INTRODUCTION. " therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be re- " quired of any man, that It should be believed as an " article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to " salvation b." Whatever Scripture contains, either in express words rightly understood, or by consequence justly deduced, is Scripture doctrine, and ought to be religiously believed and obeyed; allowing only for the different degrees of importance belonging to different Scripture truths, or Scrip ture precepts. II. For the right understanding of Scripture, it is of great moment to know what the most eminent writers, or teachers, ancient and modern, have thought before us on the same subject ; and more especially to observe what they unanimously agreed in. For, as they had the same Scriptures before them, and the same common reason to direct them, and used as much ca7-e and diligence, and were blessed with as great integrity as any of us now can justly pretend to, their judgment is not to be slighted, nor their instructions to be despised. The responsa pru- dentum, the reports, precedents, and adjudged, cases are allowed to be of considerable weight for determining points of law : and why should they not be of like weight. Ordinarily, for the determining points of theology ? Human law there, and Divine law here, is properly the authentic rule of action : but the common reason of mankind is pro perly the rule of interpretation in both cases : and that common reason shines out the brightest, and appears in greatest perfection, in the united verdict of the wisest and most excellent men. It is much easier for one, or for some few fallible interpreters to be deceived, than for many, other circumstances supposed equal. Nothing less than very clear Scripture, or as clear reason, ought to weigh any thing against the concurring sentiments of the Christian world: and even in such a case^ some fair ac count ought to be given, how it came to pass, that such '' Bp. Burnet ou Article \'J. THE INTRODUCTION. 5 clear Scripture or clear reason had hitherto escaped the notice, or missed of the acceptance of the wisest and best of men. A very judicious writer of our own has observed, that " variety of judgments and opinions argueth obscurity in " those things whereabout they differ ; but that which " all parts receive for truth, that which, every one having " sifted, is by no one denied or doubted of, must needs " be matter of infallible certainty «=." This he applies to the general doctrine of the Holy Communion, as being " instrument ally a cause of the real participation of Christ, '^ and of life in his body and blood <)." And it is of tills that he says, " that all sides at length, for ought he could "see, 'were come to a general agreement: all approve " and acknowledge to be most true, as having nothing in " it but that which the words of Christ are on all sides " confessed to enforce ; nothing but that which the Church "of God hath always thought necessary; nothing but " that which alone is sufficient for every Christian man " to believe concerning the use and force oi this Sacra- " ment : finally, nothing but that wherewith the writings " of all aritiquity are consonant, and all Christian confes-' ^'. sions agreeable^." Thus wrote that excellent person in the year 1597. The Zuinglians by that time had cor rected, or more clearly explained their principles : and Socinus was scarce yet known on this side the water, or had made no figure with respect to this subject, or none worth the mentioning, in opposition to a prescription of 1500 years before him, and to the united voice of all the churches in his time. It is a maxim of prudence, as in all other matters, so also in the interpreting Scripture, to co7isuli with ihe wise, and to take to our assistance the most eminent lights we can any where find, either among ancients or moderns. To be a little more particular, I may here observe something distinctly of each. « Hooker, h. v. p. ,S10. •• Comp.irc p.30C. ' Page 306. B3 6 THE INTRODUCTION. I. As to ancients, some lived in the very infancy of the Church, had personally known our blessed Lord m the flesh, or conversed with the Apostles, and afterwards governed their respective churches, as venerable bishops, many years, often administering the Holy Communion, and at length dying martyrs. Is it at all likely, that such men as they were should not understand the true Scrip' ture doctrine concerning the Sacraments, or that they should affect to delude the people committed to their charge, with superstitious conceits, or fond expectations ? A man must be of a very odd turn of mind, who can deliberately entertain so unworthy a thought of the apo stolical Fathers, or can presume to imagine that he sees deeper into the use or force of those sacred institutions than those holy men did. It is reasonable to conceive, that the New Testament was penned with a very par* ticular view to the capacities of the first readers or hearers ; not only because it was natural to adapt the style to the then current language and customs, but also because much depended upon making the Gospel plain and intelligible to the first converts, above all that should come after. If the earliest iPhristians, after the Apostles, could not readily Understand the religion then taught, how should It be handed down with advantage to others of later times? But if the Scripture doctrine should be supposed comparatively obscure to those that come cfier, yet so long as the earlier Christians found it perfectly clear, and left behind them useful memoirs whereby we may learn how they understood it, there will, be sufficient security against any dangerous mistakes in succeeding ages, by looking back to the sense of the most early Itt- terpreters. Great regard therefore ought to be paid to the known sense and judgment of the apostolical Fathers^. The later Fathers, of the second, third, and fourth cen turies, have their weight also, in proportion to their known •¦ Of this see more in Aljp. Wake's Apostolical Fathers, Introd. chap. x. THE INTRODUCTION. f integrity, and abilities, and fame in all the churches ; and more especially in proportion to their eqirly standing, their nearness to the fountain head e. 2. As to moderns of best note, they agree with the an cients in the main things, and may be usefully consulted on the present subject. Some of them have been emi nently skilled in Jewish antiijuiiies, ajid others in ecclesi astical. Some have excelled in criticisrn and the learned languages : others in clearness of conception, and accuracy of judgment; all are useful In their several jvays, and may suggest many thitigs which upon due inquiry will be found to be right, and which no single writer, left to him self, and without consulting them, wouljd ever have thought on. A man that affects to think by hirnself vvill often fancy he sees that in Scripture which is not there, and will overlook what there really is : he will run wide in his conjectures, criticize in a wrong place, and fall short in most things, for want of cornpass, at)d larger views, or for want of a due consideration of consequences here or there. Truth is of wide extent, and is all over uniform and consistent : and it may require rnany eyes to look out, and search round, that every position advanced may agree with all truths, natural and revealed, and that no hetero geneous mixture be admitted to deform and deface the whole system. How often does it happen, that a man pleases himself with a thought, which strikes him at first view, and which perhaps he looks upon as demonstration : and yet farther inquiries into other men's labours may at length convince him that it is mere delusion, justly ex ploded by the more knowing and judicious. There are numberless instances of that kind to be met with among men of letters : which shoidd make every writer cautious how he presumes too far upon his own unassisted abili ties, and how be opposes his single ]\xdgm6,nt to the U7iited verdict of wise, great, and good men. It requires cora- B This argument is considered at large in my Importance of tlie Doctrine of the Trinity asserted, yol, v, ch, vii. p, 253^-333, B 4 8 THE INTRODUCTION. monly much pains and care to trace a nptlon quite through ; to run it up to Its first principles^ and again to traverse it to its remotest consequences, and to clear it of all just objections, in order to be at length rationally sa tisfied, that it is sound and good, and consistent throughout: Different churches, or parties, have their different inter pretations of the same texts, and their different superstruc tures built upon the same principles. They have respect ively their several pleas, pretences, arguments, solutions, for the maintaining a debate either in the offensive or de fensive way. A subject thus comes to be narrowly scanned, and minutely viewed on every side; and so at length a consistent chain of truth may be wrought out, by a careful hand, from what the finest wits or ablest heads among the several contending parties have happily supplied. But perhaps it may here be asked ; Is then every man obliged to look deep into religious controversies ? Are not the Scriptures alone sufficient for any plain and sincere Christian to condtict himself by, whether as to faith or manners ? I answer : i. Common Christians must be content to understand Scripture as they may, under the help of such guides as Providence has placed over them, and in the conscientious use of sueh means as are proper to their circumstances : which Is all that ordinarily can be required of them. a. Those who undertake to direct and guide them are more particularly obliged to search into religious controversies, and to "prove all things" (as far as lies in their power) In order to lead others in the right way. 3. Those guides ought, in their inquiries or in structions, to pay a proper regard and deference toother guides of eminent note, ancient and modern, and not lightly to contradict them> or vary from them ; remembering al^ ways, that themselves are fallible, and that new nOtioils (in religion especially) are not comparable, generally speaking, to the old, proved, and tried. 4. If any man interpreting Scripture in a new sense, pretends that his doctrine at least is old, being Scripture doctrine • he THE INTRODUCTION. 9 should be told, that his interpretation however is new, and very suspicious, because new, and so not likely to be Scripture doctrine. The novelty oi it is itself a strong presumption against it, and such as nothing can over balance but very clear and plain reasons on that side. The judgment of ten thousand interpreters will always be of considerable weight against the judgment oi some few, who are but interpreters at best, and as fallible as any other: and It must argue great conceitedness and self- sufficiency, for a man to expect to be heard, or attended to, as a scripiurist, or a texluary, in opposition to the Christian 7V07-ld ; unless' he first fairly considers and con futes what the ablest writers have pleaded for the received construction, and next as fairly proves and enforces his own. That there is very great weight and force in the united voice of the Christian world, is a point not to be denied by any : and indeed those that affect to set up new notions are themselves aware of it, and tacitly, at least, confess the same thing. For they value such authorities as they are any way able to procure, or even to torture so far as to make them speak on their side : and they pride themselves highly in the number of their disciples, (as often as they chance to succeed,) thinking it a great ad vantage to their cause. If but the multitude only, or the vulgar herd, approve and espouse the same thing with them. Socinus, for instance, while he slighted, or pre tended to slight, the concurring judgment of all churches, ancient and modern, yet felt a very sensible pleasure in the applauses of some few individuals, whom he had been able to deceive : and he looked upon their approbation as a corfii-ming circumstance that his sentiments were true and right. This kind of natural logic appears to be com mon to our whole species : and there are few, I believe, so sanguine, (unless disordered,) as to confide entirely in their own judgment, or not to suspect their own best reasonings, however plausible they may at first appear. If they have nobody else to concur with them and support them. Therefore again I conclude as before, that It is of 10 THE INTRODUCTION. great moment to know and consider what otliers have thought before us, and what the common reason of man kind approves : and the more numerous or the more con siderable the persons were or are who stand against us in any article, the less reason, generally, have we to be con fident of our own p7-ivaie persuasions. I shall only add, that In subjects which have already passed through many hands, and which have been tho roughly sifted and considered, by the ablest and best heads, in a course of 1700 years, there appears to be a great deal more room for judgment than for invention; since little new can now be thought on that is worth no tice : and it is much wiser and safer to take the most valuable observations of men most eminent in their several ways, than to advance poor things of our own, which perhaps are scarce worth the mentioning In comparison. III. I must farther premise, in relation to our present subject, that as there may be two extremes, viz. oi super stition on one hand, and of profaneness on the other. It appears to be much safer and better to lean towards the former extreme, than to incline to the latter. Where there is room for doubt, it is prudent to err rather on that side which ascribes too much to the .Sacrament, than on that which ascribes too little, i. Because it Is erring on the side of the precepts: for Scripture gives us express cautions ^ against paying too little regard to this holy Sacrament, but never cautions us at all, or however not iexpressly, against the contrary extreme, a. Besides, since we attempt not, and desire not to carry the respect due to the Sacrament at all higher than the ancient churches^ and the primitive saints and martyrs have Carried the same before, it will be erring on the humble, modest, pious side* if we should happen to run into an extreme, after such bright examples. And this again is much safer (for who would not wish that his lot may be amongst the saints?) than it can be to deviate into the contrary extreme of " 1 Cor, xi, 27, 29. THE INTRODUCTION. n irreverence, and to come so much the nearer to the faith less and unbelieving, who have their portion In this life. It may be pleaded perhaps, that a person does no harm, or risks no danger, by erring on the lessening side, be cause God will certainly perform what he has really pro mised of the Sacraments to every worthy receiver, whether believed or no. But then the question is, how a man can be thought a worthy receiver, who, without sufficient grounds, disbelieves the promises, much more if he con fidently rejects them, and teaches others also to do so. Schlictingius pleads in this case, that the effect of the Sa crament will he the same to every one that receives, though he disbelieves the doctrine of its being a mean of grace'^, or the like : as if he thought that the outward act oi receiving were all, and that the inward qualification of faiih were of no moment. But that was his great mis take. They who disbelieve and openly deny the inward graces oi the Sacrament are unworthy receivers for that very reason, and ordinarily forfeit all right and title to the promised graces. It may be further pleaded, on the same side, that the notion of the Sacraments, as means of grace, (supposing it erroneous,) is apt to lead men to rely upon the Sacraments more than upon their own serious endeavours tor the lead ing a good life, or to rest In the Sacraments as sufficient without keeping God's commandments. But this is a suggestion built upon no certain grounds. For suppose ' Articulus de coma Domini et baptismo (si vera est vestra sententia, qua coenam Domini et baptismum media esse statuitis per quae Deus spiritiiales effectus in animis hominum operetur) exprimit quidem causam salutis in- strnmentalem : sed tamen ignoratus aut repudiatus salutem non adimit, dummodo quispiam ccena Domini et baptismo utatur ; adhibitis enim istis divinitus ordinatis instrumentis effectum sequi necesse est, Scldicting. adv. Balthas. Meisn. p, 6. Conf, Socin. de Coena, tom. i. p. 761. To which Abr. Calovius well answers : — ^Negare nos, sacramenta talia media esse quse illico effectus sequatur, etiamsi^rff* non accedat : fides autem locum habere nequit in iis qui negant et impugnant directe media salutis divinitus instituta. Abr. C'alov, contr, Socin. tom. i. part. 2. p. 251 . ra THE INTRODUCTION. we were deceived (as we certainly are not) in our high conceptions of the use and efficacy of this Sacrament ; all that follows is, that we may be thereby led to frequent the Sacrament so much the oftener; to come to It with the greater reverence, and to repeat our solemn vows tor the leading a good life, by the assistance of Divine grace, with the more serious and devout affections. No Divines amongst us, that I know of, ever teach that the use of the outward Sacrament Is of any avail without inward faith and repentance, or entire obedience. Our Church at least, and, 1 think, all Protestant churches have abundantly guarded against any one's resting in the bare outward work. The danger therefore on this side Is very slight in comparison. For what if a man should erroneously sup pose that upon his worthy receiving he obtains pardon for past sins, and grace to prevent future, will not this be an encouragement to i7-ue repentance, without which he Can be no worthy receiver, and to watchfulness also-for the time to come, without which the Divine gvflce can never have Its perfect work? Not that I would plead for any pious mistake, (were it really a mistake,) but I am answer ing an objection ; and showingj that there is no compara tive force In it. Were the persuasion I am pleading for really an error, reason good that It should be discarded : religion wants not the assistance of pions.frauds, neither can it be served by them. But as we are now supposing it doubtful on which side the error lies, and are arguing only upon that supposition, it appears to be a very clear case, that religion would suffer abundantly more by an error on the left hand, than by an error on the right ; and that of the two extremes, profaneness, rather than supers stilion, is the dangerous extreme. . Add to this, that corrupt nature generally leans to the diminishing side, and is more apt to detract from the burden ofreliglon than to increase the weight; and there fore the stronger guard ought to be placed there. Men are but loo inclinable of themselves to take up with low and groveling sentiments of Divine things : and so there THE INTRODUCTION. 13 is the less need of bending Scripture that way, when the words are fairly capable of an higher meaning, yea, and require it also, as shall be shown in the sequel. If it should' be asked, what temptation any serious Christian can have to lessen the promises or privileges belonging to the Sacraments ? I answer, that pure good nature and mistaken humanity may often tempt men to be as easy and indulgent as possible, in their casuistry, for the relieving of fender consciences, and for the quieting the scruples oi their brethren. The guides of souls are some times apt to be over officious that way, and much more than is proper; like as indulgent parents often ruin their children by an excessive fondness, considering their pre sent uneasiness more than their future well-being. When Epicurus set himself to take off the restraints of religion, no doubt but he thought he was doing the most humane and the best-naiured office imaginable. It had the appear ance oi it, in some respects, (though upon ihe whole It was altogether the reverse,) and that was his chief temptation to it. It is not improbable that the same kind of good nature, ill directed, has tempted many otherwise learned and valuable guides to be too indulgent casuists, and to comply too far with the humour of the world. Strict notions of the Sacraments require as strict observance of the same Sacraments, which demands the more intense care, and greater abstraction oi thought; all which is. irk some and painful to flesh and blood : there lies the temp tation to low and diminishing conceptions of the Sacra ments, both in clergy and people. But are there not temptations likewise to an over-scru pulous severity f Undoubtedly there are. Sometimes edu cation, temper, prejudice; sometimes indiscreet zeal, or a spice oi enthusiasm : but In the general, and for the most part, the making religion bend to the humours and fashions of the world is the sin which most easily besets us ; and therefore there it is that we ought to appoint the double guard. To conclude this article, all extremes are wrong, and it may require some care and good discernment to 14 THE INTRODUCTION. observe in every instance the golden mean .- but still there may be greater sin and danger on one side than on tbe other; and I have thought it of some moment to deter mine thus briefly, to which of the extremes we may, in our circumstances, most securely and wisely lean. IV. There is another consideration very proper to be hinted here in the entrance, relating to the prejudice often done to our venerable Sacraments, by representing them under the detracting or diminishing name of positive du ties! as if they were to be considered as duties only, rather thaw religious rites in which God bears a part ; or as if that part which belongs to us, and is really duty, were a single duty, and not rather a band and cement of all du ties, or a kind of sponsion and security for the present and future performance of the whole duty of man. How this matter stands will be seen distinctly in the sequel. But it is proper to hint something of it here beforehand, lest the reader, by attending to a false light, should set out under a mistake of the main question. Let it be pre viously understood, what It is that we assert and main tain, for the removing of prejudices, and for the pre venting any wrong suspicion, either of our exalting a bare external duty above faith, hope, and charity, or of our recommending any single duty in derogation to the rest. 1. In the first place therefore, let it be carefully noted, that it is not merely a duty of ours, but a sacred rite, (in which God himself bears a part,) that we are labouring, to exalt, or rather to do justice to. The doctrine of our Church, and of all Christian churches, early and late^ is much the same with what our Homilies teach us : namely^ that " in the Sacraments God embraces us, and offereth " himself to be embraced by us ;" and tliat they " set " out to the eyes, and other outward senses, the inward " workings of God's free mercy, and seal in our hearts " the promises of God ¦=." ¦• Homily on the Common-Prayer and Sacraments. THE INTRODUCTION. 15 A learned writer observes and proves, that a sacrament relates to that which " flows from God to us :" and he adds, that " it is a thing neither denied nor forgotten by " any, but is evident from whkt the Scriptures teach con- " cerning Bapdsm and the Lord's Supper'." Indeed the Socinian way is to exclude God, as it were, out of the Sacraments, and to allow him no part in them, but to reduce all to a bare human performance, or positive duty :' but we have not so learned Christ. We are so far from thinking the sacramental transaction to be a bare duty of ours, that we conceive there is great use and efficacy in a sacrament, even where the recipient performs no duty at all, nor is capable of any, as in the case of irfants receiv ing baptism. It is farther observable, that Baptism is frequently mentioned together with repentance, in the New Testament, as distinct from it; though repentance alone, as it signifies or implies entire obedience, iully ex presses all that is properly and merely duty on our part. A plain sign that Baptism, as a sacrament, carries more m the idea of it than the consideration of bare duty, and that it comea not, in its whole notion, under the head of duties, but of rites, or contracts, or covenants, solemn trans actions between God and man. God bears his part In it, as well as we ours: and therefore it is looked upon as distinct from bare duties, and spOken of accordingly. I suppose it might be on these and the like considera tions, that some Divines have conceived, that a sacrament, properiy, is rather an application of God to raeuy than of tnen to God. Mr. Scandret, distinguishing a- sacrament, according to its precise formality, from a sacrifice, ob serves, that it is " an outward visible sign of an invisible " grace or favour from God to man"i." And Dr. Rymer ' Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 12, Vossius, to the same purpose, says : Quemadmodum fides est quasi numus nostra, qua nos quaiimus et accipi mus : sic verbum et sacramenta esse quiisi manus Dei quibus is nobis offert et confert quod a fide nobis petitur et accipitur, Voss. de Sacram, f^i etEffic. p, 252, vol. vi. Qpp. "• Scandret, Sacrifice of tlie Divine Service, p. 54. i6 THE INTRODUCTION. takes notice, that, according to our Church Catechism, " a sacrament is not supposed. In Its most essential part, " an application made by men to God, but one made by " God to man. — A gracious condescension of God's, by " which he converses with men, and exhibits to them " spiritual blessings, &c,— God's part is indeed the whole " that is strictly and properly sacramental : the outward " and visible signs exhibited are in effect the voice of God, " repeating his promise of that inward and spiritual fa- " vour"." Dr. Towerson long before had observed, that there is a difficulty as to " showing that a sacrament re- " lates equally to that which passeth from us to Godj^ " and that it imports our duty and serviceo." He con ceived no difficulty at all, as to God's part in a sacrament; that was a clear point : but he thought it not so easy to prove, that the strict and proper sense of the word.iocra- ment includes man'* part at all. However, it is very cer tain that the whole transaction, in the case of adults, is between two^ parties, and that the application is mutual between God and man. , And this must be acknowledged particularly in the Eucharist, by as many as do allow of a ConsecraiioU'prayer, and do admit that service' to be part of our religious worship, as also to be a federal rite. But from hence may appear how widely they mistake who consider a sacrament as a bare human performance, a discharge of a positive duty on man's part, and nothing more, throwing out what belongs to God, and what is most strictly sacramental. It is sinking or dropping the noblest and most essential part of the idea, and presenting us with a very lame and insufficient account of the thing. But a more minute explication of this matter, togethej with. the proofs of what we maintain, will come in here after : all I intended here was only to give the reader some previous conception 'of the state of the main ques tion, that he may understand the more clearly what we are about. " Rymer, General Representation of Revealed Religion, p, 286, 287, " Towerson on the Sacraments, p, 12, THE INTRODUCTION. x; a. Next, I must observe, that that part in a sacrament which is really ours, and which, so far as concerns adults, is properly duty, is yet such a duty as is supposed to comprehend, one way or other, all duty: for receiving worthily (as shall be shown in its place) implies present repentance, a heart turned to God and to universal obedi ence, and a serious resolution so to abide to our life's end. It has been thought somewhat strange, by those who have imbibed wrong notions of the case, that all Christian privileges should be supposed to follow a single duty, when they really belong to the whole system of duties. But when it is considered, that these privileges are never conceived to be annexed to this single duty, in any other view, or upon any^other supposition, but as it virtually carries in it (or in the idea of worthy reception) all duty, the main difficulty will vanish ; for it may still be true, that those Christian privileges go along with the whole system of duties, and with nothing short of It. We never do annex all Christian privileges to this single duty, but as this duty is conceived, for the time being, to contain all the rest ; for that we take to be implied in receiving worthily^ Whether we are right in interpreting worthy reception in so comprehensive a sense, is not now the question, but may be considered in its place: all I am concerned with here is to ward off a charge of inconsist ency, with respect to our doctrine on this head. But to show the weakness of the charge yet more plainly, let the same objection be urged in a very common case of oaths to a government, or of subscription to arti cles, to which many State-privileges and Church-privileges are ordinarily annexed. What, may some say, shall all those privileges be given, merely for the labour of repeat ing an oath, or of writing a name P No, certainly : the outward work is the least and the lowest part of what the privileges are intended for, if it be any part at all, in a strict sense. The privileges are intended for persons so swearing, or so subscribing, upon a presumption that such VOL. VII. c i8 THE INTRODUCTION. oath carries in it all dutiful allegiance to the sovereign, and that such subscription carries In it all conformity in faith and doctrine, to the Church established. Of the like nature and use are our sacramental ties and covenants. They are supposed, when worthily performed, to carry m them all dutiful allegiance to God, and a firm attachment to Christ; a stipulation of a good conscience, and, in a word, universal righteousness, both as to faith and man ners?: a\l which is solemnly entered into for the present, aod stipulated for the future, by every sincere and devout communicant. To be short, repentance, rightly under stood, and a due attendance on the Sacraments, taken to gether, do in our account make up the whole system of Christian practice for the time being : therefore in annex ing all Gospel-privileges to worthy receiving, we do not annex them to one duty only, but to all, contained, as it were, or summed up (by the supposition) in that one. All the mistake and misconception which some run into on this head, appears to be owing to their abstracting the outward work from the inward worthiness supposed to go along with it, and then calling that a single duty, which at best is but the shell oi duty in itself, and which, in some circumstances, (as when separate from a good heart,) is no duty at all, but a grievous si7i, a con tempt offered to the body and blood of Christ, and highly provoking to Almighty God. Thus far I have taken the liberty of premising a few things in the entrance; not for the anticipating what I am hereafter to prove, but for the removing those pre- p What Tertullian observes of the sacrament of Baptism is justly appli cable to both Sacraments. Lavacrum illud obsignatio est fidei, quae fides a pceniientite fide incipitur et comraendatur. Non ideo ablnimur ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia de- siimus, quoniam jam corde loti sumus. Haec enim prima audientis intinctio est, metus integer, deinde quoad Dominum senseris, fides sana, consdentia semel pcenitentiam amplexata. Ceterum, si ab aqnis peccare desistimus, ne cessitate, non sponte innocentlam induimus. Tertull. de Pecnit. cap. vi. p. 125. Rigalt, THE INTRODUCTION. 19 judices which appeared to lie in the way. And now I proceed, with God's assistance, to what I intend upon the subject of the Eucharist, otherwise styled the Sa crament of the Lord's Supper, or the Holy Commu nion. ca ao THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. CHAP. I. Of the most noted or most considerable Names, under which ihe Holy Communion hath been anciently spoken of. Before I come directly to treat of the thing, it may be proper to observe something of the names it has an ciently gone under : which I shall endeavour to range in chronological order, according to the time when each name may be supposed to have come up, or first to have grown into vogue. A. D. 33. Breaking of Bread. The oldest name given to this holy ceremony, or reli gious service, seems to have been that of breaking bread, taken from what the disciples saw done by our Lord in the solemnity of the institution. I choose to set the date according to the time of the first clear instance * we have of it rather than according to the time when St. Luke related it in his history ; because very probably he fol lowed the style of those who then celebrated it. St. Luke, in his history of the Acts, speaking of the disciples, says : " They continued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and " fellowship, and In breaking of bread, and In prayers ''." The circumstances of the text plead strongly for interpret ing it of the Holy Communion: and the Syriac version (which is of great antiquity) renders it " breaking of the " I said, first clear instance ; because though Luke xxiv. 30, 35, has been understood of the Eucharist by some ancients, and raore modems, (Roman ists especially,) and I see no absurdity in the interpretation, nor any thing highly improbable, or that could give just advantage to the Romish cause with respect to communitm in one hind; yet since it is a disputed construc tion, and such as cannot be ascertained, I call that instance not clear, but pass it off as none, because it is doubtful. •" Acts ii, 42, Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION, it " Eucharist <=;" which is some confirmation of the same construction. A little lower, in the same chapter, mention is again made of the disciples, as " continuing daily In the " temple, and breaking bread from house to house d;" or rather " in a house," set apart for holy uses ^. St. Luke a third time takes notice of the " breaking of " bread :" vvhere also the Syriac version renders as be fore, " breaking of the Eucharist." The circumstances confirm it : It was on the " first day of the week," and St. Paul is observed to have " preached unto them." St. Paul also himself seems to allude to this name, when speaking of this Sacrament he says, " The bread which " we break. Is it not the Communion &e. f?" Theywho would see more concerning this name may consult, be sides commentators, the authors referred to at the bottom of the page s. I may just observe, by the way, that scruples have been raised against the construction here given ; and some have thought that the texts might pos sibly be interpreted either of a love-feast, or else of a commo7i meal. I think, very hardly, and not without some violence. However, even Whitby and Wolfius, who appear to hesitate upon Acts Ii. 4a, 46. yet are posi tive enough with respect to Acts xx. 7. as relating to the Eucharist : and since there is no ground for scruple, ex cepting only that the Romanists make an 111 use of this construction, and that may easily be obviated a better 1 ' The same phrase occurs in the Recognitions, lib, vi. n. 15. JSucharistiam frangens cum eis. '' Acts ii. 46, Our translation in the phrase from house to house (xxr oTxcv) follows Beza, who renders domatim, and has been found fault with by Sca- liger, Mede, Beveridge, and Cave, referred to in Wolfius Cur, Crit, p. 1048. Compare Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, vol. ii. p. 98. ¦¦ Erant autem privata ilia ivi^^x loca a Judseis semper sa,cris usibus desti- ilata ; saltern ex quo Daniel propheta ascendiase in casnaculum ad orandum diceretur, Pearson, Lect. in Act. Apost. p, 31, f 1 Cor, X. 16. B Casauhon. ad Annal. Eccles. Exerc. xvi. p. 378. alias p. 528. Buxtorf. de Coena Domini, p, 312, 313, Suicer, Thesaur. in voc. jtXan;, p. 105. Johan. Vorstli Philolog, Sacr, part, ii, p. 200. Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 166. C3 aa THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. way *>, I look upon the construction here given as suffi ciently supported. And it is some confirmation of it, that Ignatius, of the apostolical times, makes use of the same phrase of breaking bread, where he is plainly speaking of this holy Sacrament '. A. D. 57. Communion. Kotvcovlm. The name of Communion has. been long famous, and was undoubtedly taken from St. Paul's account of this Sacrament, where he teaches that the effect of this service is the Communion oi the body and blood of Christ''. He does not indeed directly call the Sacrament by that name, as others have done since ; he was signifying what the thing is, or what it does, rather than how it was then called^. But as his account gave the first occasion for the name of Communion, I thought it not amiss to date it from thence. I find not that this name became frequent in the earlier centuries : the Canons called apostolical are of doubtful age. The Roman clergy, in a letter to the clergy of Carthage, make use of the name Communion in the time of St. Cyprian "», that is, about the middle of the third century. But in the age next following, it became very common, both in the Greek and Latin Fathers. The Spanish Fathers, in the Council of Elvira, (A. D. 305.) make use of it more than forty times : the Councils of Aries and of Ancyra (in 314 and 315) made use of the same. The Council of Nice, iri the year 3a5, speaks of the same Sacrament under the name of Communion'^, in ^ Vid. Casauhon. ad Annal, Eccl, Exercit xvi, n, 48, p, 379. ' "Ev« a^Toi xxSnTii. Ignat, ad Ephes. cap, xx, p, 19, ^ 1 Cor. X. 16, ' Non appellat Paulus Coenam Domini Communionem tanquam proprio ejus nomine ; sed vim et efficaciam Sacramehti hujus exprimens, ait eam esse communionem, sWe participationem corporis Christi, Casaubon. Exercit. xvi, n, 47. p. 361. ¦» Si qui in hanc tentationem incideinint, cceperint apprehendi infirmitate, et agant pcenitentiam facti sui, et desiderent communionem, utique subve- iiiri eis debet &c, Apud O/prian. Epist, ii, p, 8, Bened, ed, " KmiwvIxs -rikii Tux^". Concil. Nictcn. can, xiii, p, 330, Harduin. Ch. 1. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 23 their thirteenth Canon. Hilary, about the middle of the same century, styles it sometimes the Communion of the Holy Body, sometimes the Sacrament of the Holy Com munion, sometimes the Communion of the everlasting Sa craments °, A little later in the same century, Basil some times has the single word CommunionV to denote the Eu charist : at other times he calls It the Communion of ike good Thing, or of the Sovereign Good'i, I need not de scend to lower Fathers, amongst whom the name became very frequent : Suicer ¦¦ has collected their testimonies, observing withal the several accounts which they gave of the name, all reducible to three, i. The Sacrament is so called, because of the communion we therein hold with Christ and with each other, a. Because we are therein made partners oi Christ's kingdom. 3. Because It is a religious banquet, which we partake of in common with our fellow Christians. A. D. 57. Lord's Supper. I am willing to set down the name of Lord's Supper as a Scripture name, occurring in St. Paul's Epistles* ; which appears to be the most prevailing opinion of learned Pro testants, Not that I take it to be a clear point at all, or so much as capable of being proved : but I incline rather to those, both ancients and moderns, who interpret that place of the love-feast, kept in imitation of our Lord's Last Supper, which was previous to the original Eucharist. Thus much however is certain, that In the apostolical times the love-feast and the Eucharist, though distinct, ° Hilarius Pictavens. p. 169, 223, 740. edit. Bened. P Konuviav aluat xKri^ovrss, a,^ lauratv furaXetfiSavaa'iV, Iv 'AXs^avSg/^ de ^ iv AtyutrrM ixxfas i, rSti Iv Xai rskitTm, as £*< ri ¦rXiT^ay, s^u xaivmlxv it tZ aixi^ avrS, xai Sri fiiKtrxi /tirxXxftSitiei 5/ Uut». Basil, Epist. xciii. p. 187. edit. Bened. alias Epist. 289. 1 Kmanilx rS ciyxBS. Epist. Canon, prima ad Amphiloch. p. 272. Epist. secunda, p. 293. ' Suicer. Thesaur. in Kmavlx. Conf. Cjisaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. 47. p. 361, &c. alias 504, &c. • 1 Cor. xi. 20. C4 a4 THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. went together, and were nearly allied to each other, and were both of them celebrated at one meeting. Without some such supposition as that, it was next to impossible to account for St. Paul's quick transition, in that chapter, from one to the other. Whether therefore Lord's Supper in that chapter signifies the love-feast only, or the Eu charist only, or both together, one thing is clear and un questionable, that they were both biat different parts of the same solemnity, or different acts of the same meeting : and there is no occasion to be scrupulously nice and criti cal in distinguishing tp which of the parts the name strictly belongs '. Maldonate, the Jesuit, in his Contents upon Matt. xxvi. 36. took upon him , to reproach the Protestants In an unhandsome manner, for speaking of the Eucharist under the name of a Supper ; which he thought irreve rent, and not warranted by Scripture, antiquity, or sound reason'^. The learned Casaubon some time after appeared in behalf of the Protestants ^, and easily defended them, as to the main thing, against the injurious charge. Al- bertinus, long after, searched with all diligence into an cient precedents and authorities for the name, and pro duced them in great abundance y, more than sufficient to confute the charge of novelty, rashness, or profaneness on that head. The truth of the matter seems to be, that though there, is no clear proof that the name of Supper is a Scripture name, yet some Fathers (as high as the fourth century) thought that it was, so understanding i Cor. xi. ao. And many interpreters of good note have followed them in it. Indeed it does not appear that the text was * Quid rei sit c(ena hsec, accnratius inquirere non est opus : sive enim Christianorum Agaps, sive ipsa Eucharistia significetur, nil interest, dum modo concedatur (quod nulla prorsus ratione negari potest) Eucharistia cele- brationem cum Agapis esse conjunctam, Sam, Easnag. Annal. tom, ii. p, 296, » Calvinistae sine Scripturse auctoritate, sine veterum auctorum exemplo, sine ratione, nullo judicio, ccenam vo.cant, Maldonat. p, 556, » Casaubon, Exercit, xvi, u, 32. p, 368. alias 513. y Albertinus de Eucharistia, lib. 1, cap. 1 . Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 35 so construed before the latter end of the fourth century, or that the name of Lord's Supper was much in use as a name for the Eucharist. Irenseus once has the name of God's Supper, but means quite another thing by it ', Ter tullian has the same ^ for Lord's Table, referring to i Cor. X. aa. not to I Cor. xi. ao. He has also the phrase of Lord's Banquet^, [or Lord's Day Banquet,'] and Banquet of God<^, meaning the love-feasts then in use, which he else where styles the Supper of Christians^. But St. Basil very plainly interprets Lord's Supper in that text, of the Eucharist ^ : which even Fronto Ducaeus, in his notes upon the place, confesses ; endeavouring at the same time to bring off Maldonate as fairly as the matter would bear, while, in reality, he yields the main thing, with respect to the Fathers, at least. However, it must be owned that Basil is the first who directly so interprets the text, and that the Fathers were not all of a mind about it, and that the appellation of Supper was not very common till after the fourth century ; and that even in the later centuries the name of Lord's Supper was a name for that supper which our Lord made previous to the Eucharist. The third Council of Carthage (A. D. 418,) speaks of " one day in " the year in which the Lord's Supper was celebrated ^ :" where it is plain that Lord's Supper does not mean the Eucharist, but the supper proper to Maundy-Thursday, kept in imitation of our Lord's Paschal Supper, previous to the Eucharist. And the like is mentioned in the TruUan z Coena Dei, Iren. lib, iv, cap, 36. p, 279. ed, Bened. • Non possumus coenam Dei edere, et coenam daemouiorum, TertuUian. de Spect, cap, xiii, p. 79, ¦• Convivium Domihicum, TertuU. ad Uxor, cap, iv. p, 168. ' Convivium Dei, TertuU. de Virgin. Vel, cap, viii, p, 172, ' Coena nostra de nomine rationem sui ostendit : id vocatur quod dileclio apud Grsecos, TertuU. Apoll. cap, 39. * "Htf-wsg ovSiv xetvev ffxivos i^tr^ivroi o Xoyoi tlir^z^tff^xi us rx xytx, vra/s ovoi rx xyix iis xomv oTxttv i^ffirlXttir^xt. jo-WTe rov xoivov "hiTvrvav Iv IxxXvtifia Itr^iuv ^ 'ormtv, fAVirt ro xv^ixxs* "Hi^vov Iv olxlit. xx^aS^i^uv, Sasil. itegul. Brev. p. 310, p. 525, ed, Bened, alias 657. Conf. Tlieodorit. in 1 Cor. xi, 20. '' Vltxs irnifixs tifii^as Iv ^ re xu^ixxov iitTvov iiriTtXtTrxi, Concil, Can, xliv. p. 567. Bevereg. edit. 36 THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. Council, (A. b. 683.) in their a9th Canons. So that Lord's Supper was not then become a familiar name, as now, for the Eucharist, but rather eminently denoted the supper previous to it; either our Lord's own, or that which was afterwards observed by Christians as a memo rial of it, being a kind of love-feast. I shall only add far ther, that Hilary the Deacon (A. D. 380. or nearly) in his comment upon i Cor. xi. seems to dislike the name of supper^, as applied to the Eucharist, and therefore could not interpret the text as Basil of that time did. A. D. 96. Oblation. Tlgoa-ipopx. The name of oblation may, I think, be fairly carried up as high as to Clemens of Rome, who upon the lowest computation wrote his famous Epistle as early as the year 96. The more common date is 70, or thereabout: but a learned and considerate writer ', who very lately has reex amined the chronology of that Epistle, has with great ap pearance of probability brought it down to A. D. 96 : and there I am willing to rest it. Clemens speaks of the oblations and sacred functions of the Church, referring, very probably, to the Eucharisiical service ^ : neither can he without some violence be Inter preted to mean any thing else. In another place, he still more plainly refers to the same, where he says ; " It " would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those s Mixs Irtjfflau tjfiepxs, Iv ^ ro xu^ixxov iei^vai/ i^triXurxi, Concil. Trull. Can. xxix. p. 188. ¦¦ Ostendit [Christus] illis raysterium Eucharistlae inter ccenandum cele- bratum, non ccenam esse : medicina enim spiritalis est, quae cum reverentia degustata, purificat sibi devotum. Pseud. Ambros, in loc. ' Lardner, Credibility of Gosp. Hist, part ii. vol. i. p. 50 — 62. ^ rixirx rx^et -nrotiiv o^si\ofji,iv——rxs r& •w^oir^o^xs xx) Xurovpyiixs l^inXtl' ff^xi oi ovv Tots ^gotrrtTxyfAiiois xxi^oTs -sroiouvrts rxs zrpoff^opas xhruv, tvvpoff- iixToisifft xxi fiixxxpiai. Clem. Rom. Ep, i;. xl. p. 164. edit. Cant. Vitringa, upon these words, allows that they refer to the Eucharist. Pre- ces hand dubie intelliguntur cum saei-is Eucharistiee, quibus Clemens statas horas, ad exemplum sacrorum tempii, definiri vult. Vilring. de Vel. St/nag, p. 1115. conf. Basnag. Annal, vol. t, p, 37 1. Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION. a? " from the episcopal function, who holily and without " blame offer the gifts'^." Here he expressly speaks of gifts off'ered, (that is, of oblation,) and by sacerdotal hands. The gifts were brought to the altar, or communion table, by the people, and were recommended to God's accept ance by the officiating bishop, or presbyter. So there was first a kind of lay oblation, and next a sacerdotal ob lation of the same gifts to God. Those gifts consisted partly of alms to the poor, and partly of oblations, pro perly so called, to the Church ; and out of these last was usually taken the matter of the Eucharist, the bread and wine •". The oblation, as I before hinted, was twofold ; hence the whole service of the Eucharist came to be called the oblation : and to communicate, or to admini ster, in Church language, was to offer. There was a third kind of oblation " which came up afterwards, in the third century : or, to speak more accurately, the commemora tion, which was always a part of the Eucharistical ser vice, came by degrees to be called an oblation, (but not within the two first centuries, so far as I can find,) and then commenced a kind of third oblation; not a new thing, but an old service under a new name. Justin Martyr, though he does not directly call the Eucharist by the name of oblation, yet he does obliquely, where he says, that the oblation oi fine flour, under the law, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist °', and where he speaks of the Eucharistical elements as being * 'Afia^Tix yxQ eu fiitXQX tifiuv 'iffrxt, lxv revs x/,ci/iVT6is xxt offtas .^^e^tvzyxcvrxs rx IZ^x, rns Wurxens xveliiXeifnv, c, xliv, p. 178. Compare Johnson's Unbl, Sacrifice, part i, p, 75, 78, &c. "¦ See Bingham. Eccles. Antiq. b, xv. ch, 2, sect. 1 , 2. Deylingius, Observ. Miscellan, p. 301. Constitiit, Apostol, lib. viii. c. 27, 30, L'Arroque, Hist, of the Eucharist, part i. ch, iv, p. 30, &c, » Of the third ablation, or threefold oblation, see I'Arroque, Hist, of the Eucharist, part i, c, 8, Sam. Basnag. Annal. tom. i. p. 371. Pfaffius, Dissert. de Oblat, Vet, Eucharist, p. 283, 293, *> *H r»s ffifju&xy.ttus zf^oef^e^K rvvos «v rev x^rev rvs zvpc^j>i^rtxs, Just. Dial, p, 1 19, Jebb. 220. Thirlby, aS THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. offered to Godv. Elsewhere he speaks plainly of the lay offering, brought by the people to the administrator 1 : and I presume, he is to be understood of an offering to be presented io God, by the hands of tbe Minister, brought to the Minister in order to be recommended by him to the Divine acceptance. Irenseus, of the same century, makes frequent mention of the oblation oi the Eucharist, understanding by it the whole service as performed by clergy and people, accord ing to their respective parts or provinces '. He supposes the oblation made io God, made by the Church, in and by the proper officers : and though the oblation strictly speaking, according to its primary signification, means only one part of the service. Or two, (^viz. the people's bringing their offerings to the altar, and the adminis trator's presenting the same to God,) yet from this part or parts of the service, the whole solemnity took the name of the oblation at that time, and such name became very common and familiar afterwards. For since the very matter of the Eucharist was taken out of the obla tions received from the people, and solemnly offered up afterwards to God by the Ministers, it was very natural to give the name of oblation to the whole solemnity. Tertullian speaking of the Devil, as imitating the mys- P n^eiT interpret it of the Eucha rist, and with very good reason : for the account refers to what the whole assembly were wont to do, at the same time; they could not at all come to receive Baptism,^ though they might to receive the Eucharist. Then the mention of the Sacrament, as taken in the Antelucah meetings, tallies exactly with Tertulhan's account of the Eucharist, as we shall see presently: besides that the hint given of the love-feast, as following soon after, con firms the same thing '. I go on then to Tertullian, who makes express mention of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as received in his time, but with some difference, as to the circumstances, from the original Eucharist of our Lord's own celebrating''. '' Adfirmabaut autem, hanc fuisse summam vel culpse suae, vel erroris, quod essent soliti, stato die, ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem : seque sacramento non in scclus aliquod obstrin- gere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem falle- rent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis, morem sibi dis- cedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium. Plin. Epist. xcvii. lib. x. p. 819. ed. Amstel. Conf. Tertullian. Apol, c, ii. p. 24, 25. Lugd. e Dr. Wall, Inf. Bapt. part ii. chap. ix. p. 396. third edit. * Vid. Bevereg. Vindic. Can. p. 199. Tentzel. Exercit, Select, part, ii. p, 12?, Vitringa, de Vet. Synagog. p. 1116. Renaudotius Liturg. Orient, toni. i. p. 5, 6. Bingham xv. 7, 8, ¦ See Bingham, book xv, c, 7. sect, 8, ** Eucharistia Sacramentum, et in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum Ch. r. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 33 For that (he observes) was after supper, this before day light, fasting : in that, the company helped one another, or every man took his part from the table ' ; in this, the Bishop or Presbyter in person gave the bread and cup to each communicant. But what I have principally to take notice of here is the use of the phrase. Sacrament of the Eucharist, conformable to the like phrases, which the same author makes use of to denote Baptism, calling it the Sacrament of water™, and Sacrament of sanctifica tion^. In the same century, Cyprian calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of the cup ° ; and elsewhere, the Sacra ment of the Lord's passion and of our redemption^ . If it should now be asked, in what precise meaning the name of sacrarhent was thus anciently applied to the Eu- chai'ist ; as the word sacrament is of great latitude, and capable of various significations, (some stricter and some larger,) I know of no certain way of determining the pre cise meaning of the naine, as here applied, but by consi dering what was meant by the thing. Gerard Vossius 1 has perhaps given as clear and accurate an account of the word sacrament, as one shall any where meet with: but after all, I am of opinion, that it is not the name which can here add any light to the thing, but the thing itself must be first rightly understood, in order to settle the true and full Import of the name. When it is applied to Baptism and the Eucharist, it must be explained by their common nature, being a general name for such a certain number of ideas as go to make up their general nature or notion. A collection of those several ideas is put toge ther in the definition given in our Church Catechism. The a Domino ; etiam Antelucanis coetibus, nee de aliorum manu quam prasi- dentium sumimus. TertuU. de Coron. c. iii. p. 102. ' Luke xxii. 17. See Archbishop Potter on Ch. G. p. 259. edit. 3d. ¦» Sacramentum aquae. Tertull. de Bapt. c. i. p. 224. c. xii. p, 229, " Sacramentum sanctificationis. Ibid. c. iv. p. 225. ' Sacramentum caKcis. Cyprian, de Lapsis, p. 189. . P Sacramentum Dominicae passionis, et redemptionis nostrae. Cyprian. Ep. 63. •I Vossius de Sacram. Vi ct Efficacia. Opp. tom. vi. p. 247, &o. VOL. VII. D 34 THE ANCIENT NAMES OF ,Ch. i. like had been endeavoured before, in our Twenty-fifth Article : and that Is again digested Into a more technical: form, by Bishop Burnet in his Exposition '. His defini tion may be looked upon as a good summary account of what ou/r Church, and the Protestant churches abroad, and the primitive churches likewise, believed concerning Bap tism and the Eucharist in common : the particulars of their faith, so far, is therein collected into one large com plex idea, and for convenlency Is comprised in the single word sacrament. And yet it must be observed, that this word sacrament, as applied to those two religious rites, admits of a threefold acceptation In Church writers: some times denoting barely the outward sign of each, some times the thing signified, and sometimes both together, the whole action, service, or solemnity^. The Socinians, observing that the received sense of the word sacrament Is against their whole scheme, have often expressed their dislike of it. Smalclus particularly com plains of it, as an unscriptural name, and besides barbarous Latin, and leading to superstition and idolatry ; and there fore he moves to have it totally laid aside*. He was offended^ it seems, at the name, because it served to keep up the sense of something mysterious, or mystical, of a sign and somewhat signified, viz. grace 8cc. to which he had an aversion. Volkelius, more complaisant with re spect to the name, turns all his resentment upon the thing, flatly denying that the Eucharist is a sacrament " : his ¦¦ Burnet on Article XXV. p. 268, 269. ' Vid. Lamb. Danaeus. Isag. part, iv, Hb. 5. p. 441. * Vox sacramenti, in hac significatione, barbara, vel saltem sacris literis incognita est ; ab hominibus vero otiosis (qui ceremoniis hujusmodi nescio quid praeter sacram Scripturam superstitiosum, aut etiam idololatricum ex parte, tribuere non sunt veriti) ad tegendum dolnm usurpata : praestat igitur aliis nominibus appellari in Christi coetu hanc ceremoniam. Smalcius eontr. Frantz, p. 347. " Satis constat uec alteram appellationem, nimirura sacramentum cor poris Christi, verara esse. Si enim haec actio ne sacramentum quidem est, quo pacto, quaeso, corporis Christi sacramentum erit ? Volliel. de Ver. Re lig. lib. iv. cap. 22. p. 678. Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION, 35 reason is, because it neither exhibits nor seals any spiri tual grace. His master Socinus had intimated as much before^. The sum is, that the strict sense of the Sacra ment, as implying an outward sign oi an inward grace, can never suit with their schemes, who allow of no in ward grace at all. I may here note by the way, that while the Socinians reject the invisible grace, the Romanists destroy the visible sign, and both run counter to the true notion of a sacra ment, by their opposite extremes: from whence It is mani fest, of what moment it is to preserve the word sacrament, and to assert to it Its true and full sense. For though the word, as here applied, is not in Scripture, yet. the notion is there, and the general doctrine is there : and the throw ing that notion, or that general doctrine, under the narte of sacrament, is nothing more than collecting several Scripture ideas, or Scripture truths, and binding them up together in a single word, for the better preserving them, and for the ease and convenlency of speech. But as to the proof of those doctrines or those truths, I cannot enter into it now, but must reserve It for a more proper place, and proceed in the account of ancient names. A. D, 107. Eucharist. Another name, as famous as any, is the name Eucha rist, signifying properly thanksgiving, or blessing, and fitly denoting this holy service, considered as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. I set the date no higher than Ignatius's Epistles, because there it first certainly occurs : though one can make no doubt of its having obtained in the apostolical age, when it is considered how familiarly Ignatius makes use of itx. Some have thought that St.. Paul himself led the way as to this name, i Cor. xiv. 16. But that construction of the text appears too conjectural to build upon, and is rejected by the generality of inter- » Socinus de Baptism. Aquae, cap. xiv. y Ignatius, Epist. ad Smyrn. u. 7, 8. ad Philadelph. i. 4. D a $6 THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. preters : I think, with good reason, as Estius in particu lar hath manifested ufjon the place. I content myself therefore with running up that name no higher than Ig natius's time. After him, Justin Martyr==, Irenseus % Clemens of Alex andria l", Origen <=, and others, make familiar use of that name, as is well known. One may judge how extensive and prevailing that name, above any other, anciently was, from this consideration, that It passed not only among the Greeks, but among the Orientalists also, (as may be seen in the Syriac version before mentioned,) and likewise among the Latins ; who adopted that very Greek word into their own language ; as is plain from Tertullian * and Cyprian^, in many places. A. D. 150. Sacrfice. ©otri'a. Justin Martyr is the first I meet with who speaks of the Eucharist under the name of sacrfice or sacrfices. But he does it so often, and so familiarly ^, that one can not but conceive, that it had been in common use for some time before : and it is the more likely to have been so, because oblation (which is near akin to it) certainly was, as we have seen above. Irenseus of the same century mentions the sacrifice of ' Justin. M. Apol. 96. Dialog, p. 220. 386. Thirlby. » Irenaeus, p. 251, 294, 341, 360. ed. Bened. ¦> Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. 2. p. 178. ed. Oxon. ¦= Origen. contr. Cels. Ub. viii. sect. 57. p. 784. ed. Bened. d Tertullian. p. 102, 135,. 215, 220, 562, 570. Rigalt. • Cyprian. Tract, p. 1.H2, 147, 230, Ep, p, 34, 37, 38, 39, 117, 118, 125, 190, 191, 223, Ox. edit. ^ nsfi Se ruv Iv vxvr) rovu u<^ ri/Auv ruv l^vuv er^otr^s^e/isvatv xvrS ^vffiuv, raur- tt/rt row a^rot^ r^s iu^aaitfTixs, xx) reu wortiptou o/iotias rris Bu^x^tffrixs, w^fl- kiyti ron — Just. Dialog, p. 220. edit. Lond. —^— Svtrias xs zrx^e2a/xsv 'Iijireus o Kfitffros yivsff^xi, reurs^rtv la*) tj bu^o- fllfrttt rou a^reu xx) rou ^orti^iou — Ibid. p. 386. —.-^ ort /a\v ouv kx) iu^f^x) xx) tu^x^ttrriai, v-jeo ra)V a^iuv ytvofttvxt, riXitat f£0- vxt xa) lux^tofroi iltrt ra! @£^ ^uifixt, xxt auros jpas n xa) uy^ag. Ibid. p. 387. Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 37 the Eucharist more than onces, either directly or oblique ly. Tertullian, not many years later, does the like*". Cyprian also speaks of the sacrifice In the Eucharist, un derstanding it, in one particular passage, of the lay obla tion '. This is not the place to examine critically what the ancients meant by the sacrifice or sacrfices of the Eucharist : it will deserve a distinct chapter in another part of this work. Btit, as I before observed of oblation, that, anciently, it was understood sometimes of the lay offeiing, the same I observe now of sacrfice; and it is plain from Cyprian. Besides that notion of sacrifice, there was another, and a principal one, which was con ceived to go along with the Eucharistical service, and that was the notion of spiritual sacrfice, consisting of many particulars, as shall be shown hereafter: and it was on the account of one, or both, that the Eucharist had the name of sacrfice for the two first centuries. But by the middle of the third century, if not sooner, it began to be called a sacrfice, on account of the grand sacrfice re presented and commemorated in it; the sign, as such, now adopting the name of the thing signified. In short, the memorial at length came to be called a sacrifice, as well as an oblation : and it had a double claim to be so called; partly as it was in, Itself a spiritual service, or sa crfice, and partly as it was a representation and comme moration of the high tremendous sacrfice oi Christ God- is auraiv ^»§xs rl xa) ijy^as, iv w xai rou zrei^etis 0 T^^i^ov^i S/' aureu 0 Q&os rou Oiou f/,ifj,v'/irxt. Just, Dial, 387, Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION, 39 able to suppose, that that also might be made use of in like manner, as a name for the whole service. I am aware that our excellent Mr. Mede gives a very different turn to that passage of Justin, translating it thus : " In that thankful remembrance of their food both dry " and liquid, wherein also is commemorated the passion " which the Son of God suffered by himself." He Inter prets it of agnizing God. as the "giver of our food both "dry and liquid™." But that construction must needs appear harsh and unnatural. Justin no where else does ever speak of the remembrance of our food, but constantly understands the Eucharistical remembrance or commemora tion to retier to Christ only, his incarnation and passion, his body and blood '^ : nor do I know of any one Father who interprets the memorial of the bodily food. Besides, it suits not well with our Lord's own account in his institu tion oi the Sacrament, which speaks of the remembrance of him, not of the remembrance of our bodily food. Add to this, that were the sense of the place such as Mr. Mede imagined, Justin would rather have expressed it by a thankful remembrance of the Divine goodness in giving us our food, than by a thankful remembrance of our food, which appears flat and insipid in comparison. Seeing then that Mr. Mede's construction of that place In Justin is far from satisfactory, I choose to acquiesce in the sense which I before mentioned, till I see a better; understanding the memorial of food, as equivalent to memorial oi Christ's passion, made by food, viz. by bread and wine. The word also refers not there to memorial, as if there were two me morials, but to the lauds; besides which there was also a memorial oi the passion. Origen has a passage relating to the Eucharistical me morial, where he appears to denominate the whole service by that eminent part of it °. Eusebius styles the Eucharist, " Mede, Christian Sacrifice, b, ii. ch. 5. p. 460. ° Vid. Just. Mart. Dialog, p. 220, 290. » Si referantur haec ad mysterii raagnitudinem, invenies commemora tionem istam habere ingentis propitiationis effectum. Si respicias ad illam D 4 4° THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. the memorial oi our Lord's body and blood?, and also sim ply a memorial ; which he observes to have succeeded in the room of sacrificed. He calls it also the memorial of the sacrfice ", and memorial of ihe grand sacrifice^. I need not descend lower, to fetch in more authorities for 1:he use of this name: only, I may just give a hint, that all those Fathers who Interpreted the name sacrfice, as applied in such a particular view to the Eucharist, by a memorial of a sacrfice, may as reasonably be understood to call the Eucharist a me7norial, as to call it a sacrifice. Those Fa thers were many ; and Chrysostom may be esteemed their chief : who while he follows the ordinary language in de nominating the Eucharist a sacrfice, (considered In its re presentative view,) yet intimates withal, that its more pro per appellation, in that view, Is a memorial of a sacrifice^. I may further take notice, that St. Austin comes very near to what I have been speaking of, where he calls the Eu charist by the name of the sacrament of commemoration, or sacramental memo7-ial^. To conclude this article, let the reader observe and bear In mind, that the names of oblation and sacrfice, as applied to the Eucharist in one particular point of view, do both of them resolve into the commemorationem de qua dicit Dominus, hoc fcuAte in meum commemora tionem, invenias quod ista est commemoratio sola, quas propitium facit ho minibus Deum. Origen. in Levit. Horn. xiii. p. 255. ed. Bened. P Teu ffMfAxres xureu xx) tou x'ifixras rnv u^o/Avri(nv. Euseb. Demonstrat. Evangel, lib. i. cap, 10, p. 27. 1 Mv«^«v ^ iifjuv wx^e^ous, xvr) Buffias ru 0£^ "htrivixois v^ertp't^uv. Ibid. p. 38. Conf, Apost, Const, lib, vi, cap, 23. ' Tourou SSra rou BufMsros rhv fcvri/,c7iv ETi rpxvi^^ ixn^stv, S/a ffo/i^oKaiv rod rt tr&ffjLXres xt/rou, ^ rou ffiurvipiou ai/j^xros. Ibid. p. 30. " T^v fAVVti^nv rou fjclyaXou ^ufixros. Ibid. p. 40. * Tl^off^i^ofiiv p,tv, aXX' xvxfjLVTifftv ToioufjLi^x reu Bxvecrou xurou. rhv xt)r»v S-utrtxv xs) iToiou.c&v, fixXXov ri xvxfivno'tv l^yx^ofti^x Buirtxs. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Hebr. cap. x. Hom. 17. p. 856. Compare I'heodorit. in Hebr. viii. 4. p. 433. Pseud-Ambros. in Hebr. cap. i. Primasius, in Hebr. cap, x, Hesy- chius, in Levit, p, 31, Eulogius, apud Phot. cod. 280. p. 1609. Fulgentius, de Fide ad Petr. cap. Ix, p. 525. Fragm. 618. CEcumenius, in Hebr. x. p. 846, Theophylact, in Hebr, x. 1, p, 971, " Sacramentum memoriae, Augustin. contr, Faust, lib, xx, cap. 21, p, 348, Compare I'Arroque, Hist, of the Eucharist, part i, chap, 8, p. 88, 89. Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 41 name memorial : and so far they are all three to be looked upon as equivalent names, bearing the same sense, point ing to the same thing. This observation will be of use, when we come to consider the Eucharist In its sacrficial view under a distinct chapter below. A.D. 349. Passover. The name of Passover has been anciently given to the Eucharist, upon a presumption that as Christ himself suc ceeded to the paschal lamb, so the feast of the Eucharist succeeded in the room of the paschal feast. Christ is our Passover, as the name stands for the lamb ^ : the Eucha rist is our Passover, as that same name stands for the feast, service, or solemnity. Origen seems to have led the way ; and therefore I date the notion from his time : not that he speaks so fully to the point as some that came after, neither had he precisely the same ideas of it ; but he taught more confusedly, what others after him improved and cleared. Origen takes no tice, that "if a man considers that Christ our Passover was " sacrificed for us, and that he ought to keep ihe feast by "feeding upon the flesh of ihe Logos, he may celebrate the " Passover all his life long, passing on to Godwards in " thought, word, and deed, abstracted from temporal " things y." I give his sense, rather than a literal render ing. Here we may observe, that the Christian Passover feast, according to him, consists in the eating of the flesh of the Logos; which is certainly done in the Eucharist by every faithful receiver, as Origen every where allows : but then Origen's common doctrine is, that the flesh of the Logos may be eaten also out of the Eucharist ; for the re ceiving spiritual nutriment any way, is with him eating » 1 Cor. V. 7. John i. 29. y "Eri Se 0 vevrxs, on ro ^txir^x vj/am uv\^ 7)/i,uv iruBv] X^t^os, x, XS^ so^rxt^ilv iff^tevra rvs axpxos rou Aoyoi/' eux 'l^tv on eu ^roiu ra ^rxctya.', oTeg i^ftnviuirai eta- fixrvptx, ^txfixivatv al) ru \eyifffiS ^ -jrxvr) Xoyat ^ vxtrvi v^a^tt x^e raiv reu ^teu ^pxyftxretv it) rev ©eov k, ItJ t«v ^oXtv xvrou ffviu^uv. Origen. contr. Cels. lib- viii. p. 759. ed. Bened. alias p. 392. 42 THE ANCIENT NAMES OF Ch. i. the flesh Of Christ z. So that this passage which I have cited from him does not make the Eucharist, in particular, or solely, to be the Christian paschal feast : but the tak ing In spiritual food, he it in that way or any other, that Is the keeping our Passover, according to his sense of it. Hilary, of the fourth century, seems directly to give the name of Passover to the Christian Eucharist^. Nazianzen, a great admirer of Origen, improves the thought, applying it directly and specially to the Eucharist, in these words : " We shall partake of the Passover, which even now is " but a type, though much more plain than the old one : " fbr I am bold to say, that the legal Passover was an ob- •* scurer type of another type ^." St. Jerome, who was once Nazianzen's scholar, follows him in the same sentiment, styling the Eucharist the true sacrament of the Passover, in opposition to the old one<=. But no one dwells more upon that thought, or more finely illustrates it, than the great St. Chrysostom in divers places. He asks why our Lord celebrated the Passover ? And his answer is, because the old Passover was the figure of the future one, and it was proper, after exhibiting the shadow, to bring in the truth also upon the table ^i a little after he says, it is our Passover to declare the Lord's death ^, quot- ^ Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solum sao-amentorum ritu, sed et cum sermones ejus recipimus, in quibus vita consistit. Sicut et ipse dicit, verba quae locutus sum, spiritus et vita est. Origen. in num. Hom. xvi. p. 334. edit. Bened. » Judas proditor indicatur, sine ofio pasclia, accepto csdiee et fracto pane, «)nflcitur. Hilar, in Matt, cap, xxx, p, 740, ed. Bened. *> M£raA.«^^o^e^« Se reu '^raff^x vuv f^iv rvrixus 'iri, «, &i rou ¦pray.aiou yufivori^eV ro yx^ vofifxov -rutrxx, rcX/iu xa) Xiyai, ruieou rv-ptos rtv af^u^Qors^os. Nazianz, Orat. Iii. p. €92. , « Postquam typicum pascha fuerat impletum, et agni carnes cum apostolis comederat, assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum pascha transgreditur sacramentum : ut quomodo in praefiguratione ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens fecit, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis ct sanguinis repraesentaret. Hieronym. in Matt. cap. xxvi. p, 128, ed. Bened. ¦i Chrysostom. tom. i. Orat. contr. Jud. 3. p. 610. ed. Bened. ' nxg^a Se I?/, ro rov Sxvarov xarayyiXKitv, Ibid. p. 611. Ch. I. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 43 ing i Cor. xi. 26. And he adds, that whoever comes with a pure conscience, celebrates the Passover, as often as he receives the communion, he it to-day, or to-morrow, or at any time whatever f. And he has more in the same place, to the same purpose. In another work he speaks thus: " When the sun oi righteousness appeared, the shadow " disappeared :• — therefore upon the self-same table both *' the Passovers were celebrated, the typical and the reals." A little lower, he calls the Eucharist the spiritual Pass over^. Isidorus Pelusiota, afterwards styles it the divine and true Passover'. And St. Austin observes, that the Jews celebrate their Passover in a lamb, and we receive ours in the body and blood of the Lord ^. These are autho rities sufficient for the name oi Passover as applied to the Eucharist : for like as Baptism is in Scripture account the Christian circumcision^ so is the Eucharist, in Church ac count at least, the Christian Passover. A.D. 385. Mass. Missa. There is one name more, a Latin name, and proper to the western churches, which may just deserve mention ing, because of the warm disputes which have been raised about it ever since the Reformation. It is the name mass, in Latin missa; originally importing nothing more than the dismission oi a church assembly™. By degrees it came to be used for an assembly, and for Church service : f IIeiir,;^a ivtriXii, «av irnP't^ev, x^v xu^tov, xxv o^ere^adv fitrtiirxV ''^^ xoivatvias. . tbid. p. 612. S *Ev aurrt t« rpx^i^fi sxxripev ytvirxt Txtr^x, xa) ro rou ruTou, xx) ro rtjs Ati^ilxs. Chrysost. de prodil.Jud. Hom.i. tom. 2. p. 383. 'Et' ahrvis rm r^x- Te^jjf, -xeCi re rwrixov 'jraa^a u^i^y^xyps, xxt ro dXuB^vov T^aiB-tixi. Ibid. ^ To TVEU^«Ti»ov Tafl';^os. Ibid. ' To @iTov xx) xknS-tvov -TM^x. Isidor. Pelus. lib. iv. Epist. 162. p. 504. ed. Paris. l" Aliud est pascha quod adhuc Judaei de ove celebrant, aliud autem quod nos in corpore et sanguine Domini accipimus. Augustin. contr. Lit, Petiliani, lib. ii. cap. 37, ' Coloss, ii. 11. " Hence Missa Catechumenorum, and Missa Fidelium. See Cangius's Glossarium in Musa: and Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. u. 59. p. 418. alias 582, 44 OF THE INSTITUTION OF Ch. ij, so easily do words shift their sense, and adopt new ideas. From signifying Church service in general, it came at length to denote the Communion service in particular, and so that most emphatically came to be called ihe Mass. St. Ambrose is reasonably supposed to be the earliest writer now extant, who mentions mass In that emphatical sense ". Higher authorities have been pretended : but they are either from the spurious Decretal Episties, or from liturgical offices of modern date in comparison ". So much for the ancient names of the Sacrament : not that I took upon me to number up all, but those only which appeared to me most considerable. More may be seen in Hospinian, Casaubon, Suicer, or Turretin, collect ed Into one view, with their proper authorities. It Is time for me now to proceed directly to the consideration of the Sacrament itself; in the mean while hoping that my read ers will excuse it, if I have hitherto detained them too long In the preliminaries. Intended to open and clear the way to the main subject. CHAP. II. Of the Institution of ihe Holy Communion. IT will be proper to begin with the institution of this Sacrament by Christ our Lord, as recorded by St. Mat thew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul. It is an argu ment of the great weight and importance of it, that we have it four times recorded in the New Testament, only with some slight variations, while what one or more omit, another supplies. The most complete as well as shortest view of the whole may be taken by throwing all into one, in some such manner as here follows. Matth. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. i Cor. xi. " The night in which the Laid Jesus was betrayed, as " Missam facere coepi. Ambros. Epist. 20, ad MarceUin. p,853. ed, Bened, " Compare Deylingius, Observat, Miscellan, p. 262, 272, &c, Bingham, b, xiii, chap, 1. Ch. II. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 4^ " they were eating, or did eat, Jesus took bread, and giv- " ing thanks, blessed it, and brake it, and gave it unto his " disciples, and said ; Take, eat, this is my body, which is " given and broken for you ; do this in remembrance of me. " After supper likewise, having taken the cup, and given " thanks, he gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of this, "for this cup is my blood of ihe new covenant, ihe new co- " venant in my blood, which is shed for you, for many, for " the remission of sins: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, " in remembrance of me, (and they all drank of it.) Verily " / say unto you, I will drink no more of this fruit of ihe " vine, until that day, when I shall drink it new with you " in ihe kingdom of my Father, in ihe kingdom of God. " And when they had sung an hymn, they went out to " the mount of Olives." The circumstance of time is the first thing here observ able : it was " in the night in which he was betrayed P" that our Lord instituted this holy Sacrament. Our Lord designed it (besides other uses) for a standing memorial of his passion : and to show the more plainly that he did so, or to render it the more affecting, he delayed the institu tion to the last period of his life. A more material circumstance is, that he began the in stitution as they were eating, or after they had been eat ing : here the question is, what had they been eating ? It is commonly supposed the paschal lamb. For St. Mat thew in the same chapter relates, that on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came and asked, " Where " wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover ?" And the Lord made answer, that he would " keep the " Passover with his disciples," and the disciples actually prepared the Passover q. St. Mark reports the same^. St. Luke confirms It, and adds this further circumstance, that our Lord, upon his sitting down to supper, said, " With " desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you, be- p 1 Cor. xi. 23. « Matt, xxvi, 17, 18, 19, ' Mark xiv, 12 — 16. 46 OF THE INSTITUTION OF Ch. ii. "fore I suffer s." Nevertheless, It seems from St. John's account, that the day of the legal Passover was not yet come, that it was " before the feast of the Passover" that our Lord had- his supper ' ; that part of Friday, passion- day, was but the preparation^ oi the paschal feast. These seeming differences have occasioned very long and intri cate disputes between Greeks and Latins, and among learned men both ancient and modern, which remain even to this day. I shall not presume to take the place of a moderator In so nice a debate, but shall be content to re port as much as may serve to give the reader some notion of it, sufficient for my present purpose. There are three several schemes or opinions in this matter, i. The most ancient and most prevailing is, that our Lord kept: the legal Passover, and on the same day with the Jews : and those who are In this sentiment, have their probable solu tions with respect to St. John's accounts, while they claim the three other Evangelists as entirely theirs, a. The se cond opinion is, that our Lord anticipated (for weighty reasons) the time of the Jewish Passover, and so kept his before theirs : or rather, he kept his Passover at the true legal time, when the Jews (or some at least of the Jews) postponed theirs illegally. This opinion has also its diffi culties, and the maintainers of it have contrived some plau sible solutions. 3. The third opinion is,, that our Lord kept no Passover properly so called, but had a supper, and afterwards Instituted the Eucharist, the mystical or' Chris' iian Passover; called Passover in such a sense as Baptism is called Circumcisio7i, succeeding In Its room. This last opinion had some patrons of old time, and more of late, and seems to gain ground. I shall here transcribe what a learned and judicious writer of our own has lately pleaded in behalf of it, though it may be thought somewhat piolix. It is in his notes on Matt. xxvi. ly^. " Here occurs a question and a difference between the ' Luke xxii, 15. 'John xiii. 1, 2. " John xix. 14. compare xviii. 28. « Dr. Wall's Critical Notes on the New Testament, p. .33. Ch. II. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 47 " words of St. John and the other three, concerning the " day of the week on which the Jews kept the Passover " that year 4746. A.D. 33. It is plain by all the four " Gospels, that this day on which Christ did at night eat " the Passover (or what some call the Passover) was " Thursday. And one would think by reading the three, " that that was the night on which the Jews did eat their " Passover lamb,. But all the texts of St. John are clear, " that they did not eat it till the next night, Friday night, " before which night Christ was crucified and dead, hav- " ing given up the ghost about the ninth hour, viz. three " of the clock In the afternoon. St. John does speak of a " supper which Christ did eat on Thursday night with his " Apostles, chap. xiii. i, 3. but he does not call it a Pass- " over supper, but on the contrary' says it was befoi-e ihe "feast of ihe Passover, w^o t^j logT^j too va, so neither - Buxtorf. Dissertat. vi. de Ccenae Dominicae primae Ritibus et Forma. * Vindiciae Exercitat. de Ccena Domini adv. Lud. Cappel. p. 338, &c. •i Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist, p. 165, &c. Bucherus, Antiqu. Biblicae, p. 360, &c, "= Exod. xii. 14. xiii. 9. Deut. xvi. 3. '¦ Vid. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. tom. i. lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 415, &c, « Exod, xii. 43 — 48. ' Num. ix. 6. B 1 Cor. xi. 27, 28, 29. •¦ Num. ix. 10. 2 Chron. xxx. 18. VOL. VII. P- 50 OF THE INSTITUTION OF Ch.ii. do smaller offences, where there is an honest heart, either forbid or excuse a man's absenting from this sacrament. 9. As a total contempt or neglect of the Passover was crime great enough to render the offender liable to be " cut off from Israel','' so a total contempt or neglect of the holy Communion is In effect to be cut off'irom Chris tianity. 10. As the Passover was to conti7iue as long as the Jewish law should stand in force, so must the Eucha rist abide as long as Christianity''. I have thrown these articles together in a short compass for the present, only to give the reader a brief general view of the analogy be tween those two Sacraments ; and not that he should take the truth of every particular for granted, without farther proof, ii any thing of moment should be hereafter built upon any of them. II. The other sort of resembling circumstances concern the particular forms and phrases made use of in the insti- iution : and it is in these chiefly that the great masters of Jewish antiquities, before referred to, have obliged. the Christian world. I shall offer a short summary of these likewise. I. In the paschal supper, the master of the house tooit bread and blessed it in a prayer of thanksgiving to God : and the rule was, never to begin the blessing till he had the bread in hand, that so the prayer of benediction di rected to God, might at the same time be understood to have relation to the bread, and might draw down a blessing ttpon itK It is obvious to see how applicable all this is to our Lord's conduct in the first article of the insti tution. a. The breaking of the bread, after benediction, was a customary practice in the Jewish feasts •" : only in the paschal feast, it is said, that the bread was first broken and ' Exod. xii. 15, Num. ix, 13, Confer, Bucher, Antiqu, p, 402. ^ 1 Cor. xi. 26. ' See Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist, p. 171, &c. Bucherus, Antiq, Evan gel, p. 368, &c, Buxtorf. de Coena Domini, p. 310. ¦» Buxtorf. 313. Bucherus, 372, Ch. II. THE HOLY COMMUNION. 51 the benediction followed". But whether our Lord varied then. In a slight circumstance, or the Jews have varied since, may remain a question. 3. The distributing the bread to the company, after the benediction and fraction, was customary ainong the Jews": and here likewise our Lord was pleased to adopt the like ceremony. Several learned men have suggested P, that the words " this is my body" might be illustrated from some old Jewish forms made use of in the Passover feast; as. This is the bread of affliction, &c. and. This is the body of the pass- over : but Buxtorf (who best understood these matters) after considering once and again, constantly rejected the former, and demurred to the other instance ^, as not perti nent, or not ea7-ly enough to answer the purpose : and Bu cherus "¦, who has carefully reexamined the same, passes the like doubtful judgment; or rather rejects both the in stances as improper, not being found among the Jewish rituals, or being too late to come Into account. So I pass them by. Justin Martyr, I cannot tell how, was persuaded, that Esdras, at a Passover, had said to the Jews, This passover (i. e. paschal lamb) is our Saviour and our refuge^, and that the Jews after Christ's time had erased the pas sage out of the Septuagint. He was certainly mistaken in his report : but the words are worth the observing, as discovering what the Christians In his time thought of the Passover, as a type of Christ, and how they understood paschal phrases, parallel to "this is my body," &c. ° Lightfoot, Temple Service, chap, xiii, sect. 7. p. 964. and on Matt. xxvi. 26. p. 259. Pfaffius, p. 178. " Buxtorf. 31 6. Bucherus, 374. ' p See particularly Pfaffius de Oblfit. p. 179. And Deylingius, (Miscellan. Sacr. p. 228, &c.) who refers to such authors as have espoused the first ofthe instances, after Baronius and Scaliger. 1 Buxtorf. Dissert, vi. de Coena, p. 301. Dissert, vii. Vindic. p. 347, 348, " Bucher,us, Antiq, Evangel, p, 375, 278. Compare Deylingius, (Miscellan, Sacr. p. 228, &c.) who absolutely rejects one, and doubts of the otlier. ^ Ka) sTvrsv 'Eo'S^a? ra/ ^au, raura ro 'jexirx.x o irpi.rri^ nf^aiv, 5 h xarx Et haec quidem quam explicuimus, mortis Christi annuntiatio proprius est, atque unicus Ccenae Dominicae finis &c, Volkel, de Ccen, Dom, p, 687, E4 56 COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST Ch, hi. ture or essence of this holy rite: for they interpret the words, " this is my body," so as to mean, this action, this eating and drinking, is the memorial of Christ's body broken ', &c. Which is overdoing, and neglecting to dis tinguish between the thing itself, and the end or design of it ; between what is done, and for what purpose it Is done. We eat bread and we drink wine in the Sacrament, the symbols of Christ's body and blood ; and we do so for this reason, among others, that Christ may be remembered, and the merits of his passion celebrated. But this I hint by the way only, and pass on to what I design. Remem brance of Christ is undoubtedly a principal end of this Sacrament. It is not declared by the institution itself, in what view, or under what capacity we are here to remem ber him ; but that must be learned from other places of Scripture, which declare who and what he is : for cer tainly we are to remember him in such a light as the Old and New Testament have represented him in. This ap pears to be an allowed principle on all hands : for none think themselves obliged to stop in the bare words of the institution, without carrying their inquiries farther into the whole compass of Scripture, when they see proper. The Socinians themselves will not scruple to allow that Christ may or ought to be remembered in the Sacrament as Lord, in their sense, or as Master, or Saviour, or Head, or Judge, though there is not a word of Lord, or Master, or Saviour, or Head, or Judge, in the bare form of the institution as de livered by Christ : but those names or tides are to be fetch ed from other places of Scripture. Therefore, I say, it is allowed by ill parties, that we ought to remember Christ, in the holy Communion, according to what he is. ' Hsec actio frangendi et comedendi panem, est corpus, hoc est commemo ratio Christi corporis pro nobis fracti, Smalc, cont, Frantz. p, 315, Corpus Christi et sanguinem Christi pro memoriali signo corporis Christ! fraCti, et sanguinis fiisi sumimus : commemorationem autem, istius sacri ritus finem usumque esse dicimus, Schlinting. contr, Meisn. p, 761, Ritus istius naturam in panis fractione et esu, et e poculo potu, perque haac in mortis Christi representatione qnadam, sitam esse dicimus. Ibid, p, 785, 786, Ch. hi. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 57 by the Scripture account of him. This foundation being laid, I go on to the superstructure : and for the more dis tinct conception of what this remembrance implies or con tains, I shall take leave to proceed by several steps or de grees. 1. It is not sufficient to remember Christ merely as a very great and good man, a wise Instructor, and an ad mirable teacher, while he lived, received up into celestial bliss and glory when he died : for all this comes vastly short of what sacred Writ declares of him ; and is indeed no more (if so much) than what the Pagans themselves, the Platonists, particularly of the second and third centu ries, were ready to admit. For, being struck with the fame of his undoubted miracles, and with the inimita ble force of his admirable precepts, holy life, and exem plary death, they could not but revere and honour his memory ; neither could they refuse to assign him a place among their chief sages or deities ^. And all the plea they had left for not receiving Christianity was, that his dis ciples (as was pretended) had revolted, or degenerated, and had not duly observed the wholesome instructions of their high leader'. Those Pagan philosophers therefore, as I said, remembered Christ, in as high a view as this article amounts to : a Christian remembrance must go a great deal higher. ^ See this particularly proved in a very learned and curious dissertation, written by Laurence Mosheim, and lately inserted, with improvements, into his Latin translation of Cudworth, vol. ii. Confer. Euseb. lib. vii. cap. 1 8. Phristiim, Servatorem nostrum, virum magnum, divinum, et sapientissimum fuisse non inficiabantur, qui egregia et divina plane docuisset, cumque a Ju- daeis injnstissimo supplicio uecatus fuisset, in caelum ad Deos commeasset. Moshem. ibid, p, 23. Hence perhaps it was, that the Emperor Alex, Severus, (of the third century,) along with the images of ApoUonius and Orpheus, had others of Abraham and Jesus Christ, receiving them as deities. Lamprid. Vit, Severi, ' Descivisse scilicet a sanctissimi praeceptoris sui scitis Christianos Plato- nici criminabantur atque castam et sanam ejus disciplinam variis errori-- bus inquinasse, 1, Quod divinis Christum honoribus afficerent; nee enim a suis id postulasse Christum, 2. Quod Deos negligerent, et eorum cultum extinctum vellent ; Christum enim ipsUm a Diis hand alienum fuisse, Mo shem. ibid. p. 24, 58 COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST Ch. hi. 2. It Is not sufficient to remember Christ merely as an eminent prophet, or one of the chief prophets, an ambas sador from heaven, and one that received his Gospel from above, wrought miracles, lived a good life, was defied after death, and will come again to judge mankind : for all this the Mahometans themselves (or some sects amongst them) can freely own, and they pay a suitable regard to his memory on that score™. It is all vastly below what the Scriptures plainly testify of him, and therefore does not amount to a Christian remembrance of him. 3. Neither yet is it sufficient to remember Christ as our Head, Lord, and Master, to whom we owe such re gard as disciples do to their leader or founder : for all this is no more than what the Jews justly ascribed to Moses, who was but the servant of Christ". And it is no more than what many nominal Christians, ancient and modern, many half-believers have owned, and what all but declared apostates or infidels must own. And it comes not up to what the Scriptures fully and frequently teach, and there fore does not amount to a due remembrance of him. 4. Neither, lastly, is it sufficient to remember Christ as higher than the angels, or older than the system of the world : for that is not more than many misbelievers, of former or of later times, have made no scruple to own, and it is still short of the Scripture accounts. For, according to the whole tenor both of Old and New Testament, Jesus Christ is not merely our Lord, Master, Judge, &c. but our Divine Lord and Master; Lord in such a sense as to be Jehovah and God of Israel, God before the creation, and by whom all creatures were made ° ; who " laid the foundation of the earth," and even the "heavens are the works of his hands P;" who has a rightful claim to be worshipped and adored, by men, by angels^, by the " whole creation r." And no wonder, "» See Reland, de Religione Mohammedica, p, 25, 33, 34, 44, 45, 212, 224, David Millius, Dissert, x, de Mohammedismo, p, 344, 345, 346, ° Heb. iii. 2—6. » John i. 1, 2, 3. p Heb, i, 10, 1 Heb,i,6. ' Rev, v, 13. Ch. iu. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 59 since he Is described in sacred Writ, as " God with us^," as "Lord God V' "true God"," " great God '^," "mighty " Gody," " over all, God blessed for ever^." Such Is the Scripture account of our blessed Lord, and his per sonal dignity ; and therefore as such we ought to remem ber him as often as we think of him, and more particularly at the Communion table. For since the value oi what our Lord has done or suffered rises in proportion to the dig nity oi the person so doing or suffering, it is manifest that we cannot duly or suitably remember him in the Sacra ment, if we entertain not those high and honourable con ceptions of him, which such his personal dignity demands. If the sending of the only-begotten Son into the world, to suffer, bleed, and die for us, was really the highest in stance of Divine love which could possibly have been given : and if we are obliged, in return, to express our thankfulness in a way suitable thereto : and if such a suit able return is altogether impracticable without a just sense of the favour granted ; and if no just sense can be had of it, while we take away the most endearing and enforcing consideration, which most of all enhances the value oi it : if these premises he true, the conclusion is plain and neces sary, that as often as we remember Christ in the Eucha rist, we ought to remember him not barely as a wise man, or a good man, or an eminent pi-ophet, or chief martyr, or as our particular Master, or Founder, or Redeemer, but as an almighty Saviour and' Deliverer, as the only-begotten of the Father, " very God of very God," of the same Divine nature, of glory equal, of majesty coeternal. He that remembers him in any lower sense than this, in oppo sition to this, is not worthy of him ; neither can he be esteemed by sober and discerning Christians, as a worthy partaker of the holy Communion. ' Matt. i. 23. ' Luke i. 16, 17. « 1 John v. 20. " Tit. ii. 13. y Isa. ix, 6, » Rom, ix, 5. The reader who desires to see these several texts explained, and objections answered, may please to compare my Eight Sermons, and particularly the sixth. ." I chose to follow Mr. Reeves's translation of this passage, though somewhat paraphrastical, because he has very well hit off the sense. What I have to observe upon it, as suitable to my present purpose, is, that particular notice is twice taken of the incarnation of the Logos, (that is, of God in carnate, according to Justin's known doctrine of the Logos being God,) and the Sacrament is not only supposed to " See my Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, vol, v, p, 320, 321. ¦> Justin Martyr. Apol. i, cap. 86. p. 96. edit, Thirlby, Reeves, vol, i. p, 120, 121, Ch. hi. in the HOLY COMMUNION. 6i be a commemoration <^, but a kind of emblem oi it by Jus tin's account ^, as the intelligent reader will observe. The reason is, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the Sa crament of the passion^, and God the Son, by becoming incarnate, first became passible. All which will be made plainer by another passage of the same Justin, in his Dia logue with the Jew f, which Is as follows : " That prayers " and thanksgivings, made by those who are worthy, are " the only sacrfices that are perfect and well pleasing to " God, I also affirm : for these are the only ones which " Christians have been taught to perform even in that " remembrance [or memorial] of their food both dry and " liquid, wherein also is commemorated the passion which " God of God suffered in his own person, [or for them."'\ I have no need to take notice here of more than Is to my present purpose. The words God of God are what I point to, as a proof that the Divinity oi Christ was an important article of the Eucharistical remembrance. If any should incline to read Son- of God, (upon conjec ture, for it Is no more,) instead of God of God, in that place, it will still amount to the same, because Justin always understood the phrase of Son of God in the highest and strongest sense, as meaning God of Gods. But I seeno necessity of admitting any new conjectural *' Ets xvxpivvitriv rou re ffuf,ixro-rotriffxff^xt xbrov ^tx rvs •rtffrsuovrxs ets aurov S* eus xx) vrxSnres ySyevi. Just. Mart. Dial. p. 290. •I How his was understood, see explained in a Charge on the Doctrinal Use of the Sacraments, p. 25. " £/; xvtxfcvufftv rou T^dtf$ S 'i^rx^tv. Ibid. p. 220. ' "Ort fiiv ouv ^ ih^x), xx) ev^a^i^txt, u^o rm x^iaiv ytvofisvat, rsXsixt fiovxi xxt tva^leret uirt r^ ©ea* ^Ufftat, ^ aures tpn/ii. Txura yx^ fAova xx) K^t^-txve) ^x^iXx^ev ¦zretiiv xx) It* xvxfj,vviint Se rns r^oip^s auraiv l^Vi^xs re xx) uy^xs, ev ^ xou reu *rx^vs 0 zri-jrovBi S/ xurou o &£os rou Osou fis/ivtjrxt. JuSt. Mart. Dial, p 387. A conjectural emendation has been offered, directing us to read S/' xureus, e uies reu @ieu. Mede, Opp. p. 362. Thirlby in loc. I see not why S @ios roij ©e5 may not mean the same with o ©eos Ix ra 0e5 : perhaps ix might have been negligently dropped. The learned editor ingenuously says, istud ©eos admodum sane invitus muto, propter sequentia. e "Os xx) Xeyes WQoirerexos eiv reu Qsov, xx) ©ios u^x^x^t. p. 94. COnf, 406, 408,411. 6a COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST Ch, in, change of o &eo; into 6 ulog, since 0eo? is very frequently our Lord's title in Justin ^, yea, and o 0aoj more than once '. But I proceed. I shall subjoin a passage of Origen, containing the like elevated sentiments of the remembrance made in the holy Communion. " Thou that art come to Christ, (the true " High Priest, who by his blood has reconciled God to " thee, and thee to the Father,) rest not in the blood of the " flesh, but consider rather ihe blood of the Logos, and " hear him declaring. This is my blood which shall be shed "for you, for remission of sins : the Initiated in the mys- " teries well understand both the flesh and the blood of " God the Word^." So I translate the last words, as most agreeable to Origen's usual phraseology : but if any one chooses rather to say. Logos of God, it comes to the same thing. The sum is, that the life and soul, as it were, of the Eucharistical remembrance, lies in the due considera tion of the Divine dignity of the Person whose passion we there remember '. And indeed every man's own reason must convince him that it must be so. If he ever seriously calls to mind the Scripture accounts of our blessed Lord, which I have above recited. Hitherto I have confined my self to the strict notion of remembrance. II. I am next to advance a step farther to commemora tion, which is remembrance and somewhat more. For to a bare remembering it superadds the notion of extolling, •• Just, Mart, p, 204, 210, 233, 250, 261, 263, 265, 273, 291, 303, 328, 408, 409, ¦ Just, Mart. p. 251, 326, 378, ^ Tu qui ad Christum venisti, (Pontificem verum qui sanguine suo Deuin tibi propitium fecit, ct reconciliavit te patri) non hsereas in sanguine carnis ; sed disce potius sanguinem Verbi, et audi ipsum tibi dicentem, quia hie san guis mens est, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum, Norit qui mysteriis imbutus est, et carnem et sanguinem Verbi Dei. Origen. in Levit, Hom, ix. p. 243, 244. ed. Bened. Conf. Clem. Alex, Paedagog, lib, ii. cap, 2. p, 1.86, rev .Xoyev ix^iefesvov &.C. ' Great use was afterwards made of this consideration in the Nestorian controvensy : of which see Cyrill. Alex. Ep. ad Nestor, p. 72. et Anathem, xi, cum Explanat, p. 156. Item Apologet. advers. Oriental, p. 192, 193. Ch. III. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 63 honouring, celebrating, and so It is collecting all into one complex idea of commemorating. This do " in commemo- " ration of me :" which is the second rendering of the same words. Some perhaps might wonder why the So cinians, of all men, should reject the notion of remember ing, and choose that of commemoration, (which is really higher,) yea, and should strongly insist upon it, and make it a point. They certainly do so, as may appear from their own writings ¦" : and what is stranger still, they assign such odd reasons for It, that one would scarce think them in earnest. If we were to look no farther. For what if St. Paul does speak of declaring, or showing our Lord's death, may not ava/AVtjtnj still signify remembrance ? Is it not proper first to remember, and then to declare ; or to declare it now, in order to remember for the future ? Why should one exclude the other, when both are con sistent, and suit well together ? And though a person is supposed, before his coming to the holy Communion, to have the Lord's death in mind, confusely, or in the gene ral, may he not still want to have It more in mind, and to remember it in particular, with all its circumstances, upon a close recollection, assisted by an external solemnity per formed before his eyes ? Besides, If we should not want ¦" Apparet, graviter errasse illos qui existimarunt verbum commemoratio nem, quod iu Graeco est xvx/ivne-iv, mutari debere in recordationem : neque enim dicit Paulus mortem Domini recordamini, sed mortem Domini annun- tiatis, quod profecto non recordationem, sed commemorationem et prtedica- tionem omnino significat ^non est quod quis ex verbo illo {xvxiivmis) coUigat coenam Domini in eum finem institutam fuisse, ut nobis suggerat et in memoriam revocet mortem ipsius Domini Commemoratio autem ista, et pradicatio mortis Christi, id necessario conjunctum habet, ut gratiae agan- tur Christo, tum vero Deo, patri ejus, cujus mandato animam suam posuit. Socin, de Usu et Fin, Ccenas Domini, p. 4, 5. ^uod uonnuUi per commemorationem in verbis Christi quibus ritum hunc instituit, recordationem intelligunt, vel hanc pro ilia vocem reponunt, arbi- trantes in eum finem ritum bunc sacrum esse institutum, ut nobis mortem Domini in memoriam revocet, in eo manifeste errant ; cum qui ritum hunc sacrum obire reete velit, ac mortran Domini hac ratione annuntiare, eum Christi mortis probe et semper memorem esse oporteat. Cracov. Catechism. sect, vi, cap, 4. p, 229, Conf, Slichting, in 1 Cor, xi, 25, et contr, Meisner. p. 805, 814, 816. Wolzogen, in Matth, xxvi. p, 41 6, 64 COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST Ch. in. to call it to mind, yet we miay want to keep it in mind for the future : and who sees not how serviceable the sacra mental solemnity may be for that very purpose ? Add to this, that it is particularly said with respect to the Pass over, " Thou shalt sacrifice the passover, &c. that thou " mayest remember the day when thou camest out of " Egypt, all the days of thy life"." Which is exactly parallel, so far, to the remembrance appointed in the Eu charist. How trifling would it be to urge, that the Israel ites were supposed to remember the day before their com ing to the Passover, and therefore could have no need to refresh their memories by coming; or to urge, that be cause they ought always to bear it in mind, therefore It could not be one end or use oi the Passover, to remind them of It, or to keep it in remembrance all their days. One may judge from hence, that Socinus's pretended reasons against the notion of remembrance were mere shuffle and pretence, carrying more of art and colouring in them, than of truth or sincerity : he had a turn to serve in favour of an hypothesis, and that was all. The turn was this : he had a mind to make the avajxv)) See Joiinson's Unbloody Sacrifice, psu-t ii. p. 44. * Ka) yiroifaaffxro rviv lavr^s rpa^i^xv rhv l^iyva/tftv ttis xy'tas r^ia^os xarl- ^ayyEXXopcivtlv, Ka) ro rt/itev xa) x^^xvrov etura ffZfiix xx) aJfix, «TS^ Iv rn f^V' fixtj Ka) &e/a T^a-:rs^ij W^' Ixas'fiv ivtrsXouvrai, ^ue/ASva tts xvxfcvnfftv rm xufivn^ov xa) f^iirns Ixii'vns rou /iuirrixeu Sueu Se/j»oti. Hippolyt. vol, i, p. 282. ed. Fabric. Ch. IV. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 71 memorials also of our Lord and his passion, as before explained, but all the several views will hang well to gether. Thus far I have been considering the Christian Eucha rist as a remembrance, and a commemoration, and a memo rial of Christ our Lord. I could not avoid intermixing something here and there of our Lord's death and passion, which have so close an affinity with the subject of this chapter : nevertheless that article may require a more distinct consideration, and therefore it may be proper to have a separate chapter for it. CHAP. IV. Of the Commemoration of the Death of our Lord made in the Holy Communion. IT is not sufficient to commemorate the death of Christ, without considering what his death means, what were the moving reasons for it, and what its ends and uses. The subtilties of Socinus and his followers have made this in quiry necessary : for it is to very little purpose " to show " the Lord's death till he come," by the service of the Eucharist, if we acknowledge not that Lord which the Scriptures set forth, nor that death which the New Tes tament teaches. As to Lo7-d, who and what he is, I have said what I conceived sufficient, in the preceding chapter : and now I am to say something of that death which he suffered, as a willing sacrfice to Divine Justice for the sins of mankind. It Is impossible that a man should come worthily to the holy Communion, wKIle he perverts the prime ends and uses of the sacrfice there commemorated, and sets up a. righteousness oi his own, independent of it, frustrating the grace of God in Christ, and making him to have " died in vain '." ' Quidam vero, quomodo aliquando Judaei, et Christianos se dici volunt, et adhuc ignorantes Dei justitiam, suam volunt constituere, etiam tempori- bus iiosti-is, temporibus aperts gratiae, &c.- Quod ait Apostolus de feg-f, F4 73 COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST'S DEATH The death of Christ, by the Scripture account, was properly a vicarious punishment of sin, a true and proper expiatory sacrfice for the sins of mankind : and therefore it oug'ht to be remembered as such. In the memorial we make of It at the Lord's table. I shall cite some texts, just to give the reader a competent notion of the Scripture doctrine in this article; though indeed the thing Is so plain, and so frequently inculcated, from one end of the Scriptures to the other, that no man (one would think) who Is not previously disposed to deceive himself, or has imbibed strong prejudices, could either reject it or mis conceive it. I. That the sufferings of Christ had the nature of pu nishments, rather than of mere calamities. Is proved from what Is said by the Prophet Isaiah, as follows : " He " hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. — He was " wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our " iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon " him, and with his stripes we are healed. — The Lord " hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all. — For the trans- " 'gresslon of my people was he stricken.-— -When thou " shalt make his soul an offering for sin, &c. He was " numbered with the transgressors, and bare the sin of "manyk," What can all these words mean. If they amount not to punishment for the sins of mankind ? Eva sions have been invented, and they have been often re futed. To the same purpose we read in the New Testament, that " he was delivered for our offences \" that he " died " for all," was " made sin for us," when he " knew no " sin m ;" " was made a curse for us ",'' " died for our hoc nos istis dicimus de natura; si per naturatn justilia, ergo Christus gratis raortuus est. Augustin. Serm. xiii. in Johan. vi. Opp. tom. v. p. 645, 646. edit. Bened. ^ Isa. liii. 4—12. conf. Outram. de Sacrific. p. 319, &c.— 328. 1 Pet. ii. 24, and Outram, p. 329, &c. ' Rom. iv. 25. "¦ 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, 21. John xi, 51, 52, » Gal. iii. 13. Ch. IV. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 73 " sinso," "gave himself for our sinsP," "tasted death for " every man 1," and the like. To interpret these and other such texts of dying for our advantage, without rela tion to sin and the penalty due to it, is altogether forced and unnatural, contrary to the custom of language, and to the obvious import of very plain words. a. That our blessed Lord was in his death a proper expiatory sacrifice, (If ever there was any,) is as plain from the New Testament as words can make It. He gave " his " life a ransom for many ^," was " the Lamb of God'' which was to " take away the sins of the worlds," " died " for the ungodly'," " gave himself a ransom for all",'' once " suffered for sins, the just for the unjust "," " gave " himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a " sweet smelling savoury." " Christ our Passover was " sacrificed for us z," " offered up himself %" " to bear " the sins of many''," has " put away sin by the sacrifice " of himself <=." We have been " redeemed with the pre- " clous blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and " without spot ^." These are not mere allusions to the sacrifices of the Old Testament, but they are Interpreta tive of them, declaring their typical nature, as prefiguring the grand sacrfice, and centering in it : whJbh, besides other considerations, appears very evidently from the whole design and tenour of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; signifying, that the legal sacrifices were allusions to, and prefigurations of the gi-and sacrifice. 3. That from this sacrifice, and by virtue of it, we re ceive the benefit of atonement, redemption^ propitiation, justfication, reconciliation, remission, &c. Is no less evi dent from abundance of places in the New Testament. » 1 Cor. XV. 3. P Gal. i, 4, i Heb. ii. 9. - Matt. XX. 28. ' John i. 29. ' Rom. v, 6, « 1 Tim. ii. 6, 8. ''I Pet. iii. 18. compare ii. 21. iv. 1. y Ephes. V. 2. » 1 Cor. v. 7. • Heb. vii. 27, x, 12, ix, 14. ^ Heb. ix. 28. ' Heb. ix. 26, compare x. 12. ¦' 1 Pet, i, 19, 74 COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST'S DEATH " Through our Lord Jesus Christ we have received the " atonement," and " we are reconciled to God by his " death e." " Him God hath set forth to be a propitia- " tion through faith in his blood f," " He is the propitla- " tion for our sins, — ^for the sins of the whole worlds." " We are justified by his blood *>," « redeemed to God " by his blood','' "cleansed from- all sin by his blood''," " washed from our sins in his blood l;" and the robes of the saints are washed and made white only in the blood of the Lamb™. By himself he "purged our sins",'' ^i'^. when he shed his blood upon the cross : and our redemp tion is through his blood°. He hath reconciled us to God by the cross 9, " in the body of his flesh through deaths." *' God was In Christ reconciling the world unto himself, " not Imputing their trespasses unto them ¦"." His blood was " shed for many, for the remission of slns^," " and " without shedding of blood Is no remission'." It is this " blood of sprinkling" that " speaketh better things than " the blood of Abel^ :" and it is by the " blood of Jesus" that men must enter into " the holiest"," as- many as enter. I have thrown these texts together without note or comment; for they need none, they interpret them selves. L6t but the reader observe, with what variety of expression this great truth is inculcated, that our salvation chiefly stands in the meritorious sufferings of our Saviour Christ. The consideration whereof made St. Paul sayi " I determined not to know any thing among you, save " Jesus Christ, and him crucified " :" namely, because this was a most essential article, the very sum and sub stance of the Gospel. " In these and in a great- many " more passages that lie spread in all the parts of the " Rom, V, 10, 11, fRom, iii, 25, 6 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10. 1' Rom. V, 9, ' Rev. v, 9, ^ 1 John i. 7, ' Rev, i, 5. "> Rev. vii. 14, " Heb. i, 3. » Ephes, i. 7. compare 1 Cor, vi, 20, Coloss, i, 14. P Eph, ii, 16, 1 Coloss, i, 22, ' 2 Cor, v. 18, 19, " Matt, xxvi, 28, ' Heb. ix. 22. • Heb. xii. 24. " Heb, X, 19, "1 Cor, ii, 2. Ch. IV. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 75 " New Testament, it is as plain as words can make any " thing, that the death of Christ is proposed to us as our " sacrfice and reconciliation, our atonement and redemption. " So it Is not possible for any man, that considers all this, " to imagine, that Christ's death was only a coifirntation " oi his Gospel, a pattern of a holy and patient suffering " of death, and a necessary preparation to his resurrec- " tion. — By this all the high commendations oi his death *' amount only to this, that he by dying has given a vast " credit and authority to his Gospel, which was the pow- " erfullest mean possible to redeem us from sin, and to re- " conclle us to God. But this is so contrary to the " whole design of the New Testament, and to the true " importance of that great variety of phrases, in which " this matter is set out, that at this rate of expounding " Scripture we can never know what we may build upon ; " especially when the great importance of this thing, and " of our having right notions concerning it, Is well con- " sidered y." The least that we can infer from the texts above men tioned is, that there is some very particular virtue, merit, efficacy. In the death oi Christ, that God's acceptance oi sin ners, though penitent, (not perfect,) depended entirely upon it. Common sacrifices could never " make the " comers thereunto perfect^:" but it was absolutely nc cessary that the heavenly things should be purfied with some better sacrfice ». Which is so true, that our Lord is represented as entering into the holy of holies (that is heaven) " by his own blood ''," where " he ever liveth " to make intercession for" those that " come unto God " by him *=." The efficacy even of his intercession above y Bishop Burnet on Article II. p. 70, 71. ' Hebr. x. 1. - Hebr. ix. 23. I* Hebr, ix, 12, Note, it is not only said that Christ entered into heaven by his own blood, but he is there also considered as the Lamb slain : Rev. v. 6. Which farther shows wherein principally the virtue of his intercessum cc$nsists. ¦= Hebr. vii. 25, conf, Rom, viii, 33, 34. Hebr, ii, 17, ix, 24, 1 John ii, 2. 76 COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST'S DEATH (great and powerful as he is) yet depends chiefly upon that circumstance, his having entered thither by " his own " blood ;" that is to say, upon the merit of his death and passion, and the atonement thereby made. His interces sion belongs to his priestly office, and that supposes the offering before made: for there was a 7iecesstty that he should " have somewhat to offer ^," and nothing less than himself^. Seeing therefore that, in order to ouf redemption, Christ suffered as a piacular victim, (which must be understood to be in our stead,) and that there was some necessity he should do so, and that his prevailing in tercession at God's right hand now, and to the end of the world, stands upon that ground, and must do so; what can we think less, but that some very momentous reasons of justice or of government (both which resolve at length into one) required that so it should be. We are not in deed competent judges of all the reasons or measures of an all-wise God, with respect to his dealings with his creatures ; neither are we able to argue, as it were, before hand, with sufficient certainty, about the te7-ms oi accept ance, which his wisdom, or his holiness, or his justice, might demand. But we ought to take careful heed to what he has said, and what he has done, and to draw the proper conclusions from both. One thing is plain, from the terms oi the first cove7iant, made In Paradise, that Di-^ vine wisdom could have admitted man perfectly innocent to perfect happiness, without the intervention of any sa crfice, or any Mediator : and It is no less plain, from the terms of the new covenant, that there was some necessity (fixed in the very reason and nature of things) that a va-^ luable consideration, atonement, - or sacrifice, should be offered, to make fallen man capable of eternal glory f. <> Hebr, viii, 3. v. 1. ' Hebr. ix. 14, 25, 26, 28. Compare i. 3. ' Si non fiiisset peccatum, non necesse fiierat filium Dei agnum fieri, nee opus fuerat eum in came positum jugulari, sed mansisset hoc quod in princi pio erat, Deus verbum : verum quoniam intravit peccatum in hunc mun dum, peccati autem necessitas propiliationem requirit, et propitiatio nou fit Ch. IV. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 77 The truth of the thing done proves its necessity, (besides what I have alleged front expi-ess Scripture concerning such necessity,) for it is not imaginable that so great a thing would have been done upon earth, and afterwards, as it were, constantly commemorated in heaven s, if there had not been very strong and pressing reasons for it, and such as made it as necessary, (In the Divine counsels,) as it was necessary for a God of infinite perfection to be wise and holy, just and good. When I said, constantly commemorated in heaven, I had an eye to Christ's conti nual intercession^, which is a kind of commemoration oi the sacrifice which he once offered upon the cross, and is always pleading the merit of. Which shows still of what exceeding great moment that sacrifice was, for the reconciling the acceptance oi sinful men, with the ends oi Divine government, the manifestation oi Divine glory, and the unalterable perfection of the Divine attributes. And if that sacrfice is represented and pleaded In heaven by Christ himself, for remission of sins, that shows that there is an intrinsic virtue, value, merit In it, for the pur poses intended: and it shows farther, how rational and how proper our Eucharistical service is, as commemorat ing the same sacrifice here below, which our Lord him self commemorates above. God may reasonably require of us this humble acknowledgment, this self-abasement, that after we have done our best, we are offenders still, though penitent offenders, and have not done all that we ought to have done ; and that therefore we can claim no- nisi per hostiam, necessarium fuit provideri hostiam pro peccato. Origen, in Num. Hom. xxiv. p. 362. B Est ergo duplex, ut legalium quarundam victimarum, ita Chiisti obla tio, prior mactationis, altera ostenfionis legalium victimarum ; prior peracta in templo, altera in ipso penetrali : Christi prior in terris, posterior in ccelo. Prior tamen ilia non sacrificii praeparatio, sed sacrificium: posterior non tam sacrificium, quam sacrificii facti commemoratio. Grot, de Satisfact. in fine. *• Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, (which are the figures of the true,) but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Hebr. ix. 24. 78 COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST'S DEATH thing in virtue of our own righteousness considered by it self, separate from the additional virtue of that all-suffix cient sacrifice, which alone can render even our best ser vices accepted '. If It should be objected, that we have a covenant claim by the Gospel, and that that covenant was entirely owing to Divine mercy j and that so we resolve not our right and title Into any strict merits of our own, but into the pure mercy of God, and that this suffices without any respect to a sacrfice : I say, if this should be pleaded, I answer, that no such covenant claim appears, separate, from all respect to a sac7-fice. The covenant is, that persons so and so qualified shall be acceptable in and through Christ, and by virtue oi that very sacrifice which he entered with into the holy of holies, and by which he now intercedes and appears for us. Besides, it is not right to think, nor is it modest or pious to say, that in the economy of every man's salvation, the groundwork only is God's, by set tling the covenant, and the finishing part ours, by per forming the conditions ; but the true order or method is for our Lord to be both the Author and Finisher of the whole. The covenant, or rather, the covenant charter, was given soon after the fall to mankind In general, and has been carried on through successive generations by new stipulating acts In every age: so likewise was the atonement made (or considered as made) once for all, but is applied to particulars, or individuals, continually, by means of Christ's constant abiding intercession. There fore it is not barely our performing the conditions, that finishes our salvation, but it is our Lord's applying his merits to our perfoi-mances that finishes all. Perhaps this whole matter may be more clearly represented by a dis tinct enumeration of the several concurring means to the same end. i. The Divine philanthropy has tbe first hand in our salvation, is the primary or principal cause, a. ' See onr Xlth Article, with Bishop Burnet's Notes upon it, and Mr. Welchman's. Ch. IV. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 79 Our performing the duties required, faith and repentance, by the aid of Divine grace, is the dondiiional cause. 3. The sacrfice of Christ's death, recommending and ren dering acceptable our imperfect performances, is the meri torious cause. 4. The Divine ordinances, and more parti cularly the two Sacraments, (so far as distinct from condi tional,) are the i7isirumental^ causes, in and by which God applies to men fitly disposed the virtue oi that sacri fice. Let these things be supposed only, at present, for clearer conception : proofs of every thing will appear in due time and place. By this account may be compe tently understood the end and use of commemorating the sacrifice of our Lord's passion in the holy Communion. It corresponds with the commemoration made above : it is suing for pardon, in virtue of the same plea that Christ himself sues in, on our behalf: It Is acknowledging our indispensable need of It, and our dependence upon it ; and confessing all our other righteousness to be as nothing without it. In a word, it Is at once a service of thanks giving (to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) for the sacrifice of our redemption, and a service also of self-humiliation before God, angels, and men. If it should be objected here, that showing fo7-th our Lord's death, cannot well be understood of showing to God, who wants not to have any thing shown to him, all things being naked before him ; it is obvious to reply, that he permits and commands us, in innumerable in stances, to present ourselves and our addresses before him : and though the very word xarayyeA^eiv, which St. Paul makes use of in this case', is not elsewhere used for showing to God, yet uvayysWsiv, a word of like import, is™; so that there is no just objection to be drawn merely '' 1 understand instrument here in no other sense, but as deeds of con veyance, or forms of investiture, such as a ring, a crosier, letters patent, broad seal, and the like, are called instruments ,- which shall be explained hereafter . * 1 Cor. xi. 26. Tov dfevoerov reu Kugieu xxrxyyiXXtrz. ™ 'AvayysXXiw ffyifii^ov Ku^iat rS ®iu fiou. ». r. X. Deut. xxvi, 3, Conf, Psal, xxxviii, 18. 8o COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST'S DEATH from the phraseology. As to the reason of the thing, since addresses to God have always gone along' with the representation made in the Communion, and are part of the commemoration, it must be understood that we repi-esent, what we do represent, to God, as well as to men. Having thus dispatched what I intended concerning the remembrance, commemoration, or memoi'ial of our Lord, and of his passion, made in this Sacrament, I might now proceed to a new chapter. But there is an incidental point or two to be discussed, which seem to fall in our way, and which therefore I shall here briefly consider, before I go farther. 1. It has been suggested by some", that the notion of remembrance, or commemoration, in this service, is an argu ment against present receiving of be7iefils In, or by it: Christ and his benefits are to be remembered or commemo rated here ; therefore neither he nor his benefits are sup posed to" be actually received at the time. This is not the place proper for examining the question about present or actual benefits : but it may be proper, while we are stating the notion of 7-emembrance, to obviate an objection drawn from It, in order to clear our way so far. I see no force at all In the argument, unless It could be proved that the word remembrance must always be referred to some thing past, or absent: which Is a supposition not warranted by the customary use of language. " Remember thy Crea- " tor:" does it follow, that the Creator is not present? " Remember the Sabbath day" (when present, I suppose) " to keep it holy." Let remembra7ice signify calling io mind ° ; may we not call to mind present benefits, which " Jam constat homines ibi non participare, vel sortiri, vel accipere san guinem Christi : participatio enim, vel sortitio, rei pmsentis est ; at bene- dictio, quae hoc loco idem est quod commemoratio, rei prieteritee esse solet, Smalc. contr. Frantz. p. 331. NOtandum recordationem rebus vere et realiter prtesentibus nullo modo tribui posse: non enim dici possumus eorum recordari quibus tunc cum maxime praesentibus fruimur, cum recordatio mere ad praterita pertineat. Przipcovius ad 1 Cor. xi. 20. p. 91. ° Archbishop Tillotson, explaining the Scripture notion of remembrance. Ch. IV. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 8i are invisible, and which easily slip out bf our thoughts, or perhaps rarely occur, being thrust out by sensible things ? Or let it signify keeping in mind; ii so, there is no im propriety in saying, that we keep in mind what Is present and not seen,; by the help of what is seen. Let it signify commemorating: may not a man commemorate a bene faction, suppose, which is in some sense past, but is pre sent also in its abiding fruits and influences, which are the strongest motives for commemorating the same ? In deed It would be hard to vindicate the wisdom of comme morating what is past, or absent, were there not some pre sent benefits resulting from it. I presume, if a benefac tion were wholly lost or sunk, the usual commemoration of it would soon sink with it : the present benefits are what keep it up. We do not say that Christ's deaths or Christ's crucifixion. Is now present ; we know it is past : but the benefits remain; and while we remember one as past, we call io mind, or keep in mind, the other also, as present, but invisible, and therefore easily overlooked. I see no impropriety in this manner of speaking : nor if a person -should be exhorted to rerhember that he has a soul to be saved, that such an admonition would imply, that his soul is absent from his body. a. Another incidental question, like the former,-is, whe-^ ther, from the notion of remembrance in this sacrament, a conclusive argument may be formed against the cotporal presence, and piarticularly against transubsiantiation? Not withstanding tha.t we have many. clear demonstrations against that strange doctrine, yet I should be far from re jecting any additional argument, provided it were solid and just: but I perceive not of what use the word re- says ; " Remembrance is the octe«i thought of what we do habitually know. " — ^To remember a pwson, or thing, is to call them to mind upon all pro- " per and fitting occasions, to think actually of them, so as to do that which " the remembrance of them does require, or prompt us to." . Serm. liv. p. 638. fol. edit. I see not -why present benefits may not thus be remembered, and deserve to bc so, rather th.in past, or ab^pit, or distant benefits, VOL. VII. G 8a COMMEMORATION OF CHRIST'S DEATH membrance can be in this case, or how any certain argu ment can be drawn from it. The words are " remem- " brance of me :" therefore, if any absence can be proved from thence. It must be the absence of what ME there stands for, that is, of the whole person of Christ 5 and so it appears as conclusive against a spiritual presence, as, against a corpwal one, and proves ioo much to prove any thing. Surely we may remember Christ, in strict pro priety of expression, and yet believe him to be present at the same time ; espedially considering that he is " always " present with his Church, even to the end ofthe world P," and that " where two or three are gathered together in " his name, there" is he " in the midst of theml;" and he has often told us of his dwelling in good men. So then, since it is not said, remembrance of my body, but re membrance of me, and since it is certain, that one part at least of what ought to be remembered is present, (not ab sent,) therefore no argument can be justly drawn merely from the word remembrance, as necessarily inferring the absence of the thing remembered. But if it had been said, remembrance of my body, or blood, yet neither so would the argument be conclusive, if we attend strictly to the Romish persuasion. For they do not assert any visible presence of Christ's body, or blood, but they s^, that his natural body and blood are invisibly, or in a spiritual manner, present, under the acci dents, or visible appearances of bread and wine. Now what is invisible is so far imperceptible, unless by the eye of faith, and wants as much to be called io mind as any absent thing whatsoever. Therefore remembrance, or calling to mind, might be very proper in this case: for what is out of sight may easily slip out of mind. If any particular restrained sense oi remembrance should be thought on, to help out the argument ; there will still remain a great difficulty, namely, to prove that awJ/ti/ijinf, in the words of the institution, must necessarily be con- P Matt, xxviii. 20. q Matt, xviii, 20, Ch. IV. IN THE HOLY COMMUNION. 83 fined to such a restrained sense : which being utterly un- capable of any certain proof, the argument built there upon must of consequence fall to the ground. Seeing, therefore, that there are two very considerable flaWS In the argument, as proving too much one way, and too little the other way, it appears not prudent to rest an other wise clear clause upon so precarious a bottom, or to give the Romanists a very needless handle for triumph in this article, when we have a multitude of other arguments, strong and irresistible, against the corporal or local pre sence in the holy Communion. As to the continuance of the Eucharistical service till our Lord comes, there is a plain reason for it, because the Christian dispensation is bound up in it, and must expire with it. And there is no necessity of supposing, as some do"^, any allusion to the absence of his body. The text does not say, till his body appears, but till he come : that is, till he comes to put an end to this sacramental service, (and to all other services proper to a state of probation,) and to assign us our reward. The reference is to the ul timate end, where this and all other probationary duties, as such, must cease, and to which they now look, expect ing to be so crowned and completed : so that if there be an antithesis intended in the words. It is between present service and future glory, not between present and absent body. However, though the argument will not bear in the view before mentioned, yet it is right and just to argye, that the sign, or memorial of any thing, Is not the very thing signified or commemorated, but is distinct from it. Bread and wine, the symbols of Christ's natural brody and blood, are not literally that very natural body and blood ; neither is the sacrament of Christ's passion literally the passion itself: thus far we may argue justly against tran- ' .Quia futuri adventus Domini meutio .sit, palarh est, quasi nbsentis desi- derium, et ut ita dicam, defectum suppleri, hac representatione, et ob oculos positione prieteriti ejus beneficii, donee ipse adveniens desiderium hoc nos trum impleat, Przipcovius ad 1 Cor. xi, 24, G 2 84 THE CONSECRATION OF Ch. v. sttlistantiation, hut supposing at the same time the strict sense of the word sacrament to be the true one. The ar gument is as good against the Socinians also, only by be ing transversed : for the things signiiied and commemo rated are not the signs, or memorials, hut something else. And therefore, to make out the true notion of sacramen tal signs, there must be inward and invisible graces as well as outward visible signs : oi which more in the se quel. Having done with the first and principal end of the Sa crament, namely, the commemoration oi Christ as de scribed in Scripture, and of his death according to the trbe sacrificial notion of it ; I now proceed to show how this commemoration is performed, or by what kind of service it is solemnized, and what is farther intimated or effected in and by that service. CHAP. V. Of ike Consecration of the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Holy Communion. THE first thing we have to take notice of in the Sacrar mental service is the consecration oi the elements : " Je- " sus took bread and blessed it^." " The cup of, bless- " ing which we bless'," &c. Here the points to be in quired into are, i. Whether the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist are really blessed, consecrated, sanc tified, and in what sense. 2. Supposing they are blessed,_ &c. by whom or how they are so. 3. What the blessing or consecration amounts to. I. The first inquiry is, whether the elements may be justly said to be blessed, or consecrated : for this is a point which I find disputed by some ; not many, nor very con siderable. Smalcius, a warm man, and who seldom knew any bounds, seems to have been of opinion, that no pro per, no sacerdotal benediction at all belonged to the bread • Matt, xxvi, 26. ' 1 Cor. x, 16, Ch. v. THE BREAD AND WINE. 85 and cup before receiving, nor indeed after ; but that the communicants, upon receiving the elements, gave praise to God, and that was all the benediction which St. Paul speaks of". So he denies that any benediction at all passed to the elements. And he asserts besides, that whatever benediction there was, it was not so much from the administrator, or officiating minister, as from the com municants themselves : for which he has a weak pretence from St. Paul's words, we bless, that is, says be, we com municants do It. Thus far Smalcius. But the cooler and wiser Socinians go not these lengths. Crelllus ex pressly allows, that a benediction is conferred upon the cup, as it is sanctified by thanksgiving, and made a kind of libation unto God''. He goes farther, and distin guishes sacramental consecration from that of common meals, as amounting to a sanctification of the elements for high and sacred purposes?. The Racovian Catechism al lows also of a sanctification oi the elements, made by prayer and thanksgiving z. Wolzogenlus, afterwards, seems to waver and fluctuate between inclination and rea son, and scarce knows where to fix ; sometimes admitting a consecration of the elements, and soon after resolving all " Notandum insuper est, verba Pauli, calix benedictionis, non significare calicem benedictum (ut Frantzius, una cum Pontificiis, a,liquid divinum sibi : et suis hac re arrogantibus, interpretatur) sed calicem, quo smmpto henedici- mus : mox enim additur, quem benedicimus, nempe omnes qui ad mensam Domini accedimus, Valent. Smal. contr. Frantz. p. 331, ^ Beuedictio autem ista refertur primum ad Deum et Christum, et in gra tiarum actione (unde etiam hie ritus saiAafiitus Eucharistia nomen obti nuit) consistit : sed simul etiam transit ad calicem, quatenus divini nominis benedictione et gratiarum actione sanciificatur calix iste, et sic Domino quodammodo libatur. Crellius in 1 Cor. %. 16, Opp, tom, ii, p, 306, y Non tantum eam gratiarum actionem, quae etiam in vulgari ciborum et potus usu adhibetur, intelligi arbitramur, qua scilicet gratiae aguntur pro po culo isto ; sed maxime eam qua gratiae aguntur pro Christi fuso pro nobis sanguine. Hac enim gratiarum actione imprimis poculum istud, quo ad Christi sanguinis fusionem repraesentandam utimur, sanciificatur et conse- cratur. Crellius, ibid, p, 306, » Qui calici huic benedicunt, id est, cum gratiarum actione, et nominis Domini celebratione sanctificant, &c. Racov. Catech. sect, vi, c. 4, p. 237, edit, 1659. 86 THE CONSECRATION OF Ch. V. into bare giving of thanks to God^. I suppose all his hesitancy was owing to bis not understanding the notion of relative holiness, (which he might have admitted, as Crellius did, consistently with his other principles,) or to some apprehension he was under, lest the admitting of a real sanctification should infer some secret operation of the Holy Ghost,, However, to make Scripture bend to any preconceived opinions is not treating sacred Writ with the reverence which belongs to it. St. Paul is express, that the cup, meaning the wine, is blessed, or sanctified, in the Eucharist : and if the wine he really sanctijied In that solemn service, no man of tolerable capacity can make any question as to the bread, whether that be not sanctijied also. It is of small moment to plead that ivyapnTTeiv and ettXo- yfiv are often used promiscuously, and that the former properly signifies giving thanks, and that bread ahd wine (for thus do some trifle) cannot be thanked : for since the words are often used promiscuously, and since siiXoyelv is taken transitively in this very case by the Apostle^, it is next to self-evident that soyjxpKyrfiv, so far as concerns this matter, cannot be taken in a sense exclusive of that trans itive signification of soKoyslv : for to do that is flatly to contradict the Apostle. No doubt but either of the words may (as circumstances happen) signify no more than thanking or praising God; but here it is manifest, that. In this rite, both God is praised and the elements blessed: yea both are done at the same time, and In the self-same act; and the Apostle's authority, without any thing more, abundantly proves it. If the reader desires any thing far ther, in so plain a case, he may please to consult three very able judges of Biblical language, or of Greek phrases ; Buxtorf I mean, and Vorstius, and Casaubon, who have " Vox benedicendi significat usitatam illam gratiarum actionem, seu consecrationem panis, &c. Calicem benedicere est, Deum pro potu, qui est iu calice, extollere, eique gratias agere. PVohog. in Matt. xxvi. 26. p. 408. ** 1 Cor. X. 16. To zjorri^iov rtis iukoyixs o iuXoyou/Azv. Ch. v. the bread AND WINE. 87 clearly and fully settled the true meaning of evx^otpio-rfiv and sdKoysiv, both in the general, and with respect to this particular case: I shall refer <= to the two first of them, and shall cite a few words from the third <*. But to cut off all pretence drawn from the strict sense of ioyapia-Tftv, as importing barely thanksgiving unto God, it may be observed, that that word also is often used transitively^, as well as ei\oyiiv, and then it Imports or includes benedic tion : so far from truth is it, that it must necessarily ex clude it. I may farther add, that the benedictions used^ In the paschal solemnity may be an useful comment upon the benediction in the Eucharist; There the laying hand upon the bread, and -the taking up the cup, were signifi cant intimations of a blessing transferred to the bread and wine, in virtue of the thanksgiving service at the same time performed. And by the way, from hence may be understood what St. Chrysostom observes upon i Cor. x- 16. " The cup of blessing, which we bless, &c." on which he thus comments : " He called It the cup of blessing, "because while we hold it in our hands, we send up our " hymns of praise to God, struck with admiration and " astonishment at the ineffable gift, &c. s" That circum- ' Buxtorf. de Ccena Domini, p. 311. Conf. Bucher. Antiq. Evangel, p. 369, Johan. Vorstius de Hebraism. N. T. part, i, p. 166, &c. * Evangelistae et Apostolus Paulus — duobus verbis promiscue utuntur, ad declarandam Domini actionem, liiXeyuv, et iu}(xiie'ri7v. — utraque vox a parte una, totam Domini actionem designat : nam Christus in eodem actu, et Deum Patrem laudavit, et gratias ei egit, et hoc ainplius panem sanctifixcb- vit; hoc est, consecravit in usum Sacramenti, &c. Casaub. Exercit. xvi. p. 517. Conf. p. 533. ct Albertin. de Eucharist, lib. i. c. 4. p. 8, &c. 6 Euxx^te'riiS-ivres u^rou — Bv^^x^ttrrtj^utrav rpo^nv. Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 96. conf. 98, veri^ix iuxx^iirriiv rou {werti^iou') luxx^iimiiivou. Iren. lib, i. u. 13. p, 60, viu^ iptXov ihxxiiirroMiv. Clem, Alex. Strom, i, p, 375. Note, that for the expressing this transitive sense of the Greek word, some have contrived, not improperly, the English word eucharistize, importing tlianhsgiving towards God, but so as at the same time to express the bene diction imparted to the elements in the same act. f See above, chap. ii. p. 50. t TLornpiev ii ihyieyixs ixxkstnv, kvrstiav aire filra x^i"^ ^'p^"*"?) evrus aurov ecvvfiVoup.£v, ^auptx^evrss , ¦ixvXyirrop.ivoi rns xfxreu eoi^EMS. «¦. t. ^. Note, though Chrysostom here makes mention of hymns only, in account- G4 88 THE. CONSECRATION OF Ch. v. stance of holding the thing in hand while the prayers or praises were offering, was supposed to signify the deriva tion of a benediction, or consecration upon it. It is not material to dispute, whether the consecration formeriy was performed by thanksgiving, or by prayer, or by both together : the forms might differ in different churches, or at different times. But the point which we are now con sidering is, whether a benediction is really conveyed to the elements in this service, and whether they are really sanc- iified, or made holy. That they are so, is plain from the testimony of St. Paul before recited. 3. As to Smalcius's pretence, before mentioned, con cerning the benediction of the communicants, after their re ceiving the elements. It is a groundless fiction, and a vio lent perverting of the plain meaning of the text. In the paschal service, the benediction was performed by the master of the feast, (not by the whole company,) and be fore dist7-ibution : so was it likewise in the institution of this sacrament by our Lord. And all antiq'uity is conso nant, that a sacei-doial blessing was previous to the deli vering the sacred symbols *", made sacred by that bene- . diction. And this is confirmed from hence, (as before hinted,) that an unworthy communicant is guilty of pro fane irreverence ; viz. towards what is supposed holy, be fore he receives it. As to St. Paul's expression, we bless, it means no more than if he had said, we Christians bless, meaning, by the proper officers. To strain a common idiom of speech to the utmost rigour is not right : it ing for the name of eulogy, or blessing, yet he did not mean that hymns only were used at that time in consecrating, for he elsewhere plainly speaks of prayer besides, prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost. "Ot* XV o\ xa) ro zrviv/jcM ro xytov xxXfl, xx) Tflv tp^txee^Bffrdritv IvririX^ ^uiriav, »ot) rou xotvou Zfxvraiv truvtx^S l^iii'ffryjrxt ^itfvoreu, Vlfou rx^epelv xurov, fiiwe pi-ol , De Sacerdot. lib. vi. c. 4. p. 424. ed. Bened. Compare Theophyl. on John vi. who speaks as fully to the same purpose. ^ "Euxx^tfrvtiravros at reu zT^ntrraros, xa) Xviu^vjfinifxvres -zixvres reu Xxou, ot xaXeufiEvot r^x^' ripitv otaxovot iiBaxffiv \xxffru Totv zsapovraiv fitrxXx^itv afro rov tv- xa^ttmi^ivres x^reu, xx) e'lveu, xa) uixros. Just, Mart. p. 96. See Archbishop Potter on Church Government, p. 262, &c. Ch. V. THE BREAD AND WIJSIE. 89 might as well be pleaded, that St. Paul must be present in person at every consecration; for ordinarily, when a man says we, he includes himself in the number. It must be owned, that it depends upon the disposition of every communicant, to render the previous consecration either salutary or noxious to himself: and if any man has a mind to call a worthy reception of the elements, a conse cration of them to himself, a secondary consecration, he may • ; for it would not be worth while to hold a dispute aboiit words. But strictly speaking, it is not within the power or choice of a communicant, either to consecrate or to desecrate the symbols, to make the sacrament a com mon meal, or otherwise : it is a religious and sacred meal even to the most unworthy ; and that is the reason why such are liable to the judgment of God for abusing it : for if it were really a common meal to them, it would do them no more hurt, than any other ordinary entertain ment. Holy things are fit for holy persons, and will turn to their nutriment and increase : but to the unholy and . profane, if they presume to come near, the sanctified in struments do as certainly turn to their detriment and con- ; demnation. There are proofs of this, in great abund ance, quite through the Old Testament, and I need not . point out to the reader what he may every where find. One thing more I may note here in passing, for the preventing cavils or mistakes. When we speak of human benedictions, and. their efficacy, we mean not that they have any real virtue or efficacy in themselves, or under any consideration but as founded in Divine promise^ or contract, and as comingyrom God by man. If the prayer of faith saved the sick^, it was not properly the human prayer that did It, but God did it ly or upon such prayer. ¦ Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus : sed consdentia ejus qui offert, sanctficat sacrificium, pura existens, &c, Iren. lib, iv, c, 18, p, 250. N, B. Here, sanctifying means rendering salutary : not that that alone does it, but it is a condition sine qua non. ^ James v. 15. 9.0 THE CONSECRATION OF Ch. v. pursuant to his promise. In like manner, whatever con secration, or benediction, or sanctification Is imparted in the Saci-ament to things or persons, it is all God's doing; and the ground of all stands In the Divine warrant autho rizing men to administer the holy Communion, in the Divine word intimating the effect of it, and in the Divine promise and covenant, tacit or express l, to send his bless ing along with it. 3. The third and most material article of -inquiry is, what the consecration of the elements really amounts to, or what the effect of it is ? To which we answer, thus much at least is certain, that the bread and wine being " sancti- " fied by the word of God and prayer ™," (according to the Apostle's general rtAe, applicable in an eminent man ner to this particular case,) do thereby contract a relative holiness, or sanctification, in some degree or other. What the degree is, is no where precisely determined ; but the measures of it may be competently taken from the ends and uses of the service, from the near relation it bears to our Lord's person, (a Person of infinite dignity,) and from the judgments denounced against irreverent offenders, and perhaps from some other considerations to be mentioned as we go along. For the clearer conception of this matter, we may take a brief survey of what relative holiness meant under the Old Testament, and of the various degrees of it. I shall sa,y nothing of the relative holiness of persons, but of what belonged to inanimate things^ which is most to our present purpose. The court of the temple was holy ", the ' I say, tacit or.express : because our Lord's declaring, and St. Paul's de claring wltat is done in the Eucharist, do amount to a tacit promise of what shall be done always. Wherefore the Socinians do but trifle with us, when they call for an express promise. Are not tfie words, " this is my body," &c. and " is it not the communion," &c. tantamount to a Divine promise of every thing we contend for ? But this is not the place to explain that whole matter : thus much is evident, that what the word of prayer did once mate the sacramental bread and wine to be, that it will always make it. " 1 Tim. iv. 5. " 1 Kings viii. 64, Ch. V. THE BREAD AND WINE. 91 ^emp/e itself more holy, and the sanctuary, or holy of ho lies, was still more so": but the ark of God, .laid, up in the sanctuary, appears to have been yet holier than all. The holiness of the ark was so great, and so tremendous, that many were struck dead at once, only for presuming to look into it with eyes impure P : and Uzzah but for touching it (though with a pious intent to; preserve it from falling) was instantly smitten of God, and died upon the spot 1. Whatever God is once pleased to sanctify by his more peculiar presence, or to claim a more special pro periy in, or to separate to sacred uses, that is relatively holy, as having a nearer relation to God ; and It must of course be treated with a reverence and awe suitable. Be the thing what it will, be it otherwise ever so mean and contemptible in itself, yet as soon as God gives it a sacred relatiouj and> as It were, seals it with his own signet, it must then be looked upon with an eye of reverence, and treated with an awfiil respect, for fear of trespassing against the Divine majesty, in making that common which God has sanctified. This notion of relative holiness is a very easy and intel ligible notion : or if' it wanted any further illustration, might be illustrated from familiar examples in a lower kind, oi relative sacredness accruing to inanimate things by the relation they bear to earthly majesty. The thrones, or scepters, or crowns, or presence-rooms of princes are, in this lower sense, relatively sacred: and an offence may be committed against the majesty of the sovereign, by an ir reverence offered to what so peculiarly belong to him. If any one should ask, what Is conveyed to the respective things to make them holy, or sacred f we might ask, in our turn, what was conveyed to the ground which Moses once stood upon, to make it holy ground^ ? or what was •> The Rabbins reckon up ten degrees of such relative holiness. Vid, Dey lingius, Observat, Miscellan. p. 546, p' 1 Sam, vi, 19. 1 2 Sam, vi. 7. 1 Chron. xiii. 9, 10. ' Exod. iil, 5, 92 THE CONSECRATION OF Ch. v. conveyed to the gold which the temple was said to sancti fy^, or what to the. gift when the altar sanctified it' ? But to answer more directlyfas to things common becoming holy or sacred, I say, a holy or sacred relation is con veyed to them by their appropriation or use; and that suffices. The things are in themselves just what they be fore were " : but now they are considered by reasonable creatures as coming under new and sacred relations, which have their moral effect ; insomuch that now the honour of the Divine majesty in one case, or of royal in the other case, becomes deeply interested in them. Let us next apply these general principles to the parti cular instance oi relative holiness supposed to be conveyed to the symbols of bread and wine by their consecration. They are now no more common bread and wine, (at least not during this their sacred application,) but the commu nicants are to consider the relation which they bear, and the uses which they serve to. I do not here say what, because I have no mind to anticipate what more properly belongs to another head, or to a distinct chapter here after : but in the general I observe, that they contract a relative holiness"^ by their consecration, and that is the effect. Hence It is, that some kinds of irreverence to wards these sacred symbols , amount to being " guilty " of the body and blood of the Lord "," the Lord of glory; and hence also it was that many of the Corin thians, in the apostolical age, were punished as severely « Matt, xxiii, 17. ' Matt, xxiii. 19. 1 " When certain things are said to be holy or sacred, no moral quality "of holiness inheres in the things, only an obligation is liud upon men, to " treat them in such a particular manner : and when that obligation ceases, " they are supposed to fall again into promiscuous and ordinary use." Ptef- fendorf. Law of Nature, cb. i. concerning moral entities. " The ancients therefore frequentiy gave the titie of holy, holy of the Lord, or even holy of holies, and the like, to the sacred elements. Testi monies are collected by Suicer, tom. i. p. 56, 62. Albertin. p. 345, 346, 376. Grabe, Spicil. tom. i. p. 343. >¦ 1 Cor. xi, 27, Ch. v. THE BREAD AND WINE. 93 for offering contempt to this holy solemnity, as others formerly were for their irreverence towards the ark of God : that is to say, they were smitten of God with dis eases and death 7. Enough hath been said for the explaining the general nature or notion of relative holiness : or if the reader de sires more, he may consult Mr. Mede, who professedly considers the subject more at large ^. Such a relative holiness does undoubtedly belong to the elements once consecrated. The ancient Fathers are still more particular in expounding the sacerdotal consecration, and the Divine sancification consequent thereupon. Their several senti ments have been carefully collected, and useful remarks added, by the learned Pfaffius ^. It may be proper here to give some brief account of their way of explaining this matter, and to consider what judgment It may be reason able to make of it. Mr. Aubertine has judiciously re duced their sentiments of consecration to three heads, as follows ^: I . The power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, as the principal, or properly efficient cause; 2. Prayers, thanksgivings, benedictions, as the conditional cause, or in strumental. 3., The words of our Lord, "This is my "body, this is my blood," as declarative of what then was, promissory oi what should be allways. I shall throw in a few remarks upon the several heads in their order. I. As to the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, (in conjunction with God the Father,) I suppose, the an cients might Infer their joint operations in the Sacraments, partly from the general doctrine of Scripture relating to their joint concurrence In promoting man's salvation °, y 1 Cor. xi. 30. ^ Mede's Works, p. 399, &c. and 823. Dissertationum Triga. Lond. A. D. 1653. » Pfaffius, Dissert, de Consecratione veterum Eucharistica, p. 355. Com pare I'Arroque, Hist of the Eucharist, part i. ch. 8, p, 65, &c. •> Albertin. de Eucharist, lib, i, c, 7, p, 34, ' Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. John xiv, 16, 26, Rom. v. 5, 6. 1 Cor, xii, 4, 5, 6, 2 Cor, 94 THE CONSECRATION OF Ch. v. and' partly from their being jointly AowowreeZ or worship'^ ped in sacramental services <* ; . and partly also from what is pairtlcularly taught in Scripture, with respect to our Lord's concern in the Eucharist, or the Holy Spirit's. It is observable that the doctrine of the Fathers, with re gard to consecration, was much the same in relation to the waters oi Baptism, as in relation to the elements in the Eucharist. They supposed a kind of descent of the Holy Ghost, to sanctify the waters in one, and the sym bols in the other, to the uses intended : and they seem to have gone upon this general Scripture principle, (besides particular texts relating to each sacrament,) that the Holy Ghost is the immediate fountain of all sancification. I believe they were right in the main thing, only not al ways accurate in expression. Had they said, that the Holy Ghost came upon the recipients, in the due use of the sacraments, they had spoken with greater exactness ; and perhaps it was all that they really meant. They could not be aware of the disputes which might arise In after times, nor think themselves obliged to a philosophi cal strictness of expression. It was all one with them to say, in a confuse general way, either that the Holy Ghost sanctified the " receivers in the use of the outward sym- " bols," or that he " sanctified the Symbols to their use:" for either expression seemed to amount to the same thing; though in strictness there is a considerable difference be tween them. What Mr. Hooker very judiciously says, of the real presence of Christ In the Sacrament, appears to be equally applicable to the presence of the Holy Spi rit in the same : " It is not to be sought for in the Sacra- '.' ment, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament. — As 2Cor, i. 21, 22. xiii. 14. Ephes. i. 17, 21, 22. 2 Thess. ii. 13, 1 4. Tit. in. 4, 5, 6. 1 Pet. i. 2. ^ Baptism in the name of all three. Matt, xxviii. 19. As to the Eucha rist, Justin Martyi' is an early witness, that the custom was to make men tion of all the three Persons in that service. "Ecrg/Toi "Sf^otr^i^irxt r^ zf^esffrajrt rSv xitXipZv x^res, xx) zrer^^tov uixros, xat x^xfLxras' xx) euros XaSaiv, xtvov xa) io^xv ru •jrar^i raiv o\aiv, 2ix red IvofAxros rov uieu, xx) rev wiufAxros rou xyiov, avxT^/AV&t, Apol, i. p. 96, Ch. v. the BREAD AND WINE. 95 " for the Sacraments, they really exhibit ; but for ought 'i we can gather out of that which Is written of them, " they are not really, nor do really contain in themselves, " that grace which with them, or by them, it pleas6th " God to bestow «." Not that I conceive there is any absurdity in supposing a peculiar presence of the Holy Ghost to. inanimate things, any more than in God's ap pearing in a binning bush ^ : but there is no proof of the fact, either from direct Scripture, or from that in con junction with the reason of the thing. The relative holi ness of the elements, or symbols, as explained above, is very intelligible, without this other supposition : and as to the rest, it is all more rationally accounted for (as we shall see hereafter) by the presence of the Holy Spirit with the worthy receivers, in the use of the symbols, than by I know not what presence or union with the symbols themselves s. a. The second article, mentioned by Albertinus, relates to prayers, thanksgivings, and benedictions, considered as inslrumenial in consecration. It has been a question, , whether the earlier Fathers (those of the three first cen turies) allowed of any proper prayer, as distinct from thanksgiving, in the Eucharistical consecration. I think they did, though the point is scarce worth disputing, since they plainly allowed of a sancification oi the ele ments, consequent upon what was done by the officiating minister. But we may examine a few authorities, and as briefly as possible. Justin Martyr, more than once, calls the consecrated elements by the name oieucharistixed food^, which looks as if he thought that the thanksgiving was the conseCra- ' Hooker, Eccl, Polity, b, v, p, 307, 308. Archbishop Cranmer had said the same thing before, in his preface to his book against Gardiner : I shall have another occasion, lower down, for citing his words. Conf. Sam. Ward, Determinat. Theolog. p. 62. ' Exod. iii. 2. Acts vii. 30. E Vid. Vossius de Sacrament. Vi et Efficacia, A. D. 1 648. torn. vi. p. 252. de Bapt. Diss. v. p. 274. Harmon. Evangel. 233. A. D. 1656. ¦i Eixxpirrn^vres a^reu—— ivxxiiirrtiS-iTrxv r^oifm. Apol. i. p. 95. 96 THE CONSECRATION OF Ch. v. tion : but yet he commonly makes mention both of pray ers and thanksgiving ', where he speaks of the Eucharisti cal service ; from whence it appears probable, or certain rather, that consecration, at thait time, was performed by loth.~ Irenasus ^ speaks of the bread as receiving the invoca tion of God, and thereby becoming more than commori bread. Some would interpret it of prayer for the descent of tlie Holy Ghost^; but, as I apprehend, without suffi cient authority. Irenaeus might mean no more than call ing upon God, in any kind of prayer or thanksgiving, of in such as Justin Martyr before him had referred to. Ire naeus, in the same chapter, twice speaks of thanksgiving'^, as used before or at the consecration: but nothing can be certainly inferred from thence, as to his excluding prayer, and resolving the consecration into bare ihanks- Origen has expressed this whole matter with as much judgment and exactness, as one shall any where meet with among the ancient Fathers. He had been consider ing our Lord's words, " Not that which goeth into the " mouth defileth a man ° ;" upon which he immediately thought with himself, that by parity of reason, it might as justly be said, that what goes into the mouth cannot sanctify a man. And yet here he was aware, that ac cording to the vulgar way of conceiving or speaking, the sacramental elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist were supposed to sanctify the receiver, having themselves been sanct fied before in their consecration. This was true in some sense, and according to a popular way of ¦ A.oyai luxns xa) tvxa^iirrias, Apol. i. p. 19. Tus tvxas xa) rhv ivp^a^tffviav. Ibid. p. 96. Euxas ofio'ttas xx) 'tuxxptifrixs. p, -98, Kuxxi xx) luxx^tirrtxi. Dial, p, 387, ^ 'O xve yns H^ros zr^offXxfA^xvofjetvos rviv %xxy.nfftv rov ©eou, oux'irt xotvos litres iirriv, x^y ilxxpitrr'tx. Iren. lib. ix. u. 18. p. 251. ' Pfaffius in Praefat. ad Fragm. Anecdota et in Lib. p. 96. "¦ Offerens ei cum gratiairum actione — Panem in quo gratiae actae sint, Iren. p, 251, ¦¦¦Matt. XV. 11. Ch. v. THE BREAD AND WINE. 97 speaking ; and therefore could not be denied by Origen, without wary and proper distinctions. He allows, in the first place, that the elements were really sanctified; namely, by the word of God and prayer ° : but he denies that what is so sanctified, sanctifies any person by its own proper virtue P, or considered according to its mat ter, which goes In at the mouth, and is cast off in the draught; admitting, however, that the prayer and word (that Is, God by them) do enlighten the mind and sanc tify the heart (for that is his meaning) of the worthy re ceiver. So he resolves the virtue of the Sacrament into the sacerdotal consecration, previous to the ivorthy recep tion : and he reckons prayer (strictly so called) as part of the consecration. The sum is, that the suTiciificaiion, properly speaking, goes to the person fitly disposed, and is the gift of God, not the work of the outward elements, though sanctified In a certain sense, as having been conse crated to holy uses. Thus by carefully distinguishing upon the case, he removed thie difficulty arising froin a common and popular way of expressing it. Nevertheless, after this 1, in his latest and most correct work, he did not scruple to make use of the same popular kind of ex pression, observing that the eucharistical bread, by prayer and thanksgiving, was made a sort of holy, or sanctified body, sanctifying the worthy receivers ^. Where we may note, that he again takes in both prayer and thanksgiving, * Ayixff^lvros Xoyu ®iov xa) ivriu^li xpreu to ayix^o/jcivev fipufix itx Xo yov ©£00 xa) ivTiv^Bais. Orig. in Matt. p. 254. P Ov ru idicp Xoyu xyix^it rev ;^^o5/«£vov, p. 253. Kxr xvra fAlv ro vXixov, tts x^ii^mx ix^xXXlrat, xxrx Ss rviv l^iysvofliivttv xuru £w;^«v, xxra rhv avxXeyixv rns zrtffrius, lupsXtfiov yivsrau, xx) rViS rov vou air tov "htx^Xi-^ius, e^uvres Ecri to e^." His passion Is our re demption, and by his death we live. This meat is ad ministered to us by the hand of God; while by the hand oi faith, ordinarily, we take it, and in the use of the m- craments ". But God may extraordinarily administer the same meat, that is, may apply the same benefits of Christ's death, and virtue of his atonement, to subjects capable^ without any act of theirs ; as to irfants, idiots, &c. who are merely passive, in receiving it, but at the same time offer no obstacle to it. The xxviilth Article of our Church says, that " the " means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten " in the supper is faith." That Sacrament is supposed to be given to none but adults ; and to them, not only faiih in general, but a true and right faith, and the same work ing by love, is indispensably requisite, as an ordinary mean °. All which Is consonant to what 1 have here as- sehed, and makes no alteration as to the exposition of John vi. which speaks not principally of what is required in adult Christians, or of what is requisite to a worthy reception of the holy Communion, but of what is abso- "'luiely necessary at ail times, and to all persons, and in all circumstances, to a happy resurrection ; namely, an interest in, or a participation of the atonement made by Christ upon the cross. He that is taken In, as a sharer in it, is saved: he that Is excluded from it, Is lost. "' John vi, 55, " Sacramenta sunt media offerentia ct exhibentia ex parte Dei : fides me dium recipiens et apprehendens ex parte nostra: quemadmodum igitur ma nus donans, et manus recipiens non sunt opposita sed relata, et subordinata, ita quoque Sacramenta et fides non sunt sibi invicem opponenda. Gerlimrd, Loc. Comm. par, iv, p, 309, n *Hs o^Sev) ^XXu ptirxffxiiv i^ov Itrrtv, ii ru vriffrtvovrt xXviB^ iivxt rx hit^xy- pi,ivx u^ Sf/iuv xa) eurus ^touvrt us e X^tvros ^x^i^uxiv. Just, Mart. Apol. i, p. 96. ig6 SPIRITUAL EATING AND DRINKING, Some learned writers having observed that our Lord In that chapter attributes much to a man's believing in him, or coming to him, as the means to- everlasting life, have conceived that faith, or doctrine, is what he precisely meant by the bread oi life, and that believing in Christ is the same with the eating and drinking there spoken of. But the thing to be received is very distinct from the hand receiving; therefore ya/V A is not the meat, hut the mean. Belief in Christ is the condition required, the auty commanded: but the bread of life is the reward conse quent. Believing Is not eating or drinking the fruits of Christ's passion, but is preparatory to it, as the means to the end°. In short, faith, ordinarily, is the qualficatiori, or one qualification ; but the body and blood is the gift itself, and the real inheritance. The doctrine of Christ, lodged in the soul, is what gives the soul Its proper tem perature and fitness to receive the heavenly food : but the heavenly food Is Christ himself, as once crucfied, who has since been glorfied. See this argument very clearly and excellently made out at large by a late learned writerP. It may be true, that eating and drinking wisdom Is the same with receiving wisdom : and it is no less true, that eating and drinking flesh and blood, is receiving flesh and blood ; for eating means receiving. But where does^e^A or blood stand for wisdom or for doctrine P What rules of symbo lical language are there that require it, or can ever admit of it ? There lies the stress of the whole thing. Flesh,in symbolical language, may signify riches, goods, posses sions 9 : and Hood may signify life : but Scripture never ° Credere in Christum, et edere Christum, vel carnem ejus, inter se tan- quajn prius et posterius differunt ; sicuti ad Christum venire, et Christum bibere. Praecedit enim accessus et appreliensio, quam sequitar potto, et man- ducalio : er^ofide Christum prius recipimus, ut habitet ipse in nobis, fiamus- que ipsius vivae carpis et sanguinis participes, adeoque unum cum ipso Itaque, notione definitioneque aliud est spiritualis manducatio quam credere in Christum. Lamb. DaniBU,s Apolog, pro Helvet. Eccles. p. 23. P Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 393, &c. 1 See Lancaster's Symbolical Dictionary, prefixed to his Abridgment of Daubuz, p. 45, Ch. VI. ACCORDING TO JOHN VI. 107 uses either as a symbol of doctrine. To conclude then, eating wisdom is receiving wisdom; but eating Christ's flesh and blood is receiving Ife and happiness through his blood, and. In one word, receiving him ; and that not merely as the object of our faith, but as the fountain of our salvation, and our sovereign good, by means of his death and passioik To confirm what has been said, let us take In a noted text of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which appears decisive in this case. " We have an altar, whereof they have no " right to eat which serve the tabernacle ^" Whether the Apostle here speaks of spiritual eating in the Sacrament, or out of the Sacrament, is not now the question : but that he speaks of spiritual eating, cannot reasonably be doubt ed. And what can the eating there mean, but the partak~ ing of Christ crucified, participating of the benefits of his passion ? That is the proper Christian eating, such as none but Christians have a clear and covenanted right to. The Apostle speaks not in that chapter of eating doctrine, but of eating 5acrj;^ce. The references there made to the Jewish sacrfices plainly show, that the Apostle there thought not of feating the doctrine of the cross, but of eating, that is, partaking of, the sacrifice or atonement of the cross s. There fore let this be taken In, as an additional explication of the eating mentioned in John vi. so far at least as to show that it must -refer to some sacrfice, and not to mere doctrines. I am aware that many interpreters of good note among the ancients ', as well as many learned moderns, have un derstood altar in that text directly of the Lord's table, and the eating, oi oral manducation : which construction r Hebr. xiii, 10. Compare Rev. vi. 9. Zornius, Opusc, Sacr, tom. ii. p. 542. ¦ Mihi persfiicuum videtur esse, aram hie poni pro victima in ara Deo ob- lata. Sensus vcrborum hie est, ut puto : Jesu Christi qui vera est pro peccatia hominum victima, nemo fieri particeps potest, qui in ceremoniis ct externis ritibus Judaicis, religionis arcem censet esse posi tam. Moshem. ad Cud- worth, p. 3. ' Tlieodoret, Qicumeaius, Theophylact, Primasius, Sedulins, Haymo, Re. migius, Anselm. Plerique tam veteres quam recentiores significari volimt mensam Dominicam. Estius in loc. jo8 SPIRITUAL EATING AND DRINKING, would make the text less suitable to my present purpose. But other interpreters ", of good note also, have under stood the altar there mentioned of the altar in heaven, or of the altar of the cross, (both which resolve at length into one,) and some have defended that construction with great appearance of reason. Estius, in particular, after Aquinas and others, has very ingenuously and rationally maintained it, referring also to John vi. 51. as parallel or similar to It, and understanding both of spiritual eating, abstracted from sacramental ". In this construction I acquiesce, as most natural and most agreeable to the whole context : neither am I sensible of any just objection that can be made to it. The Apostle did not mean, that they who served the tabernacle had no right to believe in Christ; that indeed would be harsh : but he meant that they who served the tabernacle, not believing In Christ, or however still adher ing too tenaciously to the legal oblations, had no right or titie to partake of the sacrfice or atonement made. by Christ. The thought is somewhat similar to what the same Apostle has elsewhere signified ; namely, that they who affected to he justified by the law, forfeited all benefit arising from the grace of the Gospel, and Christ could pro fit them nothing y. But for the clearer perception of spiritual feeding, and for the preventing confusion of ideas, it will be proper to distinguish between what it is primarily, and what ie^ condarily ; or between the thing itself, and the effects, fruits, or consequences of it. i. Spiritual feeding, in this case, directly and primarily means no more than the eat ing and drinking our Lord's body broken, and blood shed; that is, partaking of the atonement made by his death and " Chrysostom, in Hebr, Hom, xi. p. 807. Cyrill. Alex, de Adorat. lib. ix. 310. Compare Lightfoot, Opp. tom. ii, part. 2, p. 1259 — 1264. Outram, de Sacrif, p, 332, &c, Wolfius, Cur. Crit, in loc. " Hue etiam pertinet, quod corpus Christi, in cruce oblatum, panis voca tur, fide manducandus. Ut Joann, vi, Panis, inquit, quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam ego dabo pro mundi vita : scilicet, in cruce. Estius in loc. Compare Bp. Morcton ou the Sacrament, b. vi. chap, 3. p, 416, V Gal, V, 2, 3, 4, Ch.vi, ACCORDING TO JOHN VI. 109 sufferings : this is the prime thing, the ground and basis of all the rest. We must first be reconciled to God by the death of his Son, before we can have a just claim or title to any thing besides ^ : therefore the foundation of all our spiritual privileges is, our having a part in that reconcile ment ; which. In strictness, is eating and drinking his flesh and blood in St. John's phrase, and eating of the altar in St. Paul's. 2. The result, fruit, or effect of our thus eating \iis crucfied body, is a right to be fellow-heirs with his hody glorified: for if we are made partakers of his death, we shall be also of his resurrection'^. On this is founded our mystical union with Christ's glorfied body, which neither supposes nor infers any local presence : for all the members of Christ, however distant in place, are thus mystically united with Christ, and with each other. And it is well known, that right or properiy, in any posses sion, is altogether independent of local presence, and may as easily be conceived without it as with it ^. 3. Upon such mystical union with the body of Christ glorified, and making still part of his whole Person, follows a gracious vital presence of his Divine nature abiding in us, and dwells ing with us =. Upon the same follows the like gracious vital presence, and indwelling of the other two Divine ¦^ Coloss. i, 20, 21, 22. Ephes. ii. 13, 16. » Rom. V. 9, 10, 11. Phil. iii. 10, 11. Rom. vi. 5—8. i" Pro tanta conjunctione asserenda inter nos et Christum, non opus prie- sentia corporali aut substantiali corporis Christi, quam statuere multi co- nantur in Eucharistia. Nam ea nil plus vel commodi vel utilitatis habebimus quam si Christum quoad corpus suo loco sinamus in coelis. Videmus enim Christianos posse esse invicem memh'U, et quidem conjunctissima, tametsi aliquis eorum degat in Britannia, alius in Gallia, et alius in Hispania. Quod si de membris ipsis conceditur, cur de capite idem fateri erit absurdum, ut hac spirititali conjunctione simul possit in ecelis esse, ac spiritualiter nobis cum conjungi ? Quod idem in matrimonio usu venire intelligimus, ubi sancta Scriptura praedicat, virum et uxorem unam carnem esse : quod non minus verum fateri coguntur adversarii cum una conjuges habitant, quam si locofum intervallo nonnunquam disjungantur. Pet. Martyr, in 1 Cor, xii, 12, 13. fol. 178. Conf. Albertin. de Eucharist, p. 230, 231. « John vi. 56. John xv. 4. Matt, xxviii, 20, xviii. 20, no SPIRITUAL EATING AND DRINKING, Persons'*: and hereupon follow all the spiritual graces, wherewith the true members of Christ are enriched. This orderiy rainging of ideas may contribute very much towards the clearing our present subject ofthe many perr plexities with which it has been embarrassed ; and may further serve to show us, where the ancients or moderns have happened to exceed, either in sentiment or expres sion, and how far they have done so, and how they were led into it. The aticients, In their account of spiritual feed ing, have often passed over the direct and immediate feed ing upon Ghrist considered as crucified, and have gone on to what is properly the result or consequence of it, namely, to the mystical union with the body glorified, and what hangs thereupon. There was no fault in so doing, more than what lies in too quick a transition, or too confused a blending of ideas. I am aware that much dispute has been raised by con tending parties about the sense of the ancients with re spect to John vi. It may be a tedious inquiry to go through: for there Is no doing it to the satisfaction of considering men, without taking every Father, one by one, and reexamining his sentiments, as they lie scattered in several places of his writings, and that with some care and accuracy. It may be of some use to go over that matter again, after many others, if the reader can but bear with a little prolixity, which will be here unavoidable. There have been two extremes in the accounts given of the Fathers, and both of them owing, as I conceive, to a neglect of proper distiiictions. They who judge that the Fathers in general, or almost universally, do interpret John vi. of the Eucharist, appear not to distinguish be tween interpreting and applying : It was right to apply the general doctrine of John vi. to the particular case of the Eucharist, considered as worthily received; because the spiritual feeding there mentioned is the thing signfied in ¦• John xiv, 16, 17, 23. 1 Cor, iii, 16. vL 19. 2 Cor, vi. 16. Ch.vi. ACCORDING TO JOHN VI. in die Eucharist, yea and performed likewise. After we have sufficiently proved, from other Scriptures, that in and by the Eucharist, ordinarily, such spiritual food is conveyed, it Is then right to apply all that our Lord, by St. John, says in the general, to that particular case : and tMs in deed the Fathers commonly did. But such application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of the Eu charist. For example ; the words, " except ye eat the " flesh of Christ, &c. you have no life in you," do not mean directly, that you have no life without the Eucharist, but that you have no life without participating of our Lord's passion: nevertheless, since the Eucharist is one way of participating of ihe passion, and a very considerable one, it was very pertinent and proper to urge the doctrine of that chapter, both for the clearer understanding the be neficial nature ofthe Eucharist, and for the exciting Chris tians to a frequent and devout reception of it. Such was the use which some early Fathers made of John vi. (as our Church also does at this day, and that very justly,) though I will not say that some of the later Fathers did not extend it farther : as we shall see in due place. As to those who, in another extreme, charge the Fathers in general as interpreting John the vith of digesting doc trines only, they are more widely mistaken than the former, for want of considering the tropological way of comment ing then in use : which was not properly interpreting, nor so intended ^, but was the more frequently made use of in this subject, when there was a mixed audience ; because it was a rule not to divulge their mysteries before incompe tent hearers, before the uninitiated, that is, the unbaptized. But let us now take the Fathers in their order, and con sider their real sentiments, so far as we can see into them, with respect to John vi. Ignatius never formally cites John vi. but he has been thought to favour the sacramental interpretation, because •See my Importance of llie Doctrine of the Trinity asserted, vol. v.- p. 312, 364, &c. and preface to Scripture Vindicated, voL vi. p. 1-4. XI3 SPIRITUAL EATING AND DRINKING, he believed the Eucharist to be a pledge or means of an happy resurrection : for it is suggested that he could learn that doctrine only from John the vithf. But this appears to be pushing a point too far, and reasoning inconsequentiy. Ignatius might very easily have maintained his point, from the very words of the institution, to as many as knew any thing of symbolical language : for what can any one Infer less from the being symbolically fed with Christ's body crucified, but that It gives a title to an inheritance with the body glorfied P Or, if the same Ignatius interpreted 1 Cor. x!. 1 6. (as he seems to have done) of a mystical union with the blood of Christ 5, then he had Scripture ground sufficient, without John vi. for making the Eu charist a pledge or means of an happy resurrection. John the vith may be of excellent use to us for explaining the beneficial nature of the Eucharist, spiritual manducation being presupposed as the thing signified in that Sacrament : but it will not be prudent to lessen the real force of other considerable texts, only for the sake of resting all upon John vi. which at length cannot be proved to belong directly or primarily to the Eucharist. It seems that Ignatius had John vi. in his eye, or some phrases of it, in a very noted passage, where he had no thought of the Eucharist, but of eating the bread of life, after a more excellent way. In a state of glory. The pas sage is this : " I am alive at this writing, but my desire is " to die. My love is crucified, and I have no secular fiie " left : but there is in me living water, speaking to me with- " in, and saying. Come to ihe Father. I delight not in ^' corruptible food, nor in the entertainments of this world. " The bread of God is what I covet ; heavejily bread, bread " of life, namely, the flesh of Christ Jesus the Son of God, " who in these last tirhes became the Son of David and I See Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 387, 388. f "Ev trerv^tov, us 'ivufftv rou utptxros xurou, Ignat. ad Phitad. sect. iv. p. 27, Compare Chrysostom on 1 Cor, x. 16, who interprets communion there men tioned by *ivuffis, xvru %ta rou &^rev rovrov ivupil^x. Ch.vi. ACCORDING TO JOHN VI. 113 " of Abraham : and I am athirst for the drink of God, " namely, his blood, which is a feast of love that faileth " not, and life everlasting. I have no desire to live any " longer among men ; neither shall I, If you will but con- " senth." Here we may take notice of heavenly bread, bread of God, bread of life, our Lord's own phrases in John vi. And Ignatius understands them of spiritual food, of feed ing upon the flesh of Christ, the Son of God incarnate. Drink of God, he interprets in like manner, ofthe blood of Christ; which Is the noblest _/eas?, and Ifie eterndl. Learn ed men have disputed, whether he intended what he said of sacramental iood, or of celestial; whether of enjoying Christ In the Eucharist, or in heaven. To me It appears a clear point, that he thought not of communicating, but of dying : and the Eucharist was not the thing which he so earnestly begged to have, (for Who would refuse it?) but martyrdom, which the Christians might endeavour to pro tract, out of an over-officious care for a life so precarious. However, if the reader Is desirous of seeing what has been pleaded on the side of the Eucharist, he may consult the authors referred to at the bottom ', and may compare what others have pleaded on the contrary side''. I see no im propriety in Ignatius's feeding on the flesh and blood of Christ in a state of glory', since the figure is easily under- ^ ZotJv ya^ y^xipu ufMv, l^uv reu x^o^avitv' o ipios 'i^us iffrxv^atraf xx) ovx ia'rtv iv ifte) •sup (ptXouXo'v* iiiup Ti ^uv, xa) XxXevvlv tptot'iffu^lv //,ot Xsyov' "hiv^o vr^os rev vxri^x' tux ii^^f*^* r^o(p^ tp^o^xs, ou2l ntovx^s reu fiiev revrow x^rev &ieu 3-iXu, a^rev ev^xvtev, x^rev ^u^s, o's Wtv irx^ ^lijrov X^ts'ov, rov utov, rev Qiov, rou ytvopts- veu iv uirrsgcp Ix fcri^pixros Ax0)^ ^ 'Afi^xxfA, ^ ^optx Qiou ^iXu ra xipux. xurou, e itrrtv ayx-jTri atp^apres, ^ aivvxes ^uri. Oux trt ^iXu xxtx av^pu^evs ^liv rovre Ss eVo!/, ixv v/aTs ^sXwnri, Ignat. ad Roman, cap. 7, 8. ' Smith. Not. in Ignat. p. 101, 102. Grabe, Spicileg. tom. ii. p. 229. John son's Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 387. alias 392. k Casaubon, Exercit. xvi. num. 39. Albertinus, de Eucharist, lib. ii. i;. 1. p. 286. Halloixius, Vit. Ignat. p. 410. Ittigius, Hist. Eccles. saec. ii. p. 169, 170, ' A learned writer objects that the " eating of Christ's flesh in another V world, is a way of expression somewhat unaccountable." Johnson's Un bloody Sacr. part i. p, 389, alias 394, VOL. VII. I 114 SPIRITUAL EATING AND DRINKING, stood, and is made iise of by others™ besides Ignatius. Our enjoyment in a worid to come is entirely founded in the.meri^5 of Christ's passion: and our Lord's intercession for us (as I have above hinted) stands on the same bottom. Our spiritual food, both above and below, is the enjoy ment of the same Christ, the La7nb slain. The future feast upon the fruits oi his atonement is but the continu ation and completion of the present. Only here it is under symbols, there it will be without them : here it is remote and imperfect, there it will be proximate and perfect. It has been strongly averred, that Irenaeus understood John vi, of the Eucharist ; though he never directly quotes it, nor ever plainly refers to it : but it is argued, that by the Eucharistical symbols (according to Irenseus) we have the principle of a blessed immortality conveyed io our bodies, for which there is no appearance of proof in Scripture, but in John vi : therefore here is as clear proof of his so inter preting that chapter, as if he had cited ii at length ". How inconclusive this kind of reasoning is, and how injurious besides to our main cause, is visible enough, and has been intimated before, in answer to the like pretence concerning Ignatius. It appears the worse with respect to Irenaeus, because he manifestly did found his doctrine on i Cor. x. i6. and expressly quoted it for that very purpose °. He judged, as every sensible man must, that if the Eucharist, according to St. Paul, amounts to a communion, or com- municaiion of our Lord's body and blood to every faithful receiver, that then such receiver, for the time being, is therein considered as symbolically fed with the crucified body, and of consequence entitled to be fellow-heir with '» Athanasius de Incarn. et contr, Arrian, p, 883. Damascen, tom, i, p. 172. Augustin, tom. v. p. 384. " Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 387, alias 392, " Vani autem omnimodo, qui carnis salutem negant, et regenerationem ejus spernunt, dicentes, non eam capacem esse incorruptibilitatis. Si antem non salvetur haec, nee Dominus sanguine suo redemiit nos, neque calix Eu charistia communicatio sanguinis ejus est, neque panis quem frangimus, eommunicatio corporis ejus est. Iren. lib, v, cap, 2, p. 293. ed. Bened. Ch.vi. ACCORDING TO JOHN VI. 115 the body glorfiedP. He draws the same conclusion q, though more obscurely, from the words of the institution, " This is my body," &c. And the conclusion is certain, and irresistible when the words are rightly understood. Therefore let it not be thought that we have no appearance of proof, where we have strong proof; neither let. us en deavour to loosen an important doctrine from Its firm pillars, whereon it may stand secure, only to rest it upon weak supports, which can bear no weight. Had Irenaeus been aware that John vi. was to be inter preted directly of the Eucharist, strange that he should not quote that rather than the other, or however along with the other, when he had so fair an occasion for it. Stranger still, that when he so frequently and so fully speaks his mind concerning the Eucharist, and with the greatest reverence imaginable, that he should never think of John the vith all the time ; that he should never make any use at all of It for advancing the honour of the Sacra ment, had he supposed that it strictly belonged to it, and was to be interpreted of it. The silence of a man so know ing in the Scriptures, and so devoutly disposed towards this holy Sacrament, Is a strong presumptive argument (were there nothing else) of his understanding John vl. very differently from what some have imagined. There is one place in Irenaeus, which seems to carry some remote and obscure allusion to John vi. The Logos, the Divine nature oi our Lord, according to him. Is the perfect bread of the Father, and bread of immortality ; and he talks of eating and drinking the same Logos, or Word '. If he had John vi. then in his eye, (which is not Improba ble,) he interpreted it, we see, not of sacramental mandu cation, but of spiritual ; not of the signs, but of the things p See the argument explained in a Charge, upon the Doctrinal Use of the Sacrament, p. 11 — 14. 1 Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251. lib. v. cap. 2. p. 294. •¦ 'O x^ros 0 riXues reu srotTgoj us vvo .piaff^eo rles ffx^xes aureu r^x^svrtt — — i^tff^lvT&s r^uyitv xx) vivuv rov Aoyov rov &teu, rov rvs x^xvxtrixs x^rov, oVffj Ifi ro -rvivpta rev xar^as, Iren, lib. iv. cap. 38. p. 284. I 2 ii6 SPIRITUAL EATING AND DRINKING, signfied, apart from the signs. Only it is observable, that while he speaks of our feeding upon the Logos, he explains it as done through the medium of the fiesh : it is the hu man nature, by which we are brought to feast upon the Divine. St. Chrysostom gives the like construction of bread of life, in John the vith, interpreting it, so far, of our laord's Divine nature^. But I proceed. Our next ancient writer is Clemens of Alexandria, who flourished about A. D. 1 92. In the first book of his Paeda- gogue, chapter the vith, he quotes several verses* of our Lord's discourse in St. John, commenting upon them after a dark, allegorical way ; so that it Is not easy to learn how he understood the main doctrine of that chapter. I shall take notice of some of the clearest passages. After •speaking of the Church under the figure or similitude of an infant, brought forth by Christ with bodily pain, and swaddled in his blood, he proceeds thus : " The Word is all " things to the infant, a father, a mother, a precepiol; a ^'foster: Eat, says he, my flesh, and drink my blood. " These are the proper aliments which our Lord adminls- " ters : he reaches out fiesh, and he pours out blood; and " nothing is wanting for the growth of the Infants. O " wonderful mystery ! he bids us lay aside the old carnal " corruption, together with the antiquated, food, and to " partake of the new food of Christ, receiving him, if pos- " sible, so as to lay him up within ourselves, and to in- " close our Saviour in our breasts'^." There is another passage, near akin to this, a few pages higher, which runs thus : " Our Lord, in the Gospel according to St. John, has " otherwise introduced.it under symbols, saying. Eat my ' Kat ^^urev Tl^t rris S-torviras xvrou ^txXiysrxi, Xiyuv, iyu Ufiti o xpros rtis ^utis, ovdl ya^ crsg) rev iruptxres reuro tt^tjrxt. vip) yx^ ixltvou Tpos ru riXli Xiylt' 'Xx) 6 xpros Se ov iyu "huau, n trx^ piou it'tv. * KXXx rius tregj r^s 9-sortjres. Kx) yx^ ixiivn Si« TOV Qsov Xiyev xpos s?i'v. Chrysost. in Joh. Honi. xliv. p. 264. torn. viii. ed. Bened. « John vi. 32, 33, 51, 53, 54, 55. ¦¦ 'O x'oyos ra ^xvrx ru vn^iu, x. r. X. Clem. Peedag. lib. i. cap. vi. p. 123. ed. Oxon. Ch.vi. ACCORDING TO JOHN VI. 117 "flesh, and drink my blood; allegorlcally signifying the " clear liquor oi faith, and of the promise, by both which " the Church, like man, compacted of many members, is " watered and nourished, and is made up or compounded " of both; oi faith as the body, and of hope as the soul, " like as our Lord oi fiesh and blood^." These hints ap pear to be very obscure ones, capable of being turned or wrested several ways. Some therefore have appealed to these and the like passages, to prove that Clemens under stood John vi. of doctrines, or spiritual actions Y. Others have endeavoured so to explain them, as to make them suit rather with the Eucharist ^, Perhaps both may guess wide. In the first passage, Clgmens says nothing of re ceiving either doctrines or Eucharist, but of receiving Christ himself: in the second, he does indeed speak of re ceiving faith and the promise; but then he owns it to be an allegorical or anagogical view of the text ; from whence one may infer that he intended it not for the prima7-y sense, or for strict interpretation. The doctrine which Clemens most clearly expresses, and uniformly abides by, is, that Christ himself is our food and nutriment * : and, particularly, by shedding his blood for us ''. At the end of Clemens, among the excerpia Theodoli, there is a pretty remarkable passage ; which, though it belongs to a Valentinlan author, may be worth the taking notice of'^. Commenting on John vi. he interprets the ^ 'O xvptos iv ru xar '\uxvvnv ivxyyiX'tu. x. r. X. Clem. ibid. p. 121. :• Dr. Whitby, Dr. Claget, Basnage Annal. tom. i. p. 320. ' Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 255, &c. ' 'O xvftes, >i r^efri tuv niitiuv. Clem. ibid. p. 124. « rjof«, rovriim xvptos *ltiffous. Ibid. vipt,7v Ss XVTOS o X^teros « r^o(ph roTs vti^iets. p. 125. x^rov xvrov evpxvuv opcoXeyit o Xoyos. Ibid. •JfoXXaxus xXXvtyo^itrxi a Xoyos, xa) (^^upca, xa) ffap^, xx) rpotpvi, xa) x^ras, xat xTp^x, xa) yxXx. p. 126. b Tpoipsvs 9ifiuv Xoyos, ro xurov VTrip hpouv E|e;t;6sv xtpix, tfuZ^uv rhv xv^^uvrorvirx. Clem. ibid. p. 124. To xvro apx xa) atpta, xx) yuXa reu xv^iou 'jra.^eus xx) S/^a- ffxxXixs trupc^oXov, p. 127. "= 'O S.UV xpros. a u^ro rov ^rxrpos "te^iis, a vtos itt, rots Iff^tsiv fiovXofiivots . o Ss apTos ev iyu ^utru,