; Hip mtn ain l= evo Mette Man # υδν ἤμασι My my MAT Pua Pret Ἂς ems τος helen ΠΡῸΣ τ τας fe mde Pe } ye γεν τρφυν τς By. (Othe Ὁ αν, ' ΡΥ maby ee Mute 7 akan ae one om ite ὅν a νὰν “ mphyny See nano Pb Pe At Te ae te wl eT aaa ads Po eB Δ ὦ Om tee “ πὴ ἌΝ ΔΑ γον φγυω ὀν᾿ ἂν ea Ae Aen a ΣΥ͂Σ death ἌΝ ἐν αν ν ayer aa τ, Fase “Ν: enw τ ΔΑΡ πα μα ἀμ fe ν Ἐν i r a sans : saint eae τ ρ τσττα in ” ay by ᾿ OL AV ot Wy “ wn erste aw s κῶν Mat ew tnt eM pe indh it Ly eth τὰ at hey eet: fre ee hewn oe “> % ᾿ * ’ ἝΝ Α ἦν "εν = 3 ἢ F " Ἀν vat 4 es ἢ 4 - 9 , Α - «Ce Ὁ a ied SS. a - τ a Sted i, ta ae te ie Pe a re τ ewer ren απ λον ἀν ἀν ρα τὰν Ψυ δα ΠΣ ων . ἸῸΝ πο ρὰ. αν ον ΑΙ ΕΝ τς aw af ot ean Betas BX S149. CS 36. 147 wae Johnson, John, 1662-1725. The theological works of the Rev. John Johnson Digitized by the Internet Archive | in 2015 https://archive.org/details/theologicalworksO2john Wa ὼῸ a, Mee Ye ἀν Ἢ cites ca ὑπ : t Ἰ ay a 2 γ ἢ 5 ; Ἢ “4 : ἯΙ " * 4 i A ip Ἷ ν ᾿ > ὶ ; " 3 ἡ a aT ~~ , , ῃ JES! Γὰ Alt WO Se Lt ῃ oo eee ΜᾺ: here : ete ἢ Η A Viet ; ΠῚ ΩΣ 2 ie ui , MY cae ΜΎΤΗ .\ δι. rer, ) OF THE 2 REV. JOHN JOHNSON, M.A. VICAR OF CRANBROOK IN THE DIOCESE OF CANTERBURY. --- VOLUME II. OXFORD: . ᾿ Ρ JOHN HENRY PARKER. MDCCC XLVII. ΕΝ By ~~ 4 : a ¥ & x al OXFORD: 5 PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON. oa Be thi oe ΜᾺ, > γι a 5 ᾿ THE : UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, | AND ΡΤ ΜΝ UNVAILED and SUPPORTED. LN’ WHICH The nature of the Eucharist is explained according to the sentiments of the Christian Church in the four first centuries. Part the SECOND. SHEWING, The Agreement and Disagreement of the Eucharist with the Sacrifices of the | Ancients, and the Excellency of the former. The great Moment of the Eucharist both as a Feast and Sacrifice. The Necessity of frequent Communion. The Unity of the Eucharist. The Nature of Excommunication. And the Primitive Method of Preparation. With Devorions for the ALTAR. I deny not, but that the Fathers do, and that with great reason, very much magnify the wonderful Mystery, and Efficacy of this Sacrament, and frequently speak of a great Supernatural Change made by the Divine Benediction ; which we also readily acknowledge. Archbishop TILLOTSON, in his Discourse of Transubstantiation, Page 291. of his Works in Folio, publish’d in his Life-time. Veritati nemo prescribere potest, non spatium temporum, non patrocinia personarum. Tertul. de Virg. veland. By Joun Jounson, A.M. LONDON: Printed for Ropert Kwaptock, at the Bishop’s-Head in St. Paul’s Church-Yard. MDCCXYVIII. we τ ‘AX, £ ΤΟΣ reals aaae οἵ. 225 ASG AoA δ, τ ὦ > ον THE PREFACE. I wave in this Second Part finished my intended work on the Unbloody Sacrifice: and as I see no cause to distrust the strength of those reasons- and authorities by which I have endeavoured to establish it; so I desire my reader to observe, that the same arguments, by which I have confirmed the doctrine of the Christian Sacrifice, do at the same time effectually serve the common cause of Apostolical Truth in some very considerable points ; for, I. By the method here used to prove the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, it will evidently appear, that Christ’s natural Body might be, and was, a true proper Sacrifice, and that Himself was a real sacrificing Priest, though His Blood was never sprinkled on any Altar, nor any part of His Body burnt by the hands of Himself or any other priest; and therefore the objections made by the Socinians?® against the perfection of our Saviour’s Sacrifice on this account, do all fall to the ground. And it is no small satisfaction to me, that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and the personal Sacrifice of Christ, do rest upon the same foundation, and stand and fall together. II. By the doctrine here advanced, Transubstantiation is torn up by the root: for the only specious argument for that doctrine is this, that our Saviour bids His Disciples eat that very Body of His, which was given or offered to God for them; and if He had never offered any but His natural Body, then it must be confessed that this argument would be of some weight. But now the sum and substance of the true doctrine of the Eucharist I take to be this, that what Christ offered to God, and gave to His Disciples to eat, was * [Vid. Responsio F. S. ad Epist. Joan. Niemojevii, inter Socini Opera, ed. 1656. ] B 2 4: PREFACE. consecrated Bread; and that the reason why He honoured it with the title of His Body was, because He did, in offermg the Bread to God, in His own intention offer His Body as a Sacrifice for the sins of men. If the Church of Rome had not departed from this doctrine of the Scriptures, as under- stood by the primitive Church, by supposing that Christ did twice offer His own personal Body, first in the Eucharist, afterward on the Cross, she could never have fallen into so absurd a notion as that of Transubstantiation. Christ’s Sacramental Body must of necessity be a distinct thing from His natural Body, because He offered the first to God as a pledge and representation of the latter ; and by setting this doctrine upon its true primitive basis, we not only secure ourselves against this gross error of Transubstantiation, but also against the other odd conceits of the Lutherans and Calvinists, who will have it, that they receive the very natural Body of Christ in or at the Sacrament. I am too sensible that I have been defamed as a promoter of Popery, and par- ticularly of the change of substance in the Eucharist ; I pray God forgive the authors of these slanders ; or, if they have sinned through ignorance only, I wish them a better under- standing and a sounder judgment. It is certain the primi- tive doctrine, which I defend, is not only inconsistent with Transubstantiation, but with that Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the common opinion of Protestants abroad. III. The reasonableness of the Eucharist itself is, by the account here given of it, set in a true light. This can never be done by them who deny it to be a Sacrifice ; I mean, they can never assign a just reason why Christ commanded us to eat and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine as His Body and Blood. Christ might have called the leaves on which the Gospel is written by the name of His Body, with as much reason as He calls the Sacramental Bread so; and He might have commanded us to eat them, as St. John did the little book: He might have given the title of His Blood to the water of Baptism, as well as to the Sacramental Wine, for any thing that has or can be said for clearing this matter by them who deny the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. But now, by the account here given, we have a very plain Ee a 2... yh ΤΥ ι PREFACE. 5 reason, why we are to eit and drink the consecrated Bread and Wine, as Christ’s Body and Blood; namely, because He offered them, and not the leaves of the Gospel, or the Bap- tismal water, as pledges of His natural Body and Blood to His Divine Father; and for that reason commanded them to be eaten and drunk, because it was the universal practice of the ancient people to feast on those things, which they had first offered in Sacrifice. - Many of our eminent Divines, after Dr. Cudworth, have indeed affirmed that the Eucharist is “a feast on a Sacrifice ;” but then they have denied that the Sacrifice is offered in the Eucharist, and have asserted that it was offered once only onthe Cross. This notion is liable to many just objections ; for, I. Upon this supposition our Saviour made a feast upon the Sacrifice, before the Sacrifice had been offered. The Sacrifice, according to them, was offered on the Cross many hours after the feast of the Eucharist was ended; but now it is exceeding preposterous», and contrary to the very nature of things as well as all the ancient established method of sacrifice, to eat or make a feast on a sacrifice that has not yet been offered. II. If the consecrated Bread and Wine were not offered by Christ as the representatives of His Body and Blood, and are not now so offered by the Church, then it cannot be said | that the Eucharist is a feast on a Sacrifice; unless you will say, that this Bread and Wine are converted into the sub- stance of Christ’s Sacrificed Body and Blood, and so run into the absurd and justly abhorred doctrine of Transubstanti- ation. Ill. Nay, I must add, that, upon this supposition, the Eucharist is a feast on a Sacrifice, which now has no being mm the nature of things; for the natural Body and Blood of Christ, as they are represented in the Eucharist, separate from each other, are now no where in the universe. Unless then the consecrated Bread and Wine be the Sacri- > “Aduta φαγεῖν, to fall on before sion of Damascius, apud Suidam: the oblation was made, to eat at a re- "ὈἘδεῖτο μέν of τὸ σῶμα Kpewharylas, ἀθύ- ligious feast before the rites of sacrifice tov δὲ οὐκ ἠνέσχετο μεταλαβεῖν. Vid. were ended, was proverbially absurd. Suidam, sub voce ᾿Αθύτους. Ed. Cant. [This may be illustrated by an expres- 1705. ] John xix, 34, 35. 6§ PREFACE, fice on which we feast, it is certain that both the Sacrifice and the feast must be a mere airy notion. In truth, it seems exceeding probable, that Christ could not, while He was alive, offer His Body and Blood as substantially separated from each other; because it does not appear that any Blood did flow from Christ’s Body, till the soldier pierced His side with a spear; and that St. John does therefore give his testimony to this matter of fact with great solem- nity, lest any doubt should be made of Christ’s Blood being actually shed. The nails, with which His hands and feet were fastened to the Cross, did probably so fill the orifices made by them, that no blood could issue from thence till those nails were drawn in order to take His Body down from the Cross; and if this reasoning be just, then it 15 in the nature of things impossible that Christ could offer His natural Body and Blood apart, while He was alive upon the Cross: and sure no one will say that He offered them while His soul was in Hades, that is, in the state of the dead. What therefore He could not offer in substance, He offered by representation in the Eucharist. And by this means we are enabled to give a clear and plain reason, why St. Paul® calls the offermg made by Christ, Sacrifices, in the plural number ; namely, because He not only offered the Bread and Wine, but offered them as pledges and representations of His natural Body and Blood. The First Part of this work was composed for the use of them who had leisure and inclination to enter into the more abstruse part of this controversy. Since my publication of it, I have been desired by persons of great worth and judg- ment to draw up a scheme of this doctrine, and in as narrow a compass and as plain a style as possible, for the informa- tion of such readers as do not care to concern themselves with books that require long and earnest application. I have accordingly so contrived this Second Part, that though it be much less than the former, and be chiefly intended to complete my whole design on this subject; yet the full view of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist may be taken from this “ Heb. ix. 23. It was therefore these, but the heavenly things them- necessary, that the patterns of things — selves with better Sacrifices than these. in the heavens should be purified with PREFACE. γί volume. ΤῸ this end I have been obliged to repeat some things in the Introduction that have been said in the First Part ; and yet I may call them improvements rather than bare repetitions. And that a middling reader might be capa- ble of understanding the book, I have always endeavoured to express myself in the most known common words that our language affords, or at least that I could find. The subject is seemingly new ; for whatever is so old as to be out of use, has an appearance of novelty in the eyes of the present ge- neration: but, in truth, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is as old as Christianity itself; and Sacrifice in general is as old as mankind. Now to revive these notions, which have long since been out of date, and to express the opinions and practices of the ancients in the language of the present age, and to do it in such a manner as to render their thoughts agreeable to the relish of common English readers, is no easy matter. However my end was to be understood by all; if I miss of my aim, the reader is to impute it to my want of words. It is now above two years and a half since the First Part was published; during this time a large and learned book® has been printed chiefly on this subject in Latin, by Mons. Pfaffy, a Lutheran Divine, tutor to the young Prince of Wurtemberg. The author has taken on himself the office of a mediator in this dispute; and has indeed said many things that highly deserve the approbation of all, who maintam the doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Heé freely declares his judgment, that the universal practice of all Churches of oid is clearly on our side; and that they who deny it must be perfectly ignorant of the antiquities of the Church. He is unwilling to allow that our Saviour was the author of itf, but owns it to be an institution of the Apostles or of some of them. He declares it ridiculous® to suppose that the ancients by their Oblation and Sacrifice meant no more than prayer; he confesses, that not only Irenzeus and 4S. Irenei Episcopi Lugdunensis sertatione de prajudiciis Theologicis Fragmenta Anecdota.—Que [ex Bib- auxit Christephor. Matth. Pfaffius. liotheca Taurinensi eruit,} Latina ver- Hage Comitum, Anno 1715, sione notisque donavit, duabus Disser- © p. 183. tationibus de Oblatione et Consecra- Γ ΤΟΙ. tione Eucharistiz illustravit, et Dis- & p. 50. 8 PREFACE. Justin Martyr", but both the Clements of Rome and Alex- andria', do speak of a Sacrifice or Oblation of Bread and Wine. He owns* that Bread and Wine are called a Sacrifice of praise ; that! they are called gifts and spiritual Sacrifices; that the Eucharist may be called a propitiatory Sacrifice™. He allows the Prayer" of Oblation and Consecration in the eighth book of the Constitutions to be a very excellent one, worthy of so great a mystery, and with which he himself is very much edified; and does most particularly® magnify the Prayer of the same Constitutions for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist: nay, in his Preface?, he goes so far as to declare, that he does agree with the Rev- erend Dr. Hickes in his notion of the Sacrifice. But we are especially obliged to thank this gentleman for not concealing a fragment of Irenzeus, in which the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is so directly affirmed; the translation of which I here present to my reader. bh p. 268—274. ip. 254, 278. I am _ singularly obliged to Mons. Pfaffy for discovering this passage in Clem. Alex. Strom., lib. 1. p. 317. Sylburg. The words are, “Aptov καὶ ὕδωρ οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλων τινῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐπὶ τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ ὕδατι κατὰ τὴν προσφορὰν, μὴ κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἐκ- κλησίας, χρωμένων αἱρέσεων, ἐμφανῶς ταττούσης τῆς γραφῆς. Εἰσὶ γὰρ oi καὶ ὕδωρ ψιλὸν εὐχαριστοῦσιν. He applies Proy. ix. 17. to certain heretics, who used only bread and water in the obla- tion; and this he declares to be con- trary to the canon of the Church. We are not to wonder that Clement speaks so sparingly of these matters; for he was one, who professed an obstinate silence concerning religious mysteries. Strom., lib.i. Sylburg., p. 275. [p. 323. Ed. Potter, ]and again Sylburg., p. 297. [p. 348, Potter. ] K p. 338. ἔφ. 330. π᾿ ὭΣ 2k, n p. 287. ° p.96,and through his whole trea- tise De Consecratione. P Pref., p. 6. 1p. 25. Οἱ ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν ἂπο- στόλων διατάξεσι παρηκολουθηκότες ἴσασι τὸν Κύριον νέαν προσφορὰν ἐν τῇ καινῇ διαθήκῃ καθεστηκέναι, κατὰ τὸ Μαλαχίου τοῦ. προφήτου: Διότι amd ἀνατολῶν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ ἕως δυσμῶν τὸ “They, who have ὄνομά Mov δεδόξασται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, καὶ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ θυμίαμα προσάγεται τῷ ὀνόματί Μου, καὶ θυσία καθαρὰ, ὥσπερ καὶ ὃ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῇ ᾿Αποκαλύψει λέγει" Τὰ θυμιάματα εἰσὶν af προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων". καὶ ὃ Παῦλος παρακαλεῖ ἡμᾶς παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ἡμῶν᾽ καὶ πάλιν" ἀνα- φέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως, τουτέστι, καρ- mov χειλέων. Αὗται μὲν al προσφοραὶ οὐ κατὰ τὸν νόμον εἰσὶ, οὗ τὸ χειρόγρα- gov ἐξαλείψας ὃ Κύριος ἐκ τοῦ μέσου ἦρκεν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα ἐν πνεύματι γὰρ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν τὸν Θεόν. Διότι καὶ ἣ προσφορὰ τῆς εὖχα- ριστίας οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὴ ἀλλὰ πνευμα- τικὴ, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ καθαρά, Προσφέρο- μεν γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ τὸν ἄρτον καὶ τὸ ποτή- ριον τῆς εὐλογίας, εὐχαριστοῦντες Αὐτῷ, ὅτι τῇ γῇ ἐκέλευσε ἐκφύσαι τοὺς καρ- ποὺς τούτους εἰς τροφὴν ἡμετέραν" καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν προσφορὰν τελέσαντες ἐκ- καλοῦμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Ayiov, ὅπως ἀποφήνῃ τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην καὶ τὸν ἄρτον Ξῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τὸ ποτή- ριον τὸ Αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα οἱ με- ταλαβόντες τούτων τῶν ἂντιτύπων τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ τῆς ζωῆς αἰωνίου τύχωσιν. Οἱ οὖν ταύτας τὰς προσφορὰς ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἄγοντες οὐ τοῖς Ἰουδαίων δόγμασι προσ- έρχονται, ἀλλὰ πνευματικῶς λειτουρ- γοῦντες THS σοφίας υἱοὶ κληθήσονται. hj / Ι PREFACE. 9 attained to a perfect knowledge of the second Constitutions of the Apostles, are sensible that our Lord-instituted a new Oblation in the New Testament, according to that of the Prophet Malachi, “ For from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, My Name is glorified among the heathen, and in every place incense is offered to My Name, and the pure oblation;” as John also in the Revelation says, “Incense is the prayer of the saints:” and Paul exhorts us, “to pre- sent our bodies a living sacrifice to God, which is our rea- sonable service :”’ and again, “ Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, which is the oblation of our lips.” These oblations are not according to the Law, the hand-writing whereof the Lord hath taken away and blotted out; but according to the Spirit; for we ought to worship God in spirit and in truth. For this reason, the Oblation of the Eucharist is not carnal but spiritual, and therefore pure; for we offer to God the Bread and Cup of blessing, giving thanks to Him, for that He commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment; and afterwards, having performed the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may make this Sacrifice and Bread the Body of Christ, and the Cup the Blood of Christ; that they who partake of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and everlasting life. They, therefore, who make these oblations in remembrance of our Lord, shall be called the sons of wisdom.” It must be owned, this gentleman gives but a very im- perfect account of his discovery of this and the other three fragments, which he has published, of this very ancient Father; he only tells his reader, that they were taken out of certain ancient books in the royal library at Turin, which contained extracts from the Fathers; but he does not so much as give an inquisitive reader any directions where to find these frag- ments, if he should have an opportunity of consulting the books from which they were transcribed. But I shall not enter into any dispute upon this head; if they are genuine, here is a new authority from the holy and apostolical Irenzeus for the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; if they are not, yet we are sufficiently sure from the other printed works of this most ancient writer, that this was the doctrine and practice of the age in which he lived. 2 Pet. iii. 2. 10 PREFACE. I will confess I see no reason why the words may not justly be thought Ivenzeus’s. It is certain, that the holy Ignatius" mentions the Constitutions of the Apostles, fifty or sixty years before Irenzeus flourished. It does not from thence follow, that there was any book which then passed under that title. Indeed, all the whole scheme of Chris- tianity seems to be called the Commandment of the Apostles by St. Peter, in the same sense that the whole Jewish system is called the Law of Moses ; but it seems most probable, that Ignatius, by the Constitutions of the Apostles, meant only the rules of worship and discipline settled by them. The main difficulty is, to know what Ireneeus intended by the Second Constitutions, for this is an expression peculiar to this fragment. Yet I think a very probable account may be given of this too; for there can be no doubt but that, in the age of Irenzeus’, there was a distinction between the Chris- tians who had been baptized and admitted to the Communion, and those who had not; and that the knowledge of the Kucharist, and the method of administering and receiving it, was imparted to the former only, and not to the latter. From hence a distinction might naturally arise between the First and Second Constitutions of the Apostles. For the generality of the rules, which were fixed by the Apostles for the worship of God and the government of the Church, could not be concealed from the Catechumens, though they were not baptized nor admitted to the Communion. By attending the Christian congregations, and being present while the hymns were sung, some prayers rehearsed, the Scriptures read, and the sermons preached, they could not be ignorant that the men were to pray and sing with their heads uncovered, the women with their heads covered; that tr Ad Trall.,c. 7. Τοῦτο δὲ (id est, Prescript., Ὁ. 41. [“In primis quis cavere ab hereticis) ἔσται ὑμῖν μὴ φυσι- ουμένοις, καὶ οὖσιν ἀχωρίστοις Θεοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, καὶ τῶν διαταγμάτων τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων. 5. Vide Fragment. Irenei ex M!cu- menio, in Grabe’s Edition, p. 469. Tertullian, who was but a little more than twenty years junior to Irenzus, imputes it as a crime to the heretics, that they made no distinction between the catechumens and faithful. De catechumenus, quis fidelis, incertum est: pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant.”?] And speaks of the silence concerning the Christian mys- teries, as an established law of the Church, Apol., c. 7, 8. [He takes the line of defence from the nature of mys- teries in general: ‘‘ Cum vel ex forma omnibus mysteriis silentii fides de- beatur.’’ } ἃ PREFACE. 11 they were to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from fornication and blood. Further, before they were baptized, they must be informed in the nature of Baptism, and the questions and answers to be made upon that occasion ; for, I think, all judicious Divines acknowledge that these were - used in the times of the Apostles. Now all these rites and observances, with several others not here mentioned, might justly be styled the First Constitutions of the Apostles, as being first made known to them who retained to the Chris- tian congregations. By consequence, the Second Constitutions were such as concerned the Communicants only; as the man- ner andsmethod of administering the Eucharist, with all the prayers, rites, and usages thereunto belonging. It 15 certain the Catechumens were kept in ignorance as to these matters ; and when therefore after their Baptism they were let into the knowledge of them, they might justly esteem and call them the Second Constitutions of the Apostles. And there is a foundation for this distinction in those words of our Saviour to His Apostles, when He bids them, “ Go, and make disci- Matt. ples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, 39." τεῷ Son, and Holy Ghost ;" for none could be disciples, but such as were permitted to hear them preach, and did practise what they heard in some measure; (their infant children might indeed be disciples, though they could neither hear nor practise; for so the child of a slave is a slave, the eldest son of a king is a king upon his father’s death, though neither the one can obey, nor the other command.) All grown men that attended the sermons of the Apostles were certainly disciples ; but when they had been baptized, then, and not before, our Saviour charges the Apostles ‘to teach them all things whatsoever He had commanded them ;” and of the things which Christ had commanded, the Eucharist may justly be esteemed the principal. It can scarce be con- ceived but that, when the Apostles had settled Divine wor- ship in any city, many would frequent those religious assem- bles and be well affected to Christianity, long before they wholly resigned up themselves and their families to Christ and His Gospel, by requesting to be baptized; and while they were in this state, they might well be supposed to learn all that I have just now mentioned as the First Constitutions, 1Cor. xi. 34. 12 PREFACE. before they had actually been baptized and received the Eu- charist : and while they were in this state, they might prob- ably be called Catechumenst, and there is some reason to believe that they actually were distinguished by this name; whereas it was time enough to know the Second sort, when. they had occasion to make use of them, I mean, when they came to receive the Eucharist. And I see no reason to be- lieve, that the Apostles did ever administer the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood in the presence of those who had no right to join with them in that holy ordinance, or that they taught them the nature of it. Butif any are of opinion that the Apostles were not the authors of the difference be- tween the faithful and catechumens, but spoke freely of the Eucharist to all their hearers and administered it before all that were willing to be present, then this will be a sufficient reason why there should be no distinction between the First and Second Constitutions in the Holy Scripture, or in the time of Ignatius. But no man of learning can question but that, in the age of Irenzus, the faithful and the catechumens were two bodies of men, and the several Constitutions re- lating to these two several bodies might therefore justly be distinguished, as they are in this fragment; and that, there- fore, by those who have attained to a certain knowledge of the Second Constitutions of the Apostles, we are to under- stand the Faithful or Communicants. Mons. Pfaffius" is willing to have it thought, that by the Second Constitutions we are to understand such instructions relating to the Eucharist, as St. Paul had not yet given to the Corinthians, when he wrote his first Epistle to them, but which he promised to give when he came next among them. But it is evident, that the author of this fragment had another opinion of these Constitutions, and believed that they con- tained, not the prudential advice of one or more of the Apostles, but the institutions of Christ Himself, as his words do fully prove ; for speaking of the communicants, as hath been observed, he says, “they are sensible, that our Lord hath instituted a new Oblation in the New Testament ;” and t Apollos is called Karnyovmevos, 2—6. Acts xviii. 25. Theophilus, Luke i. 4. " See his notes on this fragment, It is certain that the former was ποῦ p. 28, 29. a baptized Christian. See chap. xix. / PREFACE. 13 that therefore the Apostle had taught them this new Oblation, when in the foregoing part of this chapter he delivered to them that which he had received of the Lord concerning the Holy Eucharist. It is true, that the new Oblation will and does remain invisible to them, who read the writings of St. Paul and other Apostles and holy penmen without great application and attention; therefore the author of this fragment, whoever he was, expresses himself with a most judicious exactness, when he says, “ They who have attained to a perfect” or certain “ knowledge of the Second Constitu- tions,” &c. For the Greek word implies, not a slight and common knowledge, but a clear* and distinct view of every particular from one end to the other. And in the Introduc- tion to this volume, I hope to make it appear, that they who have such an insight into the writings of the New Testament, and particularly into the history of the Institution of this Sacrament, cannot be ignorant that our Lord hath instituted a new Oblation. This gentleman’s modesty does very well become him, when in the first page of his Discourse concerning Prejudices he supposes, that he has shewed himself not wholly free from them in his foregoing treatises concerning the Oblation and Consecration of the Eucharist. The root of his most observ- able prejudices is that absurd opinion of the Lutherans, which we Englishmen call Consubstantiation; but which Mons. Pfaffius and his brethren choose to express by ‘the union of Christ’s glorified Body and Blood with the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist’;’ and the ubiquity of that Body, which he expressly declares to be the general opinion of the Lutheran Divines?. Therefore he falls foul on Irenzeus? for asserting that our bodies are nourished with the Sacramental Body of Christ; and, indeed, he seems to treat the living Arians and Deists with much greater smoothness and com- plaisance than the Fathers, who are dead and cannot speak for themselves. He labours to prove, that the union of the Heavenly Thing with the earthly», mentioned by}Irenzeus, is * Παρηκολουθηκότες. See Grotius 2 Tbid., pp. 466, 467. and other critics on Luke i, 4; 1 Tim. ap. 74. 1v. 6; 2 Tim. iii. 10. » pp. 75, 95, 468, 464. About the * See Pfaffius de Consecratione, p. time that he was penning these last 460. pages, as I have reason to believe by 14 PREFACE, the supposed union of Christ’s Body with the Bread in the Holy Sacrament; and yet every where extols the Prayer of the primitive Church for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the symbols of the Eucharist¢, so often mentioned by the ancients, and expressly spoken of in the fragment above cited. Nay, he would draw St. Ignatius’ into this senti- ment, because he asserts but One Flesh of Christ, but One Cup in the Unity of His Blood. Whereas, according to the Lutheran notion, there are two Bodies or Fleshes (if I may use such a word) of Christ in the Sacrament, I mean, the Sacramental Flesh or consecrated Bread, and the Real or Per- sonal Flesh. It is impossible to give a greater instance of prejudice than this, that he would make Justin Martyr°® assert the union of the Body of Christ with the Bread, when Justin, expressly contrary to the Lutheran notion, says, “the Food” or Bread “is the Body ;” whereas Mons. Pfaffius and his brethren make them two distinct things: and he would make Irenzeus' speak his opinion, though his own fragment, as above cited, says that they prayed “the Bread might be made Christ’s Body.” But the most fatal mistake which this grand prejudice, which for brevity’s sake I call Consubstantiation, draws along with it, in relation to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, is this; that an Oblation® of Bread and Wine cannot be the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ. I wish he had thought fit to consider the great number of proofs by which I have made it appear that the ancients believed the consecrated” an original letter of his, which I have seen, he received my First Part of the Unbloody Sacrifice, when about one half of his book was printed off. ‘To shew his dislike of my book and the doctrine it asserts, he blames me in the margin of the page Jast mentioned for turning ἔγερσιν Πνέυματος, ‘ the raising’ or reviving ‘power of the spirit.’ He translates my words thus, reswrgentem potentiam, and professes he does not understand them; and, indeed, it is evident he does not understand Eng- lish, (which is very pardonable in a foreigner); if he had, he would have turned ‘raising power,’ resurgere fa- cientem potentiam. But see how this learned gentleman mends the matter ; in p. 101, he translates ἔγερσις mvev- fatos, conjunctionem anime, ‘the con- junction of the soul,’ very unaccount- ably! [Quod licet expressis Irenzi verbis alibi positis contrarium sit, ego- met tamen arbitror per σαρκὸς καὶ mvev- ματος ἔγερσιν intelligi ab eo carnis et spiritus conjunctionem in resurrectione mortuorum.| (See Part i. p. [281. ]) Pfaffius blames me for not believing the Real Presence; our English writers accuse me for asserting it. Thus Truth is often crushed between two extremes. But Mons. Pfaffius seems to favour my explication of Irenzeus, in his Addenda. ¢ p. 96, and his treatise De Con- secratione. d p. 265. © pp. 370, 373. f Tbid. 8 p. 333. et passim. h See Part i. p. [229,] &c. 3 dy hs . / PREFACE. 15 Bread and Wine to be the only Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. He is mistaken to think they were offered up, while they were wholly unconsecrated. Both the learned Gerhard: and himself assert, that the Divine consecration is performed, in some measure at least, by means of the words of Institution ; and it is certain the words of Institution were always rehearsed by the Priest in all the ancient Liturgies, before the commemorative Oblation was solemnly made. And the fragment expressly says, “that the Oblation was made in remembrance of our Lord.” He would persuade his reader that there was no mention* of offering Christ’s Body before the fourth century, though he himself had produced Cyprian affirming it, but three or four pages before. Though he allows that the Apostles instituted the Obla- tion of Bread and Wine; yet he will scarce acknowledge that they did this in all Churches; particularly he excepts Antioch’, for reasons too trivial to bear a repetition. Some- times he will have the Oblation to have been first brought into the Church by Apostolical men™, and only as an in- different rite"; but he can by no means believe that our Saviour was the Author of it, when He gives direction® con- cerning “bringing a gift to the Altar;” for he says, “our Saviour was then speaking to the people as well as to His own disciples, and the Jewish people could not have rightly understood our Saviour, if He then spake of offering Bread and Wine for the Eucharist. As if this great man had for- gotten that our Saviour did commonly so speak to the Jews, that they did not take His meaning; but he will not allow, that without necessity for so doing we are to understand our Saviour saying things that were of no use for the present ; yet we are sure that He gave advice relating to persecution Matt. v. 20 in this very sermon and chapter, and they had occasion to practise the one as soon as the other. But he would have Ire- nzeus? and the African Fathers contradict each other ; because Irenzeus says our Saviour commanded us to offer first-fruits, : » Mons. Pfaff., 485, 496. 1 p, 262. K p. 325. [Si enim constet, non ex- mi pp.. 182, &e: stare ullum de repetita Corporis Christi np. 53. Oblatione testimonium in iis scriptis, o pp. 58, 185. quz seculo-quarto antiquiora sunt, P pp. 47, 48. &c.] p. 321. aoe Wisdom ix. 8; Exod. xxv. 40. 16 PREFACE. but the African Fathers forbid it. Sure, this learned man might easily have perceived that Irenzeus speaks of the first- fruits or best of their bread and wine, which the African Fathers too in that very Canon expressly declare ought to be offered on the Altar; but the first-fruits, which the African Fathers forbid to be offered on the Altar, were the choicest of other products of the earth. He, has some prejudices, in common with our English writers, against the Sacrifice; as, that? bread and wine, and things which have no blood to be poured out, cannot be a true Sacrifice; and that there’ can be no sacrifice where none of the ancient common rites of Sacrifice are used. He denies that prayer* and the elevation of the symbols, which he affirms to have prevailed in the ancient times, are suffi- cient to make an oblation. He affirms that all proper sacri- fices are abolished, but is wiser than to attempt to prove it. And it is evident, he means only bloody sacrifices; for he allows of no other. Because the ancientst speak of an Altar in heaven, therefore he supposes that they could not believe that there was a true Altar in the Church. By the same argument he might have proved that the Jews could not believe their temple or tabernacle at Jerusalem to be a true one; for they always conceived that there was a temple or tabernacle in heaven, of which the other was only a resem- blance. Another argument, by which he would prove that Christians" have no Altar, is, because they are forbidden to serve the tabernacle; for which he cites Heb. xiii. So let the reader discover the proof, for I cannot. Again, in the same place, we are to “go without the camp,” where there is no altar. And were not the Jews, too, to go without the camp -to burn their red heifer and some other sacrifices? Had they, therefore, neither sacrifice nor altar? One great and fundamental mistake of this and many other writers on the same subject, both at home and abroad, is, a conceit that our Saviour blessed the Bread, only by saying*, “ Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God and King, Who bringest forth Bread out of the earth;” and the Cup, 4 PP. toa 126, 192, 284, 314. t pp. 293, 339. * p.3 u * Pp 190. S pp. 345, 296, &e. pp: 170—172, PREFACE. 17 by saying, “Blessed be Thou, &c., Who createst the fruit of the vine.” The only grounds for this opinion are, that the Jewish Rabbies tell us, that their forefathers did by these words bless the bread and wine at their entertainments. The Christians of the Primitive Church by their constant prac- tice have informed us, that they believed our Saviour to have blessed the Bread and Wine, not only by praising God for them, but by appointing them to represent His Body and Blood; by offering them to God as pledges of His Body and Blood, and by praying that God would enrich them with the Holy Spirit and make them His Body and Blood in life and power to the receivers.. That the Jews of old did use the words just now cited from Mons. Pfaffius in blessing the Bread and Cup is indeed highly probable; but the Jews themselves will not dare to say, that Christ Jesus did no more. This is only an invention of some modern Christians, who study to make the Eucharist no more than a Jewish supper. Clemens Alexandrinus’ says, that “ Melchisedec dis- tributed bread and wine, as consecrated food, for a type of the Eucharist.” From hence this gentleman concludes’, that Melchisedec did not offer them to God, because he calls them ‘food :’ but he ought to have observed, that he gives them, the title of ‘ consecrated food ;? and how should he consecrate them as a priest, but by offering them to God ? He will not allow Dr. Hickes* that ‘to make prayers and oblations’ signifies the offering of them; therefore he must run into the absurdity of saying, that when the Apostle bids Timothy ‘make prayers,’ he only means, that he should draw forms of prayer, not use them; and that, when Clement of Rome directs the Corinthians to ‘make oblations”,’ he only directed them to knead the bread, and not to present it at the Altar; and that when St. Paul speaks of “ Moses doing the Passover,” he meant, that Moses only killed the lamb without offering it. However, he is positive, that ‘to make oblations®’ only signifies offering them as laymen, according to Clement. This is far from being certain, because in the next line Clement says, “the High-priest has peculiar Liturgies Ye. sh Ap. ᾿ Nee Ap. ] * p. 278. © p. 1Sf, * pp. 186, &c. JOHNSON, Heb. xi. 28° 18 PREFACE. assigned to him.” However, he himself owns? that Eusebius expresses Novatian’s ‘making the Oblation’ as a Bishop. He bluntly asserts that we cannot translate the words used by our Saviour at the first Institution, “ Offer this Cup, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me®*.” I have elsewhere effectually proved that these words are not in strictness capable of any other signification ; for ‘ this’ infallibly relates to the Cup; and how can we in the Sacrament ‘do,’ or ‘ make’ the Cup, but by offering it? He favours our English writers against the Sacrifice, by saying, that whereas’ our Saviour speaks of the present time, ‘ This is My Body given for you ;’ He is to be understood, as if He had said ‘which shall be given ;’ and that ‘to offers, in the Constitution Liturgy, sig- nifies ‘to pray.’ He mentions Christ’s sanctifying Himself?, as a proof of the Oblation in the Eucharist ; but gives it this short answer, “here is nothing said of Sacrifice.” He deniesi that Christ speaks of the Eucharist in John vi. because He had not yet instituted it. He might as well deny that Christ spake of His death and of Judas’s betraying Him, because neither His death nor Judas’s treachery were yet accomplished. This learned gentleman seems very fond of a late notion, viz., that) the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament, save during the time that It is used, or while the distribution is per- formed; and for this reason he found it convenient to deny that the reservation of the Eucharist was practised in all Churches; but he has brought no manner of proof for it. He only says*, some Councils and Fathers forbade any of the Eucharist to be reserved; but for this we have only his bare word. But what is most intolerable in this Divine is, that he tells his reader, the consecration! of the Eucharist in the time of Justin Martyr was performed by an extempore prayer. He indeed had just before said that the Church in this age did not retain the Apostolical simplicity ; and if he had mentioned a p..275. h p. 228. € 1 Cor. xi, 25. See Prop. Oblation, i Ὁ. 73. Ρ. 33. Unbloody Sacrifice, [Part i, p. i pp. 448, Se. 170. ] k p, 445. f p. 233. 1 p. 371. Ep. 290, PREFACE. 19 this extempore prayer as an instance of this corruption, his error had been more pardonable. But how does he prove that this sort of prayer was used in Justin’s time? Why, because the Bishop is described by him as sending up prayers “with allhis might.” He offers no proof but this, unless you will take that for a proof which there immediately follows, which is a citation taken out of a form of prayer in the Con- stitutions ; and sure this gentleman did not intend to confute the use of forms of prayer by words taken out of one of the primitive forms. Therefore all his evidence against set stated forms must at last be reduced to these words of Justin. And I will take leave to observe, that the ‘ Impartial Hand’ in a book lately reprinted, under the title of ‘ An Enquiry into the Con- stitution, &c. of the Primitive Church,’ uses™ the same argu- ment for the same purpose; and takes great pains to prove, that this phrase used by Justin always implies personal abilities ; and this would easily have been granted him by all. But sure a grave, affectionate, harmonious, clear, audible pronunciation is a personal ability, as well as invention or expression. But Justin himself has effectually answered this seeming argument against forms of prayer; for in this very Apology, from which Mons. Pfaffius and the ‘ Impartial Hand’ took this proof, speaking of Christian congregations in general, he says, “ We pray" [to God] and praise [Him] with all our might,” &c. I hope it will not be said, that the whole body of the Christian people could use their abilities of expression or invention in their public devotions. And by these last words of Justin it is very evident, that he meant nothing by this phrase but the most affectionate zeal and the most devout desires, expressed by their decent gestures, and the earnest- ness of their voice in making the responses. But 1 am so far from believing that every pastor was by the Apostle left to his own discretion in wording the prayers and praises that were used in the Eucharist and upon all solemn occasions, that I am fully persuaded that the Apostles left proper forms for all offices of religion with the Bishops of the Churches which they founded. I have not room here to m Part ii. pp. 34, &c. ois προσφερόμεθα πᾶσιν, ὕση δύναμις, Ὁ Apolog. [1. ο. 13. p. 50. Ed. Paris. αἰνοῦντες. 1742.] λόγῳ εὐχῆς Kal εὐχαριστίας ἐφ᾽ c2 2 Tim. i, 13, 14; it, 23 iii. 14. 2 Tim. i. 14. i Tim, vic 14. 1 Tim. vi. 20. 20 PREFACE. speak at large of this matter, but hope to have an opportunity of doing so hereafter. In the mean time, I shall only observe that it is highly probable, that “the form of sound words, the good thing committed to Timothy’s trust, and which he had heard of the Apostle, and was to commit to faithful men, who were able to teach others also,” was a Liturgy; and this Liturgy he was to “keep by the Holy Ghost ; for the Spirit of God did not only open the understanding and judgment, but did likewise strengthen and refresh the memories of men in the age of miracles. And, I think, Basil the Great°® does sufficiently shew, that the ancient Bishops and Priests did not read their forms of prayer, but pronounced them ‘ by heart,’ as we commonly speak. It particularly deserves our observation, that after St. Paul had commended Timothy for offering “the good Oblation?,” by which he means the Eu- charist, he presently adds, “ Keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable ;” he means, that he should not deface the forms, which he had given him: and he means the same thing, when soon after he bids him, “ Keep that which was com- mitted to his charge, avoiding profane and vain babblings,” or ‘new-coined harangues‘,’ as many of the ancients read and understood it. Another writer here in England has undertaken to answer my First Part; it is the same man whom I have convicted of several forgeries’ and false reasonings before, and who there- fore has no right to the common civilities due to a fair adversary. In his last book, which he calls ‘The Christian Eucharist no proper Sacrifice’, he charges me with asserting “a real change of the nature or natural qualities of bread and wine ;” and that “the symbols are united to the natural ° De Spirit. Sancto, c. 27. Tad τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ῥήματα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει τοῦ ἄρτου THs εὐχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου the Defence of the Bp. of Oxford’s Charge. I had been informed that the Defence of the Doctrine and Practice, τῆς εὐλογίας, Tis τῶν ἁγίων ἐγγράφως: ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ τούτοις ἀρκούμεθα, ὧν δ᾽ Απόστολος ἢ τὸ αὐαγ- γέλιον ἐπεμνήσθη, ἀλλὰ καὶ προλέγομεν καὶ ἐπιλέγομεν ἕτερα--- ἐκ τῆς ἀγράφου διδασκαλίας mapadaBdvres.—[ tom. iii. p. 65. Ed. Paris. 1730. ] P 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13. See First Part of Unbloody Sacrifice, [p. 223. J 4 Vid. Mill in loc. καινοφωνίας. r See Ep. Pref. to Unbloody Sacri- fice, | Pt. i. p. 10,] and Reflections on &c., on which I spend two or three pages in my Pref. Ep., was a person of some eminence in the Church; but I am since assured, that these two pam- phlets, and a third called The Chris- tian Eucharist no proper Sacrifice, did all come from the same hand, that is, Dr. [Turner] of [Greenwich], in the diocese of | Rochester ]. 5. Christian Eucharist no proper Sa- crifice, pp. 7, 8. PREFACE. 9] Person or Body of our Saviour.” He οἷΐθβ no words of mine, nor refers to any page of my book; and 1 am very sure that I never did in my most secret thoughts entertain any such opinion, much less declare for it in my writings. We are not to wonder, if Deists or Free-thinkers bring every day false accusations against clergymen, when they of the same order are guilty of this unchristian practice: but I insist upon it by the authority of all the venerable judges in Westminster-Hall, that the criminal words ought to be specified in the indictment; and till he can produce any such words of mine, I charge upon him this accusation con- cerning “ the real change of the nature of the Bread,” as an open, groundless forgery and slander; nor could I have so long been patient under it, but that Iam assured his writings meet with very few readers. I have indeed had much the same imputation laid on me by Mr. Lewis in a scurrilous pamphlet, which he wrote against me “ by the encouragement of his superiors,” as he himself has declared ; contrary to all the laws of friendship, of which yet he made the highest pro- fessions, at the same time that he published his pamphlet. There is nothing in it relating to the controversy itself that deserves my resentment, excepting that vile imputation con- cerning the change of the natural qualities in the Sacramen- tal elements. An honest friend of mine had long ere this given him a just reproof from the press, if it had not been thought that such pamphlets as Mr. L—s’s can do hurt to no cause but that which they defend. I am further made to say by Dr. T., that' “oblation con- stitutes a sacrifice.” Whereas by my" definition of a sacrifice I make five particulars in some measure necessary to const tute a sacrifice. I say indeed, that no rite is necessary to Sacrifice but the act or acts of oblation. And has he proved any other rite to be necessary? No; nor so much as attempted it. He would prove, that* “ first-fruits were offered, yet were not sacrifices ;” and did I ever say, that whatever was offered was a sacrifice ? but why were they not sacrifices? Why, in short, because no part of them was burnt. Well, then, suppose there had some part of them been laid on the altar to be * Christ. Euch. no proper Sacrifice, ἃ Unbloody Saecr., Part i. p. (71.] p- 19. * pp. 20, 21. 22 PREFACE. burnt, would not this have made them sacrifices? and then would not this laying them on the altar have been a rite or action, by which the oblation was performed? He says further, “ All Divines till of late have looked on first-fruits as oblations, not sacrifices.” This is strange, when’ [the] LXX. as ancient Divines as he can name, excepting the penmen of the Old Testament, do unanimously call them “ asacrifice ;” I mean the Greek Translators. The truth is, they were offered by being waved in the priest’s hands; they could not be burnt, because they were leavened; and no leaven was to. come on God’s altar. This Doctor, for a cast of his wit, is pleased to say that Dr. Hickes* and Mr. J n “begin with the Fathers of the Church, and work their way backwards till they come at Scripture.” Well, then, suppose we had taken Dr. T—’s method, begun at Scripture and thence proceeded to Fathers, had this been going forward? Certainly not, except m Dr. T—’s judgment the Fathers are, in some sense, before the Scriptures. He certainly works backward, who from greater proof descends to less, from earlier to later, from Divine to human; yet this it seems, in the Doctor’s judgment, is going forward. He spends one third of his book to prove, that by the third Apostolical Canon new ears of corn were permitted to be offered together with the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. And to this purpose he first alleges the authority of Bishop Beveridge*; and there is thus much of truth in what the Doctor says, that the false pointings in the text of Bishop Beveridge’s Edition might lead the Doctor into this mistaken sense of the words; but when he says that “‘ Bishop Beveridge did so understand” this Canon, he is himself guilty of an error, if not something worse. It is certain”, the Bishop declares positively against et Vinum ab Ipso y Lev. xxiii. 16, 17. προσοίσετε θυ- clay νέαν τῷ Κυρίῳ. ᾿Απὸ τῆς κατοικίας ὑμῶν προσοίσετε ἄρτους ἐπίθεμα, δύο uprovs—mpwroyevynudtay τῷ Κυρίῳ. 7 p. 230. * pp. 34, 38. b {Vid. Guil. Beveregii Annota- tiones, p. 15. ad calcem tom. ii. Pan- dect. Canonum, Ed. Oxon. 1672.] Hoe itaque tertio Canone cautum est, nequis aliud quippiam in Sacrificio incruento sive Coena Dominica ad Altare offerat, preter Panem Christo instituta, uti Balsamon et Zo- naras Canonem hune interpretantur. And on the words, πλὴν νέων χίδρων, he says further, Interpretes hic con- sentiunt, quod hoc Canone precipitur, ut nove spicz tempore opportuno, non ut sacrificia Deo, sed ut primitiz sacerdoti offerantur; and for this cites the Scholiast to Harmenopulus, and the Arabic collection of Canons, part of which the Dr. translates, p. 38. PREFACE. 23 the Doctor in his notes on this Canon Apostolical, as the reader will see by the Bishop’s own words. in the margin ; therefore it is certain the text is pomted contrary to the Bishop’s own judgment. The Doctor in the same place says, that Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, give the same interpretation which he had just before fathered on Bishop Beveridge. Now the learned reader, by looking into the margin®, may convince himself, that the two former are directly against this Doctor’s sense of the words in their notes on this very Canon, and the third not for it; nay, in his explaining the next Canon he is as directly against the Doctor, as I can be. But, says Dr. T—r, “the Arabic Para- phrase so explains it, as Bishop Beveridge shews.” Here again he misrepresents both his authors, as appears by the words of both‘ transcribed in the margin. So here we have five authors cited in one paragraph, without any conscience or regard to truth. Sure, no reader can expect that I should undertake the drudgery of exposing all the wilful or unwilful blunders of so faithless a writer. He, who desires further satisfaction in the meaning of this Canon, is desired to com- pare it with the 37th Canon of the African Code and the 28th Canon of the Synod in Trullo®; for I suppose the reader will rather take the judgment of the five learned interpreters above mentioned, and of these two great Synods, than of Dr. T—r. ¢ Balsam. in Can. Apost. 3. ἀκούων δὲ τοῦ κανόνος λέγοντος, [πλὴν νέων χίδρων, μὴ νομίσῃς συγκεχωρεῖσθαι τὴν ὡς καὶ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῆς οἴνου, εἰς τελεσιουρ- γίαν παραλαμβανομένου τῆς ἀναιμάκτον θυσίας. διὰ τούτων θυσίαν" καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ ἀπη- γόρευται' ἀλλὰ λέγε προσφέρεσθαι ταῦτα τῷ ἱερεῖ ὡς ἀπαρχὰς, κιτ. λ. Bev. Pan- dect., tom. i. p. 2. Zonaras, ibid. ‘O Κύριος παραδιδοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς Αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναιμάκτῳ θυσίᾳ τελετὴν, ἄρτῳ καὶ οἴνῳ ταύτην τελεῖν παραδέδωκε. διὸ καὶ οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι ἕτερόν τι πρὸς θυσίαν προσάγεσθαι ἀπηγόρευσαν-. --στα- φυλὰς δε---προσάγεσθαι συνεχώρησαν" πλὴν οὐχ. ὡς θυσίας ταῦτα προσφέρεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀπαρχὰς, κιτ.λ. Aristen. in Can. Ap. 3. ibid.—Amapxdas δὲ τῶν νέων καρπῶν, ἤτοι ὀσπρίων, καὶ σταφυ- λῆς, προσφέρειν κατὰ τὸν τῆς γεωργίας καιρὸν, εἰς εὐχαρευηίαν, τοῦ δόντος Θεοῦ, ἐπιτέτραπται. Idem. in Can. Ap. 4. p. ‘H γὰρ σταφυλὴ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ris ται, κατ᾽ ἐξαίρετον τῶν. ἄλλων ὀπωρῶν, ἀ Immediately after the word inter- pretantur in note [Ὁ] above, Bishop Be- veridge goes on in these words, Quibus suffragatur Josephus Agyptius in Ara- bica Canonum collectione, qua hee prima pars hujus Canonis sic explica- tur; ‘‘ Quicunque Episcopus vel Pres- byter legem Domini nostri Jesu Christi de oblatione transgressus fuerit, et super Altare obtulerit mel aut lac, vel etiam puri puti vini loco adduxerit potum inebriantem, vel quippiam ex vino inusitato, igne aut aliter parato, aut avem aliquam, aut animal, aut aliam hostiam preter Oblationem, quam Dominus Jesus precepit ex pane simi- lagineo puro’ novoque, et vino ex uvis vite ortis presso, Sacerdotio ejiciatur. © [Bev. Synodic., tom. i. p. 188.] 24, POSTSCRIPT. POSTSCRIPT. I wave received from my bookseller a printed book, entitled “A letter to Dr. Brett,’ subscribed “ Ezekiel Standfast.” Dr. Wise is, I find, the supposed author of it ; and, indeed, his style and genius shine forth in every page of it, and a great part of the book is levelled at me by name. He gives over arguing, and betakes himself to downright drolling and slander, the last refuge of a baffled cause. He charges me‘ with “ entering as far into Transubstantiation as even Father Massuet®, the late defender of it. In answer to which, I only desire my reader to consult the First Part of this work, to which the Doctor refers ; and there he will find, that I do not go so far as the Lutherans in this point®, whom yet Dr. Wise defends as to this article. It is very strange that the learned Pfaffius', who is himself a Lutheran, should impute it to me as an error that is common to me and the other writers of the Church of England, that we do not believe the Real Presence; and yet [that] Dr. Wise should charge it on me as a crime, that I “ have entered into Transubstantiation.” Per- haps he means that I have entered into it by way of opposition, as far as Massuet entered into it by way of defence and sub- mission. In no other sense can the words of this Doctor be true. He brings against me three personal accusations, of which I think myself concerned to give an account to my reader. I. That which most of all affects me is the charge of in- gratitude to my Most Reverend patron, the late Archbishop of Canterbury*. And to prove thisi, he taxes me with saying, that he is “ unsound in the faith,” and a great deal more to the same purpose.™ I desire the reader to use his own eyes and judgment in perusing those words of mine there referred to ; and I_am certain I need no other defence. I do further affirm that I never was guilty of any indecent behaviour toward him; I have, indeed, twice or thrice voted for such f p. 116. . i Pfaff, 464. & [Dom René Massuet, the Bene- k [Ὁ τ. Thomas Tenison. ] dictine annotator on St. Irenzus. } ' p. 70. ὃ p. 128. POSTSCRIPT. 25 knights of the shire as it was said he did not approve of. Sure, this can be no crime in the eyes of equal judges. If patrons have a right to dispose of the votes of those clergy- men whom they have preferred, then their tenure is more vile than that of the meanest layman. Dr. Wise represents his Grace’s favours toward me in such a manner as to prove himself perfectly ignorant in this point; but I shall say nothing to extenuate them, but only observe to him that I was a freeholder in the county before I was admitted to holy orders, and that when his Lordship was advanced to the See of Canterbury, he found me beneficed in this Diocese to the value of £120 per annum. IT. He says I was once “a violent Whig™.” I ever re- nounced the name of a Whig. I was indeed too much a Wilhamite, which might give too just occasion to some to brand me with that title of reproach. Ill. Dr. Wise slily insinuates, that it is my practice to elevate the Bread and Wine™. And it is true that I did sometimes, about four or five years ago, in the act of conse- eration lift up the Bread and Wine higher than usual, that the people might see the Bread broken and the Cup taken into my hand, as the Rubric directs, and for no other reason ; some people, who seemed desirous to see the holy action, sitting at a great distance from the Lord’s Table in this very large church. But I never elevated the elements after con- secration ; nay, I believe it horrible superstition in those that do it, if any such there be; and I do further solemnly de- clare it to be my sentiment, that to elevate and adore the Sacrament, according to the practice of the Church of Rome, _ is downright idolatry. IV. This Doctor tells his reader that® I rode about “to try my interest with the clergy,” in order to procure their voices at the last election of Clerks for Convocation. Now the con- trary to this is notoriously true; I mean, that I declared to all that offered me their votes that I resolved not to be a competitor. And I am very certain that I never asked a op. 78: tion preferred by the Long Parliament ; n p. 78. [The same charge was. see in Wrenn’s Parentalia, Life of brought forward against the learned Matthew Bishop of Ely, p. 104. |] Confessor, Dr. Matthew Wrenn, Bishop ° p. 134. of Ely, among the Articles of accusa- 26 POSTSCRIPT. vote of any single clergyman for myself, after the deplorable death of Queen Anne, by which the former Convocation was dissolved. The sum of all that can be learned from the English books written against the defenders of the Sacrifice im the Eucha- rist is this, that they must be run down with impudent fictions, to supply the want of argument. Cranbrook, June 14, 1716. PROPERTY of PRINCETON ON THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, AND ALTAR. ΒΑΣΙ Li. THE INTRODUCTION, SHEWING THAT CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST OFFERED OR SACRI- FICED HIMSELF, UNDER THE SYMBOLS OF BREAD AND WINE. ΤΉΕΒΕ are few doctrines more plainly taught us in Scripture Christ was than this, that Christ offered Himself a Sacrifice for our sins. 3%! 58" St. Paul expresses this truth in great variety of words. He tells us, that Christ “‘ gave Himself for us;” that “He became a Gal. i. 4; sin-offering for us* ;” that “ He offered Hiraclf without spot to ἔν as Tit God ;”’ that “ He appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice ΓΕ πον ἴχ.14; ἘΠ δεῖ. ;? that “ He gave,” or offered “ Himself to God for us ᾿δ το an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour.” The phrase last mentioned, that is, a sweet-smelling savour, peculiarly belongs to the most proper sacrifices that were ever offered, before Christ came into the world. Not only the burnt-offerings of Noah, and those that were enjoined by the Gen. viii. Law of Moses, but likewise the sacrifices for sin, the meat- ri Ἄς 31; 5 offerings, and the peace-offerings, have this title given to vi. 15. εἰ them; by which is meant, that such sacrifices, duly offered, 5. were as acceptable to God, as a sweet perfume is to men. Therefore, when the Apostle calls the Sacrifice of Christ “a sweet savour to God,” his meaning is, not only that it was a true and proper sacrifice, but that it was esteemed and re- ceived as such by God the Father. το ἃ. 2 Οοτ.ν. 21. That ἁμαρτία here any man byreading Dr. Whitby on the signifies ‘a sin-offering’ willappear to _ place. A tradition, that He was 28 INTRODUCTION. But the question is, when Christ did as a Priest offer His offered only Body and Blood to God. Now there is a common tradition, on the Cross. Bloody sa- crifices al- ways offer- ed, while alive. Lev. i. 2, 3. 6; iii. 1,2; iv. 13—15. 22—24, 27 that He did it at no other time nor place here on earth, but on the Cross only. I call this a tradition, because it is an opinion that is not delivered to us in Scripture, nor capable of being proved from thence. And it is one of the worst sort of traditions, because it is not affirmed by any ancient writer of the Church, but invented in these last ages; nay, I may dare to affirm that it is not consistent either with the account which the Scripture contains of this matter, or with the doctrine of the Primitive Church. And here I must observe to my reader, that I have throughout this work proposed it to myself as the most safe and certain rule for the direction of our judgment and practice, to take Scripture and other ancient books, in such a sense as may make them perfectly agree with each other. And it will appear to any learned reader, that this sense is always the most easy and natural, both in relation to the Scriptures, and those other ancient books which I have frequently quoted. And in this hes the advantage of that doctrine of the Eucharist for which I plead, that, upon this bottom, Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and primitive Fathers, do say the same thing, and express it for the most part in plain and clear words; but they who oppose this doctrine are forced to set the ancient Fathers at variance with our Saviour and the penmen of the New Testament ; and, to that end, to put oftentimes a harsh and unnatural sense upon what is said either in the Scripture or in other ancient writings upon this subject. Now in order to shew that Christ did, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood to God when He instituted this Sacra- ment, I desire that the following particulars may be duly weighed. I. Bloody sacrifices were usually offered before they were slain or began to be slain. The burnt-offerings, peace-of-’ ferings, and common offerings for sin, were directed by the Law of Moses to be offered by the laymen who brought them to the altar, while the beasts were yet alive; and I shall hereafter have occasion to shew, that it was the practice of the Jews to do this with a solemn prayer. And all the sacrifices, offered at the consecration of the priests or on the INTRODUCTION. 29 day of expiation, were offered by him that performed the priest’s office before they were slain. I do not mean that the oblation was finished, before the beast was killed and the blood sprinkled and other rites performed ; but that, in these cases, the sacrifice was actually presented to God, and His acceptance of the sacrifice humbly requested by the priest, before the blood of the beast was shed or any other rite made use of. And this may be proved, beyond all doubt, from the history of Aaron’s consecration, and the description of the sacrifices on the day of expiation. In the former, Moses performed the office of a priest by the express com- mand of God Himself. The sacrifice first mentioned in the consecration-service is that of a bullock for sin; and it is ex- pressly said, that ‘ Moses brought,” or offered “ the sin-offer- ing,” then Aaron and his sons laid their hands on it; after that it was slain ; and in the same chapter we have the same account given us of the ram for the burnt-offering and the other ram of consecration. On the day of expiation Aaron is directed to “ offer the bullock for a sin-offering for him- self and his house, and make an atonement for himself and his house,” and then to kill the bullock; so that this sacrifice was not only offered while it was yet alive, but the atonement is In some measure attributed to the oblation then made. And he is commanded on the same day “ to bring the goat, on which the Lord’s lot fell, and to offer him up for a sin- offering,” then to offer the scape-goat alive, then the sin- offering before mentioned for himself and his family, and to carry the blood of the bullock within the veil, and after all this to slay the goat which he had before offered for the sins of the people, and then to carry its blood within the veil. From all this it is evident, that the sacrifices offered for the consecrating of the priests, and the expiating both priests and people on the day of atonement, were to be offered, before they were slain, by him that performed the priest’s office. Now I suppose all Protestants will allow, that Christ’s Sacri- fice was intended for the expiation of sin; and if so, then they cannot think [it] strange, that it was offered before it was ® Ley. viii. 14; Ex. xxix. 10. The expressly signifying ‘to offer,’ though Hebrew verb used in the latter text is our translators turn it ‘to bring,’ or a°9pn: and I conceive the Hebrew ‘cause to bring.’ tongue does not afford any word more Ley. viii. 18; 22, 23. Lev. Xvi. Ht. Ley. xvi. 10—15. Christ offer- ed Himself before His cruci- fixion. Jobn xvii. 20. 2 Chron. xix, 91: Ezek, xliii. 26. Psalm cx. 30 INTRODUCTION. slain, and that by the priest himself; for it is clear that this was the method prescribed by Moses of old. It will presently be shewed, that the Body and Blood of Christ were intended as a Sacrifice of consecration as well as expiation, and that therefore the proper time of offering them was before He was actually slain as a Sacrifice. And it will in due time be proved, that the sacrifices of the Gentiles were offered in the same method. 2. Christ Himself does assure us, that He did, as a Priest, offer Himself to God before He was crucified, and that He offered Himself as a Sacrifice of consecration. The words of our Saviour to this purpese are part of that most solemn prayer which He addressed to God the Father, before He was gone out of that room in which He instituted the Eucharist, before He was gone over the brook Kedron, or entered into the garden where He underwent that most violent agony. He speaks of His Apostles, for whom He had been praying in the foregoing part of the chapter, and says, “For their sakes I sanctify,’ or consecrate “ Myself, that they also may be sanctified,” or consecrated “in the truth.” Dr. Outram says®, “that by Christ’s ‘consecrating Himself’ can be meant nothing but ‘His offerimg Himself’ a Sacrifice.” Dr. Whitby interprets the words to the same sense‘. It is certain that the words do of necessity import an oblation of Himself. For it is observable, that persons designed and declared before-hand te be priests by a Divine authority, as the sons of Aaron were, are said “to consecrate themselves,” when they first enter upon the exercise of their office; and, indeed, the generality of the Levitical priests had no other consecration, especially in the later times. Now our Saviour, having been not only declared but sworn to be a Priest many ages before by God the Father, is here said to consecrate Himself, because He was now offering the Sacrifice by which ¢ Primam earum rerum, quibus con- stitit Sacrificium suum, tum prestabat Dei Filius, cum Se ad mortem immi- . nentem Deo ultro offerebat.—primo enim mortem aditurus Se propter suos Seipsum ἁγιάζειν dixit; hoc est, ut victimam Deo offerre.—nee alium ul- lum hoe in loco vox ἁγιάζειν sensum recipit; quo factum est, ut verba illa ἁγιάζξω ἐμαυτὸν ita explicet S. Chrysos- tomus, προσφέρω σοὶ dvoiav.—unde in- telligitur Dominum nostrum tum, cum preces hasce ederet, Deo Se ut victimam obtulisse. De Sacrificiis, p. 286. lib. ii. ce. 3. edit. Amst. 4 See Part i. of the Unbloody Sacri- fice, p. [184. ] INTRODUCTION. ΘῈ He entered on His Priestly function; and He at the same time consecrated or began to consecrate His Apostles to the Priestly office, by giving them a commission “to do,” or offer “this, in remembrance of Him.” And He finished this consecration, when after His resurrection, ‘‘ He breathed on them, and said, ‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye do remit, they are remitted.” And this consecration was both what our Saviour and His Apostles were clearly capable of, and which does therefore best agree with this text; in which Christ declares, in the first place, that He consecrated or sanctified Himself, and gives the reason why He did so, namely, that they also might be consecrated ; for they had never been personally declared by God or Christ Jesus to be the ministers of this Sacrifice and Sacrament, before the institution of it; therefore, I take this to be the meaning of our Saviour; “I now consecrate Myself to the Priestly office, by offering My Body and Blood as a Sacrifice, that My Apostles also may, by this means, be consecrated to officiate as Priests in the mysteries of the Gospel.” For, by “the truth” here, we are to understand the doctrine and Sacraments of the Gospel, as distinguished from those of the Law; and* this is the usual signification of the word ‘ truth’ in St. John’s Gospel. 3. If we enquire into the precise moment of time when Before He our Saviour pronounced these words, “I sanctify,” or con- gk secrate “ Myself,’ we may positively determine, that it was after He had begun, and before He had perfectly finished, the institution of the Eucharist ; though we cannot certainly determine to what part of that holy action this prayer be- longs. St. John himself does wholly omit the history of Christ’s breaking, pouring out, and blessing the Bread and Wine. And, indeed, he seldom mentions any particulars, but such as the other three Evangelists had passed over in silence ; e “The Law was given by Moses, taught in the Gospel, John iv. 24. but Truth came by Jesus Christ,’ John i. 17. “The Truth shall make you free,’’ viii. 32. “I am the Way, and the Truth,” that is, the completion of the types of the Law, xiv. 6. ‘They that worship God must worship Him in spirit and truth,’”’ that is, in the manner typified in the Law, clearly **Sanctify them (the Apostles) in Thy Truth, Thy wordis Truth,” that is, Thy Gospel preached by Me is the accom- plishment of the Law and Prophets: therefore Christ desires God to conse- crate them to be stewards of the Gospel mysteries. Jobn xviii. And upon His insti- tuting the Eucharist. Luke xxii. 19. Matt. xxvi. 28. Mark xiy. 24, 1 Cor. xi. 24. me INTRODUCTION. therefore, though he says nothing concerning the Bread and Wine, yet he inserts a prayer used by our blessed Lord on this occasion. It is indeed most probable, that these peti- tions were put up to God after His having blessed the ele- ments, and upon His distributing them to His Apostles; at least, that the words, now cited, belong to that part of the sacred office. We are assured, that after Christ had spoken these words, or pronounced this prayer, “ He went over the brook Kedron, where was a garden,” and where He was soon after apprehended ; and that therefore this prayer must have been used at the Eucharist, which was the last action of mo- ment recorded by the other Evangelists, before His going to Mount Olivet, where this garden was. I do not from St. John’s expression certainly conclude, that these words, or this prayer, did so immediately precede His going over the brook, that nothing could be said or done in the mean- time; 1 only infer from what has been said, that, as it is certain our Saviour performed the part of a Priest before He was fastened to the Cross; so there is a very fair probability from this text, that He did it at the time of His instituting the Eucharist. 4, And this will amount to more than a probability, if it be considered that Christ, when He administered the Bread to the Apostles, did expressly declare this Bread to be His Body “ given,” or offered “for them:”’ and when He administered the Cup, that this was “ His Blood shed forthem.” He says, as directly and strongly as words can well express it, that He then gave His Body to God, and shed His Blood as a ransom for the sins of men. Neither Christ nor His Apo- stles have declared that He did, at any other time or place, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood to the Father hére on earth. It deserves our particular notice, that not only St. Luke represents our Saviour as saying, “This is My Body given for you;” but St. Matthew informs us, that our Saviour said concerning the Cup, “ This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many.” St. Mark also speaks of the time then present, “which is shed for many ;” and St. Paul, in relating this sacred insti- tution, speaks of our Saviour as using these words, “ This is My Body, which is broken for you.” Nothing can be more INTRODUCTION. 33 harsh than to suppose, that we may not rely upon the re- port of four holy writers, when they agree as to the circum- stance of time. All writers do indeed sometimes speak of what is to be done, as now already done; but then the reader is, from the nature or method of the facts by them related, set right as to the certain time; but we cannot, from any of the four Gospels or any other passage in the New Testa- ment, inform ourselves that Christ did at any other certain time here on earth, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood to God; and therefore, since four of these writers do assure us, that Christ declared His Body to be given, His Blood to be poured out in the Eucharist, we may from thence safely conclude, that He did then offer Himself, while He was alive; especially, since sacrifices of expiation and consecra- tion were of old thus offered by the priest before they were slain. And the fancy, that the Evangelist used the time present for the time to come, has no other foundation but that of the Popish Mass-Book, and the old Latin translation of the Gospels, in which the words run thus: “This is My Body which shall be given, This is My Blood which shall be shed.” 5. And by this it appears, that our Saviour consecrated And then His Apostles to their office by and in the Sacrifice of the His Avo- Eucharist. At the same time that He entered upon the exer- les ἴὸ be cise of His Priestly office by offerimg His Body and Blood, ra Sacri- He committed to them a power of doing or offering the» same in remembrance of Him; for He sanctified Himself that He might also sanctify tlie ; and thus St. Paul declares in behalf of himself and his fellow Apostles, “we were sancti- fied all at once by the offering of the Body of Jesus‘.” It is therefore rational to believe that our Saviour, by delivering the symbols of His Body and Blood sacrificed for our sins with His own hands to His Apostles, and charging them to do what He had now done, did intend not only to adminis- ter the Sacrament to them, but to give them authority to offer and administer it to others. Aaron and his sons were Ley. viii. by God’s direction ordained Mosaical priests by having the blood of the ram of consecration put on several parts of their body, and some pieces of that sacrifice into their hands, and f Heb. x. 10. See part i. p. [202.] JOHNSON. D The Sacri- fice of Christ no Jewish sa- crifice. 34. INTRODUCTION. waving them for a wave-offering before the Lord. And the most ancient form of a Bishop’s ordination now extant in the whole world consists chiefly of a prayer, with imposition of hands and putting the Bread of the Eucharist into the hands of the person to be ordained, and so performing the Oblation&é. I have alleged the Law of Moses to prove, that it is agree- able to the nature of a sacrifice to be offered before it was slain, and that it comports with a sacrifice of expiation or consecration to be offered by the priest, while it is yet alive: I do not this upon supposition that it is necessary the Sacri- fice of Christ should in all respects answer the standard of the Levitical Law. A beast killed according to the directions of Moses’s Law in the temple at Jerusalem was certainly a sacrifice, and therefore whatever rites or modes were used on such occasions were consistent with the nature of sacrifices ; but it does not therefore follow, that whatever was offered in any other manner was no sacrifice at all; for there were other sacrifices besides those, which were offered by the Law of Moses. We might justly despise that Socinian or Deist, who should undertake to prove that Christ’s Body was no sacrifice, because no part of It was burnt or otherwise con- sumed; nor the Blood of It sprinkled by any priest upon’ the mercy-seat; or because Christ’s was a human body, and therefore not fit to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar at Jerusalem; or because for a priest to offer his own body in sacrifice was a thing never heard of among the Jews, nor probably among the Gentiles. Any rational man would think it a sufficient answer to these cavils, to say, that no Christian ever thought the Sacrifice of Christ to be a Jewish or Levitical sacrifice ; that as Christ’s Priesthood was distinct from that of Aaron, so was His Sacrifice from those pre- scribed by the Law of Moses, and from all that had ever been offered before; as every thing that is most excellent in its kind, for that reason, must in some respects differ from all others. The most solemn sacrifices of expiation among the Jews were killed by the high-priest, who offered them. It does not therefore follow, that Christ was not both a Priest and Sacrifice, because He could not kill Himself. And, indeed, € a. p. 52. Ap. INTRODUCTION. 35 under the Law of Moses, a bullock or a goat might be sacri- fices, though killed by a layman; the priest’s killing of them did not render them sacrifices ; for it is certain that the gene- rality of the animals offered to God were slain by the hands of laymen; nay, the priest’s killing of them did not render them expiatory sacrifices ; for the common sacrifices for sin and trespass were killed by those in whose behalf they were Lev. iv. 23. offered, and yet had an atoning virtue by means of the Divine ms pate institution. And when the priest did himself slay the sacri- fice, yet the slaying and the offering of it were actions wholly distinct. They were offered, as has been shewed, before they were killed, and they were again offered afterward by the sprinkling of their blood; but that they were offered im and by the stroke which killed them, cannot be said with any ap- pearance of truth. It is evident from what has been said, that our Saviour The Jews offered to God His Body and Blood, under the symbols or ἀορέ ποθεν: representa- pledges of Bread and Wine. It may safely be granted, that =" pace the Jews had no such sacrifice, in which one bodily thing Eucharist. or substance was offered as the symbol or representation of another. It may justly be allowed to be the peculiar pro- perty of the spiritual Sacrifice of Christ, that one thing was visibly offered, another more excellent thing signified and effectually represented by it. This may prove that it is no Jewish sacrifice ; but it is most unreasonable from hence to conclude, that it is no sacrifice at all. It may as fairly be argued, that there never was any other temple in the world besides that at Jerusalem, because probably there never was any other built precisely and in all respects according to that model. As it seems sufficiently evident, that Christ did offer the = time na com- Sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the figures of Bread pany in and Wine; so if we consider the time and company in which ts offer- it was done, we shall find them to have been the most proper κατε grea and agreeable for this most sacred action. As to the time, per. it was before He was under custody or confinement, while He was, even to the eye of men, entirely at His own dis- posal. This was a proper season to make the Oblation of Himself most perfectly available to the ends for which it was performed ; for, by doing it now, it appeared to be wholly D2 Matt. xxvi. 81. Jobn xix. 26. We are to do what Christ did in the Eu- charist. 36 INTRODUCTION. His own act and deed, flowing from the free motion of His own will. If He had delayed the doing it till He had been fastened to the Cross or seized by the officers and soldiers, it might have been said by His enemies, that He offered Him- self to God to wipe off the reproach of that shameful death from which He was not able to deliver Himself, and to set the best gloss He could on His present sufferings, when He found them to be unavoidable; but by doing it while He was yet at perfect liberty, He prevented the misconstruction of the most generous and beneficial action that He ever per- formed. As to the company in which He did it none could be more agreeable ; they were His Apostles, who were before- hand chosen of God to be witnesses of His most glorious ac- tions and stewards of His mysteries. And if it were proper for all other matters of moment to be transacted in their presence, it might justly be thought strange, if He had chosen to perform the principal action of all in their absence. Christ knew full well that His Apostles would forsake Him, before He was crucified; that not one of them, excepting St. John, could be a witness of what He should do or say, while He was hanging on the Cross. And certainly that multitude of bloody Jews, with the band of Roman soldiers, who sur- rounded our blessed Lord during the whole time of His crucifixion, were the most improper and disagreeable assem- bly that could have been drawn together from any part of the world, to be witnesses of the most sacred and solemn action that ever was done upon earth, I mean, the Priestly Oblation of the Son of God for the sins of men. And if Christ gave or offered Himself in the Eucharist, I presume 1 need not labour to prove, that Priests are to do what He then did. We have His express command to “do” or offer “this in remembrance” of Him; andI have abundantly demonstrated elsewhere", that this was the constant unani- mous judgment of the Primitive Church for the first four hundred years after Christ. We cannot, indeed, offer the Eucharist as the pledge of Christ’s Body hereafter to be slain; but as the memorial of His Body once already slain for the sins of men. St. Paul speaks of the Communion as a Sacrifice. He h Part i. p. [1385,] &c. INTRODUCTION. 37 charges the Christians at Corinth, “ not to be idolaters ;”’ he 1Cor. x. 16 means, such idolaters as the Israelites were, when “they sat § down to eat and drink” before the golden calf; therefore by Coe idolatry he means eating things offered to idols. He again Exoa. XXxXil. 6. 1 Cor. x. 14. cautions them to flee from this idolatry; and uses this argu- ment against eating things offered to idols, namely, that by eating of what has been sacrificed men communicate with that God to whom it was offered. To prove this, he begins with the Eucharist, and asks, “The Cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? the Bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christi?” True communion consists in giving and receiving ; and if the Eucharist be the most proper way of communicating with God, then it must consist in giving somewhat to Him, and receiving somewhat from Him; and the Apostle here seems to tell us what we give to God, and receive again from Him, viz., the Body and Blood of Christ, signified or represented by Bread and Wine: therefore, in calling the Eucharist the communion of this Body and Blood, he at once proves what he intended, and shews that we both give or offer the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ to God, and that we have It returned to us again, to make a spi- ritual or religious banquet; and by this means do perfectly communicate with the One Ged, which is that he was to prove. He argues next from the Jewish sacrifices, and observes, that “they that eat of them are partakers of the altar ;” that is, they share the sacrifices between the altar and them- selves ; what is burnt on the altar is God’s portion, what they eat is their own; and thus by parting the same living creature betwixt God and themselves, they communicate and are as it were partners with Him. Then he proceeds to shew the ab- surdity of beimg communicants with the True, and false Gods, at one and the same time; “I would not,” says he, “ that ye should have fellowship,” or communion “ with devils,” by eating things sacrificed to them; “ ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s Table and the table of devils; ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils.” The table of devils is clearly an altar erected to idols; there- i Phil. iv. 4. “No Church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.” roves the ucharist a - or. X. é. 1 Cor. x. 18. Core x: 20, 21. And Heb. xiii. 10. Heb. xiii. 10. And 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13. 38 INTRODUCTION. fore the Table of the Lord must be the Christian Altar: and I have elsewhere* shewed at large, that the Table of the Lord is a title never given to any thing in Scripture but to the Altar of the True God, and we can be partakers of the Altar of God only by eating or drinking what has been offered on it. And this the Apostle intimates, when he says, “ We cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the cup of devils :” for, as by the cup of devils he means the liquor offered to idols; so by the Cup of the Lord we can reasonably understand nothing but the consecrated Wine, which must therefore have been offered to the True God. The same Apostle, at another place, speaks of “an Altar, whereof they who served the tabernacle,” that is, the Jewish priests, “had no right to eat.” Now the Communion-Table was most usually called an Altar, in the three first centuries after Christ, as 1 have shewed on another occasion’. And whereas the Apostle speaks of eating ‘‘of,” or from “the Altar™,” this seems clearly to point to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, which was indeed taken from the Altar to be distributed ; whereas that part of the Jewish sacrifice, which was intended to be eaten either by the priest or people, was never laid on the altar, and so could not be taken or eaten from it. Some, by the Altar, would understand the Cross of Christ; and by eating, they would have the Apostle mean, believing in Him; and then the sense will be, that the priests who serve the Jewish tabernacle have no right to believe in Christ. But this cannot be the Apostle’s meaning, because it is not true; for both the Jewish priests and people had the right, privi- lege, or power of believing in Christ; nay, to them and their children the offer of the Gospel was first made; therefore, by the Altar, we can rationally understand nothing but the Com- munion-Table ; and, by consequence, the Sacrifice, which we receive from thence and which the Jewish priests had no right to eat, is the Eucharist. The same Apostle tells Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus”, “Thou k See Part i. p. [ 408. ] the Contents, where I have proved that 1 Part i. ὩΣ [405.] the Greek word here used does never τι νϑυσιαστήριον & ἔχομεν, ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν signify any thing but an oblation or οὐκ ἔχουσι, K.T. sacrifice, in the Greek Translation, or n | Tim. vi. 12, 13. See Parti. p. in the New Testament. [224.] and the page immediately after INTRODUCTION. 39 hast made the good Oblation before many witnesses,” and that Jesus Christ testified, confirmed, or ratified this good Oblation under Pontius Pilate, that is, while he was governor of Judea. This is the plain certain sense of these texts. Now I suppose it impossible to assign any oblation, that was first testified by Christ, afterwards offered by Bishop Timothy, except that of the Eucharist ; and of this the Apostle is to be understood, when he speaks of “the High-Priest of our Oblation,” and of “holding fast our Oblation®.” It has been thought an objection against the Sacrifice of the How Christ Eucharist, that St. Paul says, Christ was “ but once offered ;” pick aes and if, indeed, He had offered Bread and Wine only, when He Sere had instituted the Eucharist, and had afterwards on the Cross made a distinct priestly oblation of His natural Body and Blood; then there would have been some force in this objec- tion. But it appears by the account now given, that He did, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, under the pledges of Bread and Wine; that He was afterwards slain as a Sacrifice on the Cross: but there is no evidence that He did again on the Cross make the oblation of His Body and Blood as a Priest; He finished the Sacrifice of Himself by entering as a High- Priest into Heaven, the true Holy of Holies, and He gives life to our Sacrifice, by always appearing there in the presence of God for us. Another specious objection against this doctrine is, that it The Sacri- seems to make the Sacrifice offered by Christ imperfect ; for Tee St. Paul supposes that if the Jewish sacrifices on the day of ex- “es | piation “could have made the comers thereunto perfect, they personal would have ceased to be offered,’ and not been repeated 1 ie per- every year. And this would indeed be a great difficulty, if 5 air ri we asserted, as the Papists do, that Christ’s natural or sub- * stantial Body is offered in every Eucharist; but this we absolutely deny. Further, I have formerly proved”, that the Apostle by “making” the comers to the sacrifices of the Jews “perfect,” does only mean rendering men for ever after capable of appearing in the public worship of God, without yearly renewing the sacrifices on the day of expiation, as the Jews were bound todo. And it is clear, that Christ by His per- ° Heb. iii: 1; x. 23. See Part i. P See Part i. [pp. 178—226,] espe- [pp. 224, 225.] cially [pp. 203, &c.] That there are sacri- fices with- out life or blood. 40 INTRODUCTION. sonal Sacrifice has, in this sense, once for all perfected His people; for the priests and people and the very altar of the Jews were unfit for Divine worship, if they were not yearly cleansed and purified by the sacrifices offered on the expia- tion day; but the services of the Christian Church have been once for ever sanctified by the offering of Christ’s natural Body and Blood. And I must further observe, that the per- fection of Christ’s personal Sacrifice cannot be better esta- blished than by asserting, as I have ever done, that the merits of It are sufficient to give efficacy to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist for ever after; and that by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist the merits of the personal Sacrifice are to be ap- plied to the members of Christ’s Church, as occasion requires. It may be supposed by some, that, though the Eucharist administered by our Saviour was a real Sacrifice, because under the pledges of Bread and Wine He offered His own Body and Blood to God the Father; and this Body of His was actually slain, and His Blood shed in a few hours after ; yet that the Communion, as now administered, cannot be a Sacrifice, because no natural blood is therein poured out. But this surmise is grounded on a plain mistake; and the mistake is this, that nothing without life and blood can be a sacrifice. I have proved, and shall effectually prove, the con- trary. In truth, I can find no ground for this fancy, but only this, that our English translators in the Old Testament do never give the name of Sacrifice to any thing, but only to living creatures slain in honour to God. But my reader is to observe, that there was no reason for this but the will and pleasure of the translators only. The most ancient trans- lators41, I mean the Greek, who perfectly well understood the nature of a sacrifice, give this name to a mincha or meal- offering one hundred and thirty-eight times, to a slain beast but one hundred and twenty-nine times. Our translators could not have followed better guides as to this particular. I do not find that ever any man doubted but that a thing without life might be a proper sacrifice, until this was found _ necessary to serve a present turn; I mean, to subvert the primitive doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Dr. Ou- 1 See Kircher’s Concordance, pp. 574, &c. INTRODUCTION. 41 tram’ who is so greatly and justly magnified by these very men, and Mr. Ainsworth’, the most learned of the old Dis- senters, do both expressly affirm that some things without life were Levitical sacrifices. Some think it a great objection against this doctrine, that That the the Eucharist is never expressly called a Sacrifice in the ee New Testament. Yet these very men do call it a Sacrament, cee! a, though neither is that name given to it by the sacred writers, Scripture. But, certainly, when Christ calls the Bread, “My Body given,” or offered “for you;” the true sense and meaning is ‘ My Body sacrificed for you.’ And further, I may dare to say I have proved beyond all exception‘, that when St. Paul speaks of ‘an Oblation confirmed’ by Christ and offered by Timothy, by the Oblation he means the Eucharist. And that this word signifies such an Oblation as is indeed a Sacrifice appears from this, that even our English translators do twice or thrice" call that a sacrifice or burnt-offering, which the Greeks express by the word here used by St. Paul; and which therefore may justly be turned Sacrifice here. τ De Sacrific., p. 79. Eorum, que et oblata et ritu sacro consumpta erant, (qualia sola a Judzis pro sacrificiis haberi solent) alia erant ex inanimis, alia autem ex animantibus. Ed. Am- stelod. S On Levit. i. 3. “There were five sorts of sacrifices ordinary, instituted of God; ‘burnt-offerings,’ (commanded here); ‘ meat-offerings,’ (in Ley. ii.) ; ‘ peace-offerings,’ (in Lev. iii.); ‘sin- offerings,’ (in Lev. iv.) ; and ‘ trespass- offerings,” (in Lev. v. 15.)’ * See Part i. p. [223,] &c., and page next after the Contents. =" See Jer. xvii. 26; Amos iv. 5; in Ezek. xlv. 12, the homology, or ‘ free- will-offering’ is clearly a ‘ whole burnt- offering.’ “La ae on 5 ἢ er ADVERTISEMENT. Ir is necessary to state here, that ‘ Bishop Poynet’s Testi- mony,’ the ‘Animadversions on the Christian Eucharist rightly stated, &c.’ and the ‘ Reflections on the Defence of the Bishop of Oxford’s Charge,’ which in the present Edition are appended to the Second Volume, occur at the end of the First in the two original Editions. It may be well to add that in the Edition of 1724, (1. 6. the Second Ed. of the First Volume,) the following passages were omitted : From “This gentleman,” to “treating his argument and his antagonist.” Animadversions, p. 321. — “1 desire the reader,” to “his Epistles,” p. 323. — “Saying of grace?” to “behind them,” p. 324. — “and I will engage,” to “a very sorry one too,” p. 325. — “This is very arch,” to “a third,” p. 326. — “Here he speaks,” to “ comparison,” p. 328. — “This I give my reader,” to “Body and Blood,” p. 329. — “The words, which he is so very fond of,” p. 329, to “hunt for such small game as this,” p. 330. — “And here I cannot,” p. 331, to “ taken the oaths,” p. 382. — “Pp. 54. His words,” p. 333, to “ approbation,” p-. 334. — “Pp. 131,” to “join issue with him,” p. 334. — “He introduces this citation,” to “any service,” Ρ. 335. ΠΤ 1.8." to “antiquity,” p. 339: — “P. 179,” to “apologist’s reply,” p. 340. — “As before he called,” to “common meal,” p. 345. ADVERTISEMENT. From “TI know what the Doctor would be at,” p. 346, to “ chap. 1. sect. 1,” p. 347. — “P, 284,” to “overpower us,” p. 356. — “J was surprised,” to ‘ by halves,” p. 357. — ‘By the Law of Moses,” to “ we in ours,” p. 358. — “Thus the Doctor,” to “the Evangelical Mincha,” p. 36]. — “P.313. Now to wind up,” p. 363, to “equally defective,” p. 370. — “We have before seen,” to “ Liturgy.” Reflections, p. 575. — “1 will give him one demonstration,” to “ sacrificing Priest,” p. 383. Besides the above, a few expressions were left out here and there, wherein our Author, in the Ist Ed. had adopted the style of personal acrimony, too common in writers of his age. A DISCOURSE ON THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, AND ALTAR. VARY. fi. eee CHAP. I. IN WHICH THE AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT OF THE EUCHARIST WITH THE SACRIFICES OF THE ANCIENTS IS CONSIDERED, WITH AN INTENTION TO SHEW, THAT THE EUCHARIST IS NOT THE LESS A SACRIFICE, BECAUSE IN SOME RESPECTS IT DIFFERS FROM THE SACRIFICES OF THE ANCIENTS, AND THAT IT IS INDEED A MORE EXCELLENT SACRIFICE THAN THEIRS WERE. SECT. I. The Eucharist agrees with the most solemn sacrifices of the ancients in this, that it is attended with a feast upon the things offered to God. Tue true and full notion of the Eucharist is, that it is a TheEucha- religious feast upon Bread and Wine, that have first been ΚΟ ἃ _ offered in sacrifice to Almighty God, and are become the #tifice. mysterious Body and Blood of Christ. The Papists, both in _ their notions and practice, represent it more like a bare Sacri- fice than as a feast on a Sacrifice ; for the generality of their Masses are nothing else but a mere offering of the Sacrament to God in their superstitious manner, without any distribu- tion of the holy symbols to the people. Others endeavour to have it thought nothing more than a religious feast. These are two faulty extremes. The truth is, that the holy Eucharist, according to the institution of Christ, and the 44. RELIGIOUS FEASTS CHAP. judgment of the ancient Church, is a feast upon a Sacrifice. The prac- tice of Jacob and Jethro prove this. Gen. XxXXi. 54. Exod. xviii. 12. That it is a Sacrifice, I have already shewed ; that it is a feast, I need not take any pains in proving, since it is the uni- versal opinion of all Protestants. The truth is, this Sacra- ment has so long been discoursed of and used as a feast only, that too many think these two notions contrary to each other ; and imagine, that if it be a feast, it cannot be a Sacrifice. Therefore I shall here make it my business to shew, that these two notions are not only fairly consistent, but that, in truth, sacrificing and religious feasting are things which God hath in all ages joimed together, and that therefore they ought by no means to be put asunder. We know not the laws of Divine worship given to the ancients before the Law of Moses. Josephus? indeed tells us, that Noah, when he had sacrificed to God, made a feast for all his family, though the Scripture mentions no other sacri- fices offered by him but burnt-offerings only. The Septua- gint make it the fault of Cain’s sacrifice, that it was not rightly divided, too great a share was taken for the feast, too little left to God; but the Hebrew differs from them. Yet it is certain, that “ Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread, and they did eat bread.” ‘Eating bread’ is a phrase used in Scripture for feasting; and here it is evident, that Jacob made a feast to his relations of the cattle which he had offered in sacrifice. Jethro was no Israelite, and therefore the sacrifices offered by him may safely be affirmed to have been in all respects agreeable to the primitive laws of Divine worship; and of him we are informed, that he “ took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God, and Aaron came and all the elders of Israel, and eat bread with him before God.” And that this was the practice of the Israelites, long before the giving of the Law, appears sufficiently from this; that Moses and Aaron, in their ad- dress to Pharaoh, use these two phrases” of “ holding a feast to God” and “ sacrificing to the Lord,” as expressing the very same sense. a Lib. i. c. 8. [tom. i. p. 12. Ed. 4 feast to Me in the wilderness.’”’ Ver. Hudson. Oxon. 1720.] Θύσας τῷ Θεῷ 3; ‘Let us go, we pray thee, three συνευωχεῖτο τοῖς oikeloLS. days’ journey into the desert, and sacri- ® Exod. v. 1; “Thus saith the Lord, fice unto the Lord our God,”’ Let the people go, that they may hold MADE ON SACRIFICES. 45 Though feasting upon sacrifice was more ancient than the SECT. Law, yet it pleased God to give more particular rules and ——~—— The Jewish precise directions concerning the distribution and eating of sacrifices the things offered at the altar, in the books of Exodus, Levi- sane ticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, than had ever been given before. The sin-offering and trespass-offering, the first-born and the meal-offerings were divided between God and the priests; in the peace-offerings, only the people had their share; the burnt-offerings were wholly consumed in the fire, so that neither the priests nor the people had any portion reserved for them. But then, it is observed by them who are best versed in the Jewish learning‘, that burnt-offerings were usually attended with peace-offerings, only? some except such burnt-offerings as were offered for the whole congrega- tion. Therefore we are not to wonder, if Josephus supposes that Noah’s burnt-offerings were accompanied with peace- offerings, and that he entertained his family with the re- mainder of them. We may therefore safely conclude, that the generality of sacrifices among the Jews were accompanied with a feast; and their very language speaks this; for the same word 3n signifies both feast and sacrifice. And what comes nearer to our purpose still is this, that No part of the Passover, which was the most solemn sacrifice among the πὲ F3s* Jews, and which God gave in charge to that people before >™*- the Law or even the Ten Commandments, was to be wholly eaten ; and this was a sacrifice, which, as it was a special type of the Eucharist, so it exactly agreed with it in this particular, namely, that God took no portion to Himself, nor assigned any precise share to the priest; but it became wholly a feast to the owners, whether priests or laymen. Dr. Cudworth 5, indeed, from an old manuscript of a Karaite Jew, has cited some words intimating that the inwards of the Paschal lamb were burnt on the altar. This, if it was to be relied on as true in fact, is only a proof of what our Saviour says of the Jews of His age, namely, that “they had made ¢ See Ainsw. on Exod. xxiii. 15. the burnt-sacrifice.”’ This indeed seems to be the meaning * See Cudworth’s True Notion of the of that law, Lev. iii. 5, where orders Lord’s Supper, [p. 4. Ed. Lond. 4to. are given concerning the ‘fat of the 1642.] | peace-offering,’ and it is said, “ Aaron’s e Ibid., p. (30. ] sons shall burn it on the altar, upon CHAP. Exod. xii. a: Jewish fes- tivals con- sisted of sacrifices and feasts. Lev. xvi. 27. 46 RELIGIOUS FEASTS the commandments of God of none effect, through their tradition ;” as Bochart long since observed. For certainly, if there be any law in the five books of Moses easy to be understood, this is one, that they should “eat the flesh” of the lamb, “roast with fire, his head, with his legs, and the purtenance thereof.” Further, it is certain, that the devotion of the Jewish festivals consisted in offering sacrifices, and entertaining the priests and Levites, the widow, the fatherless, and stranger, on the flesh and other materials, which they then offered to God. It is true, they did not on these festivals confine them- selves to eat of nothing else but what was offered in sacrifice ; but other provision, as the third year’s tithe, and the yearly tithe, was made for this purpose, that priests and Levites, Israelites and strangers, might “ rejoice before the Lord.” But this is evident, that offering sacrifices, and feeding upon these sacrifices, was the principal part of their festivals ; therefore on the day of expiation, which was a solemn fast in which both priests and people were to afflict their souls, the bullock for the priest’s sin-offering and the goat for the people’s sin- offering were to be wholly consumed in the fire, no part of them was to be reserved. These were bare sacrifices, with- out any feast annexed to them; for the day on which they were offered was a day of abstinence; and it is highly pro- bable that every day, on which an occasional sacrifice was offered for the sin of the high-priest or of the congregation, according to the directions of the Law, was also kept as a day of fasting and humiliation, which was one reason why Lev. iv. 11, those sacrifices were wholly consumed by fire; but these few 12, 20, 21. exceptions are not sufficient to annul the general rule, viz., that religious feasts were the attendants on sacrifice. And this is not only true of the great feasts, which were enjoimed by the Law, but of such as were upon any singular occasion appointed by men of character and authority in the Jewish nation. When Samuel came to Bethlehem to anoint David, 1 Sam. xvi. he tells the elders of the town, “I am come to sacrifice to eat, * the Lord; sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice ; and he sanctified Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice.” This public invitation to the elders, and particularly to Jesse and his family, imports an enter- MADE ON SACRIFICES. 4.7 tainment intended to be made for them upon the heifer, sEcT. which he brought for a sacrifice. And this-is further inti- mated in the words of Samuel, when he insisted on having David sent for; “we will not sit down till he come hither.” We read of such another sacrifice with a feast, in which Samuel, as a Prophet, seems to have officiated. For the young maidens tell Saul and his servant, “ Behold [Samuel] iat Sane ix. before you, for he came to-day to the city; for there isa ~ sacrifice of the people to-day in the high-place,—the people will not eat till he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice, aud afterwards they eat that be bidden.”” When David, upon his bringing the ark to Jerusalem, “had offered burnt- 2 Sam. vi. offerings and peace-offerings before the Lord, he dealt among oe all the people a cake of bread, and a flagon of wine, and a good piece of flesh.” And Solomon, when he dedicated the temple, “offered burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and 1 Kingsviii. peace-offerings; and at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, fourteen days;” as likewise upon his first accession to the throne, he “offered up burnt-offer- 1 Kings iii. : 15 ings, and peace-offerings, and made a feast to all his ser- vants.” And lest any should wonder that such feasts as were not Allthe flesh solemuized by any Divine authority should be ushered in oe with sacrifice, it deserves our particular notice, that the rile vis Israelites, during their pilgrimage in the wilderness, were not allowed to furnish their private tables with the flesh of any animal but what had first been offered in sacrifice to the _ True God. The Law is very express in this point, “ What Lev. xvii. man soever he be that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the ἢ Bis camp, or killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation to offer an offering to the Lord, that man should be cut off from among His people. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Sothat the common meals of the Israelites for those forty years consisted of peace-offerings; I mean, as often as they indulged themselves in eating flesh. It will be very proper to consider the practice of the The Gen- Gentiles as well as of the Jews, under this head; for He, aera Who is the God of both, may reasonably be presumed to VY ΤΣ: CHAP. iB Exod. xxxiv. 15. Exod. KKK. 2D; Numb. xxv. 2. This cus- tom con- tinued a- mong them. 158. lvii. 7 ; Ezek, xxiii. 40, 41; xvili. 11. 48 RELIGIOUS FEASTS have had a regard to the notions and ancient usages of the former, as well as of the latter, in the whole frame of the Gospel dispensation. And the Scripture affords us sufficient proof that the heathen, even in the age of Moses, did make feasts on their sacrifices. Therefore the reason given, why the Israelites must destroy the altars and images of the former inhabitants of the land of Canaan is thus expressed, “Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice.” The Israelites themselves give us a sample of the method used by the heathen in this case, which is thus represented by Moses, “ Aaron built an altar before the golden calf, and made a proclamation, saying, To-morrow is a feast unto the Lord. And they rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings, and the people sat down to eat and drink.” We have another notable in- stance of the heathens’ practice in this respect, where it is said of the Moabites, “They called the people [of Israel] to the sacrifice of their gods, and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.” That this custom continued amongst them in after-ages is sufficiently intimated to us by Isaiah and Ezekiel, who speak of the ‘sitting upon beds,’ and ‘ eating upon the mountains,’ as the practice of the loose Jews, in which they imitated the heathen. For all that are not utterly unacquainted with ancient writers cannot but know that the old Eastern people as well as Romans, did not sit at their tables, as the custom is now with us, but leaned or lay down on beds or couches ; nor is it necessary that I should cite Scripture for the proof of that, which the heathen writers themselves do so abun- dantly testify. Homer, in the descriptions of sacrifices, usually concludes them with a feast. The first observable sacrifice mentioned by this ancient writer, offered by Chryses and sent to him by Agamemnon, was eaten‘ after it had been first offered by burning the thighs. At the next sacrifice, six of f Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ pip ἐκάη, καὶ τε πάντα. σπλάγχν᾽ ἐπάσαντο, Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ παύσαντο πόνου, τετύ- Μίστυλλόν 7 ἄρα τἄλλα, καὶ ἀμφ᾽ κοντό τε δαῖτα, ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν, Δαίνυντ᾽--- Πα. A. ver. 464-8. [ Ed. “Ontnodvy τε περιφραδέως, ἐρύσαντό Tauchnitii, 1839.] MADE ON SACRIFICES. 49 the Greek commanders are invited guests, and Menelaus comes unexpected; and he uses almost the same words in the description of it, that he had done in the former. He at another place® gives a relation of a most generous sacrifice of eighty-one bullocks, at which there were four thousand five hundred guests sitting, besides Telemachus and his com- pany, who came unexpected. Alcinous' sacrifices twelve sheep, eight swine, two bullocks; and makes a feast of them. I have in the First Part mentioned the sacrifice of Eumzus, who offered a swine upon Ulysses’ coming to him incognito, and reserved the chine for his guest*, and entertained all that were with him on the flesh of the sacrifice. The most particular narrative of a sacrifice is of that offered by Nestor’, which was also concluded, as the rest, with an entertainment upon the bullock that had been sacrificed. It were no diffi- cult matter to heap up authorities from other Greek writers, but I will only mention two from Herodotus. This most ancient historian™ speaks of two young men, who having sacrificed and feasted lay down to sleep in the temple, and there died. He tells us, in another place, that the Persians, who used no fire or altars for their sacrifices, had the flesh at their own disposal; but though this was left to their discre- tion, yet there is good reason to believe, that they applied the flesh to that use which was most proper, I mean, the treating of themselves and their friends ; and, indeed, Strabo” does expressly tell us so much. It is well known that the sacrifices of the Latins differed very little from those of the Grecians, and therefore there is no occasion to use many words to prove that they made feasts on the sacrifices which s Iliad. Β. ver. 424. h Ἐννέα δ᾽ ἕδραι ἔσαν, πεντηκόσιοι δ᾽ ἐν exdorn.—Odys. I. ver. 9. Εἵατο, καὶ προὔχοντο ἑκάστοθι ἐν- νέα ταύρους. Εὖθ᾽ οἱ σπλάγχν᾽ ἐπάσαντο, θεῷ δ᾽ ἐπὶ μηρί᾽ ἔκηαν. Ἔνθ᾽ ἄρα Νέστωρ ἧστο σὺν vidow" ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἑταῖροι ver. 32. Δαϊῖτ᾽ ἐντυνόμενοι, κρέα ὥπτων, ἄλλα τ᾽ ἔπειρον. --᾿Αλκίνοος δυοκαίδεκα μῆλ᾽ ἵερευ- oev.—Odyss. Θ. ver. 59. ᾿Οκτὼ δ᾽ ἀργιόδοντας tas, δύο δ᾽ εἰλίποδας βοῦς" Τοὺς δέρον ἄμφι θ᾽ ἕπον, τετύκοντό τε δαῖτ᾽ ἐρατεινήν. _ JOHNSON, k See Part i. Unbloody Sacrifice, [p. 74. | ἢ Νώτοισιν δ᾽ ᾿δυσῆα διηνεκέεσσι γέ- poipev.—Odys. Ξ. ver. 437. Oi δ᾽ ἐπ’ ὀνείαθ᾽ ἕτοιμα προκείμενα χεῖρας ἴαλλον. ver. 453. ! This is expressed almost in the same words that are used in the first citation above produced. See Odyss. Γ. ver. 461, 470. ™ “Os ἔθυσάν Te καὶ εὐωχήθησαν, κατα- κοιμηθέντες κιτ.Ἀ. Clio. c. [81.} N Μερίσαντος δε τοῦ Μάγου τὰ κρέα τοῦ ὑφηγουμένου τὴν ἱερουργίαν ἀπιᾶσι διελόμενοι, τοῖς θεοῖς οὐδὲν ἀπονείμαντες μέρος-.---Τ 10. 15. circa finem, [p. 1065. tom. 11. Ed. Amstelodam. 1707. } SECT. CHAP. t Numb. xxi. 4,2) 29, 30. And even to the Apo- stles’ time. Acts xy. 29, 50 RELIGIOUS FEASTS they offered. Virgil makes this practice as ancient as the times of Evander®. And, indeed, this way of consuming sacrifices by eating, must have prevailed more amongst the Greeks and Latins than ever it did among the Jews; for whole burnt-sacrifices were the most rare among these heathen people. They did imdeed use them. upon some special occasions; and the most remarkable is that related by Pausanias?, which was offered by the Boeotians but once in sixty years, in which not only the vast pile of sacrifices of all sorts, but the very altar itself, made of timber, was re- duced to ashes. But, with the Jews, these burnt-offermgs were very frequent, and even common; and when all the sacrifice was consumed by fire, there was nothing left to feast either the priests or people, unless the peace-offerings made at the same time had supplied that defect. But since the generality of the sacrifices of the Gentiles were not wholly burnt, we may from thence, if we had no other evi- dence, safely conclude, that they were reserved to entertain them, at whose expence they were offered, and their friends. It is indeed probable that, in the most ancient times, the heathen did frequently offer whole burnt-sacrifices ; but Pro- metheus4 is said to have introduced the practice of burning only the loin and thighs, as most acceptable to the gods, and not so chargeable to the offerers, as when they burned the whole carcase. We have a very full and clear evidence, that this custom of feasting upon sacrifices continued among the heathen in the time of the Apostles; for they saw occasion to make a decree, that Christians should not eat of things offered or sacrificed to idols. or the heathen of that age used the ° Aineid. v. ver. 100, 108, 175, 179, juventus &e. Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus tum res inopes Evandrus ha- τοις yextis, bebat. P [i. 6. the Deedala. Vid.] Pausan. Una omnes juvenum primi, pauper- in Beeotic. [lib. ix. cap. iii. vol. iv. p. que senatus, 12. Ed. Siebel. Lips. 1828. | Tura dabant, tepidusque cruor fuma- ᾳ See Aischylus, in Prometh. Vinct. bat ad aras. Prometheus says, ver. [ 505. Ed. Blom- Tum lecti juvenes certatim arzque field. | sacerdos Kvion δε κῶλα συγκαλυπτά, καὶ waK- Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum, one- pay rantque canistris ᾿Οσφὺν πυρώσας, δυστέκμαρτον εἰς Dona laboratz Cereris, Bacchuinque τέχνην ministrant, “Qdwoa θνητούς Vescitur Aineas, simul et Trojana MADE ON SACRIFICES, 51 same art to seduce the Christians and bring them to their SECT. temples, as the Moabites had formerly done to corrupt the Ξ Israelites ; they called or invited them to eat of the sacrifices, which they had offered to their false gods; and Christ, in the Revelations, mentions some loose men in the Church of Per- gamos, “who held the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak Rev. ii. 14. to cast a stumbling-block,” that is, ‘to eat things sacri- ficed to idols.” There was great reason to forbid Christians this profane practice; because, as we lately heard, St. Paul expressed his sense of this matter, “πὸ cannot be partakers of the Lord’s Table, and the table of devils.” It is highly unfit for Christians, who eat the Sacrifices offered upon the Altar of the Church, to defile themselves with meats that had been sacrificed to what the Gentiles called gods, but were indeed no better than devils. Sometimes it is very evident, that the feast was the chief Feasting end and design, which he who sacrificed proposed to himself ; bisa 9 and, in this case, the person, at whose expence the sacrifice save ares a is made, is said to offer to the guests. So Josiah" is said to ‘offer’ to the people thirty-three thousand bullocks; and the princes are said to ‘offer’ to the people, to the priests and Levites, two thousand six hundred small cattle, and three hundred oxen. And five of the chief of the Levites are said to ‘offer’ to the other Levites five thousand small cattle and five hundred oxen. So AlcinousS “ sacrifices” several beasts to a large assembly of guests, to whom he had made an invita- tion, as he did also at another time to entertain Ulysses. Eumzus' uses an expression of the same sort upon Ulysses’ arrival. And for the same reason the Eucharist is by some _ of the ancients said to be offered to the people. Upon the whole, it is evident that a sacrifice and a reli- The Gen- gious feast are very near akin to each other; or, rather, they rete > are but two parts of the same worship, which both among "?™e4. Jews and Gentiles used to go hand in hand together: and that, therefore, it is so far from being inconsistent with the * 2 Chron. xxxv. 7, 8,9. ὩΣ ἽΠ cer- And again, upon Ulysses’ coming, tainly signifies to ‘offer, as it is ren- Alcinous says, ered by our translators in the margin. Ξεῖνον ἐνὶ μεγάροις ξεινίσσομεν, ἠδὲ 5. Τοῖσιν δ᾽ ᾿Αλκίνοος δυοκαίδεκα wir θεοῖσιν Ἂ iepevoev.—Odys. ©. v. 59. Ῥέξομεν ἱερὰ xadkd'—Odys. H. ver. Σ Αξεθ᾽ ὑῶν τὸν ἄριστον, ἵνα ξείνῳ 190. iepevow.—Odys. Ξ. ver. 414. E2 2 RELIGIOUS FEASTS Or CHAP. Sacrament, as it is a feast, to be also a Sacrifice, that it may __*_ yather seem reasonable to argue, that if it be a religious feast it is most probable it is a Sacrifice ; since it 1s very evident that all mankind, when our Saviour came into the world, joined sacrificing and feasting together. We are not to think it a fault in the Gentiles that they did this, since it is evi- dent that the Jews did so too. The fault of the Gentiles was not this, that they feasted upon their sacrifices; for God’s people ever did the same. Their fault was, that they both sacrificed and feasted in honour to false gods. The other Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ with a regard to the settled notions and practice of the heathen as well as Jews; for they both used washing with water, as a rite of religious purgation. And it is full out as rational to believe, that God had some consideration of them in making the chief ordinance of our religion a Sacrifice as well as a feast ; since they, as well as the Jews, had accustomed them- selves to perform both at once. I do not say that there never was any religious feast made upon meats and drinks, which had not been first offered to God in sacrifice; but I may safely affirm, that the most solemn religious feasts were always of this sort; such were the Passover, and the two other annual feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles among the Jews. And, therefore, if the Eucharist be not a feast of a very inferior rank, and in its nature entirely different from the most solemn religious feasts of former ages, it must be confessed to be a Sacrifice too. Notthe ——- It is true, that among the Jews the whole sacrifice was not qe te wanally allowed to be eaten, but some part to be burnt on the ae. altar as God’s share; yet this was not necessary to make it a rally of old. sacrifice, as appears from this, that the Passover was wholly Exod.xxiii. to be eaten, and yet it was God’s peculiar sacrifice. The “rl =" blood of it indeed was not to be eaten or drunk ; not because it was the blood of a sacrificed creature, but because it was blood, and therefore absolutely forbidden to the Israelites. And, if we inquire into the practice of the Gentiles, we shall find that they had divers sacrifices, which were entirely con- verted into food for the entertainment of the priests and them who brought it to the altar. This was the common practice of the Persians, as appears from what was just now MADE ON SACRIFICES. 53 cited from Strabo. It is well known, that the great Pytha- goras" offered no sacrifices but what were unbloody ; and it is further to be observed, that he chose to pay his devotions at the altar of Delos, which was called ‘the Altar of the Godly; and this was an altar “ without fire,”’ and on which therefore nothing could be burnt; but the custom was to place corn and cakes upon it. This was his method of offering sacrifice; and that therefore what he offered was designed for the enter- tainment of those who attended the altar, seems most pro- bable. Of all the uncouth notions contrived in opposition to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, none have betrayed greater ignorance in the contrivers of them, than that of a certain writer, who will allow no part of the beast to have been properly sacrificed but that which was burnt on the altar. It is evident, this man does not know the very terms of the subject on which he writes. The part burnt on the altar is by Moses called isheh, that is, the burnt portion, κάρπωμα in Greek, zgnitum in Latin; the offermg made by fire, in English: but the whole beast brought to the altar always passes by the name of cordan, ‘ gift,’ ‘ oblation,’ or else of ze- bach, that is, the slain sacrifice. And if the whole beast had not been sacrificed, it would have been impossible for men to have been guilty of eating flesh sacrificed to idols, as 1 Cor. x. many were in the Apostle’s times. ere Further, it will appear upon an impartial examination, that a Sacrifice wholly eaten and drunk by the worshippers is most agreeable to the nature of the True God to Whom it is offered. For, I. This is a clear demonstration that the Sacrifice is not Eucharist intended as a boon or benefit to God, but for the advantage ne i of them who offer it. It was the common opinion of “oly & the heathen, that their gods entertained themselves and benetit. SECT. ᾿ξ ἃ Θεωρῆσαι δὲ ἐστὶν ἐκ τοῦ περὶ Δῆλον ἔτι νῦν σωζομένου βωμοῦ" πρὸς ὃν οὐθενὸς προσαγομένου map’ αὐτοῖς, οὐδὲ θυομένου ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ζώου, εὐσεβῶν κέκληται Bwuds.—Porphyr. De Absti- nent., lib. ii. p. 73. [Ed. Cant. 1655. ] — —’Apere καὶ βωμὸν προσκυνῆσαι μό- νον ἐν Δήλῳ---διὰ τὸ πυροὺς καὶ κριθὰς καὶ τὰ πόπανα μόνα τίθεσθαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄνευ mupés.—Diogen. Laert. in Vit. Pythag., p. [217.] It is commonly said that Pythagoras, upon some discovery made in Geometry, sacrificed a bullock. Cicero, lib. iii. De Nat. Deorum, [c. 88.] declares he can- not believe this, because it is well known that Pythagoras did not offer living creatures, Porphyry therefore does with great probability say, it was the effigies of a bullock made of paste. [ἐβουθύτησε δέ ποτε σταίτινον, as pact, βοῦν, οἱ ἀκριβέστεροι.----1)6 Vita Pytha- gore, p. 196, Ed. Cant. ] 5A RELIGIOUS FEASTS CHAP. were refreshed with the scents, which proceeded from the ——— steams of the flesh and other things burnt upon their altars ; and what was so burnt was esteemed their share and portion of the sacrifice. God, for reasons which I shall not pretend to unfold, required a share to be given to Him out of the generality of the sacrifices offered by the Patriarchs and Is- raelites ; and in some cases He commanded the whole sacri- fice to be consumed by fire, which was always esteemed a giving or presenting it entirely to Him; and, for this cause, what was burnt was called the Bread or Food of God. This gave occasion to gross thoughts in some poor unthinking men, and to cavil in those that were loose and irreligious. The first conceited, that God had a sort of hungry appetite after the smoke of meat broiled upon His altar; the others from thence took a handle for scoffing at all religion and Divine worship, of which Sacrifice was always thought the principal ; because it seemed to suppose that God stood in need of sup- plies from His own creatures. But now, in the Christian Sacrifice, there is no room left for any such misapprehensions, but it is effectually declared that God is never the better for what we offer to Him, and that though He accept our services, yet He does not want them; and for this reason what we offer is wholly restored to us again for the food of our souls and bodies. As being 2. Our Sacrifice is too excellent to be treated as the sacri- at tie A fices of the Jews and heathens were, that is, to be burnt in the fire: for the Bread is made the mystical Body of Christ, the Wine His mystical Blood; and to consume these in the fire, or to treat them, as Jews or heathen did the cattle or other things they offered, would savour of impiety and pro- faneness. We are indeed informed, that some* did of old cast the Sacramental Body and Blood in the fire, when it was grown so stale as to be offensive; but this was only to pre- serve it from greater and more unbecoming indignities, and was practised but by few, and not willingly or of choice, but when they could find no better way to dispose of it. 9 ie a sober 9, The feast made upon the Eucharist is only a sober ; and modest refreshment ; for it has been and is the practice of Christians to taste of the holy symbols rather than to fill * See [ Bishop Poynet’s Diallacticon, p. 16. | MADE ON SACRIFICES. δῦ their stomachs with them. Whereas, on the other side, the SECT. heathen and Jews used to eat and drink very plentifully of their sacrifices, and even to intemperance and drunkenness. Among the heathen, to have ‘assisted at a sacrifice’ was but another phrase for being drunk’. The Jews’ took four large draughts at their Passover, and were to be right-down drunk at the feast of Purim; and this probably gave occasion to the intemperance of the Christians at Corinth in their love-feasts, which they seem to have kept in the Church, before they re- ceived the Eucharist ; for these people had been bred in the Jewish or heathen religion, and though they were now con- verts to Christianity, yet it seems they had not sufficiently learned the difference between the way of feasting among the Christians and among heathen and Jews. The Eucharist is a spiritual feast, and refreshes and And strengthens the soul much more than the body. The Sa- eee craments are channels of grace; the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist are what they are by virtue of the Holy Ghost, and there all pious communicants “are made to 1 Cor. xii. drink into the One Spirit.” e 5. The Eucharist is a Sacrifice, which was never intended by our Saviour to be offered but in order to the followmg feast; and this feast was designed for the people as well as priest, for the poor as well as the rich. This cannot be said of the generality of the Jewish sacrifices. The common offerings for sin were attended with a feast, but none but the priests had any share of them; the burnt-offerings were wholly consumed with fire, the peace-offerings were divided between the priests and those who brought them to the altar; but no ob- higation laid on them to let the poor share with them, except only in those which were offered at their feasts of Weeks and Deut. xvi. Tabernacles. It does not appear that the rich were obliged to call their poor neighbours to partake with them even in the Passover itself; and when great men entertained the poor upon the remains of their sacrifices, this was an effect of their liberality, to which no law compelled them. Philo*, indeed, — functusque sacris, et potus et inter Philonis Opera, tom. ii. Ed. Man- exlex.—Horat. Art. Poet. [v. 224. Ed. gey, 1742.) Avoi δὲ μόναις ἡμέραις Amar. Paris. 1825. ] ἐπιτρέπει τὴν χρῆσιν τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου 7 See Dr. Whitby on 1 Cor. xi. 21. θυσίας ποιεῖσθαι, μηδὲν εἰς τὴν τρίτην ἃ [De Animalibus sacrificio idoneis, ἀπολείποντας---ὅτι τὰς θυσίας ἀταμι:τεύ- CHAP. Il. Psalm xxii. 25, 26. 56 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES gives this as a reason why the flesh of peace-offerings was all to be eaten within two days after it had been killed, namely, that God intended them not to be pantryed, but to be eaten by those who wanted; and when David “ paid his vows,” he declared “‘the poor should eat and be satisfied.” This proves that good and generous men put the best construction upon a mere ceremonial law; but the Eucharist was a Sacrifice, in which from the beginning, Priest and people, rich and poor, did ever feast together. These are the excellencies of the Eucharist, considered as a feast upon a sacrifice. CHAP. I. SECT. IT. The Eucharist agrees in the main with the most solemn sacri- jices of the ancients, in the ends for which it is offered. The ends or designs of men in offering sacrifice have always been the same in all ages and nations; these are of two sorts, viz. First, particular, Secondly, general. I. There are particular ends and designs, which men have always proposed to themselves in offering every sacrifice ; these ends are various, but may be reduced to these follow- ing heads: 1. One particular end of sacrifice is, to render prayers or petitions for some special mercy more effectual. 2. Another end is, to express a grateful sense of some mercies or favours received. 3. A third end is, the expiating the guilt of sim, or obtain- ing pardon. : II. The general end of sacrifice is, 1. To acknowledge the power and dominion of that God to whom it is offered. 2. To render him gracious and favourable to the wor- shippers. Tous εἶναι προσήκει, καὶ πᾶσιν eis μέσον flesh of peace-offerings, viz., that they προκεῖσθαι τοῖς δεομένοις. The last do φειδωλίαν φιλανθρωπίας προκρίνειν, word seems to signify ‘the indigent,’ by _ prefer frugality before charity. what he says of them, who lay up the ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 57 3. To preserve covenant and communion with him. 5 . ο v: I will first consider the particular ends which men of old might and ought to propose to themselves in offering sacri- fice, and shew that Christians, in the Sacrifice of the Eucha- rist, may and ought to propose to themselves the same ends that the ancients did in offermg their sacrifices. 1. Tur first of these ends is, to render any particular prayers First parti- d and petitions more effectual for procuring good or averting of Tee evil. We may know for what end Noah offered burnt- eens offerings, by considering the answer that God made to ceptable. his devotion, which was this; “I will not again curse the ia ground for man’s sake, nor will I again smite every living thing ; while the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” This was what he intended to ask God by his sacrifice, and it was accordingly granted. David prayed to God, when he saw the Angel smiting the people of Jerusa- lem; he confessed his sin and said, “Lo, I have sinned, and I 2 sam. have done wickedly ; let Thine hand, I pray Thee, be against 33 Οἴτῃ. me and my father’s house, and not against Thy people ;” but **+ 17. this was not sufficient, till he had offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings ; and upon his doing this, “the Lord was Job xiii. intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel.” ae And the prayers of Job were not sufficient without a sacrifice offered by Eliphaz and his friends. Saul, to make an excuse for his having offered sacrifice, tells Samuel that he appre- 1 Sam. xiii. hended the Philistines would come down upon him to Gilgal, εἴ and (says he) “I have not made supplication to the Lord; I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt-offermg.” He speaks according to the received notion of those times, namely, that to make supplications and offer sacrifice was the same thing; he would never have been guilty of that presumption that he was, in invading the priest’s office, if he gt rs had thought that prayer without sacrifice was as proper and ° effectual as with it. The king and people of Judah under captivity raise contributions for sacrifices to be offered at Jerusalem for the king of Babylon and for themselves; and in the letter, which they sent to Jerusalem upon this occasion, 58 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES C HA P. they desire “ burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, incense, and meat- —— offerings, to be offered on the altar, and that prayers may be made for the life of Nabuchodonosor, and for themselves.” And all the peace-offerings of the Jews, (except the thank- offerings, and vows, and festival sacrifices,) together with the burnt-offerings, were designed to procure some special favour of God, or to give greater force to the wishes and prayers of particular men upon extraordinary occasions. By this it appears, that it was a prevailing notion among God’s people of old, that to render prayers successful it was proper to enforce them with sacrifice ; and it is not probable that a captive king and people would have been at so much cost for the purchasing of sacrifice, if they could have believed that it had been as acceptable to God to make their addresses to Him by words and thoughts only. The Gen- It is certain, that the heathen had the same conceptions ene in this particular. Cyrus had such an opinion of Sacrifice, of sacrifice that he commands a portion of the tribute of Coelo-Syria and Pheenice to be appropriated for buying bullocks, rams, lambs, corn, salt, wie, and oil, according to the direction of the 1 Esdras priests, that “ offerings might be made to the most High God vi. 2931. for the king and his children, and that they might pray for Ezra vi. 9, their lives :’ and Darius renewed this edict almost in the same Ἢ words. Pliny, who was excellently well acquainted with the notions and practices of the ancient Romans, says”, “they made their supplications with a salted cake ;” this salted cake was the known sacrifice of Numa the second king of Rome, and his people. Virgil® speaks of “ prevailing in prayer by means of a bullock slain for sacrifice,’ and of “carrying a cause with Juno by oblations which were full of intreaty or persuasion.” Sophocles* supposes sacrifices necessary to the offering prayers for deliverance with success; and‘ he repre- sents things as in the last extremity, when prayers offered with sacrifice are rejected. > Nec minus propitii [Dii] erant © [Ἔπαιρε δὴ od θύμαθ᾽ 4 παροῦσά mola salsa supplicantibus.—Nat. Hist., μοι] lib. xii. c. 18. Πάγκαρπ᾽, ἄνακτι τῷδ᾽ ὅπως AvTH- “ Hic Helenus, cesis primum de ριούς more juvencis, Evxas avaoxw.—Sophoc. Electr., Exorat pacem Divim.—/mn. 8. ver. 634-6, 4 Junoni cane vota libens, domi- [KG?’ οὐ δέχονται θυστάδας“ λιτὰς ἔτι namque potentem Θεοὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν οὐδὲ μηρίων φλόγα" Supplicibus supera donis.— ibid. —Antigone, v. 1019. ] ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 59 2. Another particular end of sacrifice is, to express a SECT. grateful sense of mercies or favours received ; and this is a _— ΒΕ 00. head, on which there is no occasion for me to enlarge, because — aoe all will I suppose readily grant it; and, indeed, thanks and τὸ ©SPress praise are but one branch of prayer, and that which renders men’s petitions more acceptable must of consequence make our thanks so too. And I need no other argument to prove that Sacrifice makes our praises more acceptable but only this, that God did always require His people by this means to declare the inward gratitude of their hearts. Not only the Passover was intended to be a constant memorial of His mercy to the Israelites in delivering them from the Egyptian bondage, but all the stated festivals of the year had their peculiar sacrifices appointed and assigned to them. And that this was the settled judgment of all the people of old is evident from this, that both Jews and Gentiles universally agreed in sending up their praises to Heaven upon all ex- traordimary occasions with plentiful fumes of sacrifice and incense. But because men have been used of late, when they hear Sacrifices of of ‘sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving,’ to understand Pars ceca en nothing by those phrases but singing psalms and hymns or Sypstantial offering up to God grateful words and thoughts, I therefore think it necessary to observe to my reader, that by these ex- pressions we are generally, if not always, to conceive material sacrifice to be meant by the holy writers; and that this is true, you will perceive by the following texts; “The flesh of Lev. vii. 15. the sacrifice of peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day as it is offered; and when ye will offer a sacri- Lev. xxii. fice of thanksgiving, offer it at your own will, on the same = day it shall be eaten.” Hezekiah charged the people to “ bring 2 Chron. sacrifices and thank-offerings into the house of the Lord; το a and the congregation brought sacrifices and thank-offerings, and as many as were of a free heart burnt-offerings ; and in the account of Manasseh’s conversion it is said, “ He repaired 2 Chron. the altar of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon peace-offerings ee and thank-offerings.” And I have elsewhere® shewed, that we are to understand this phrase in the same sense in other places of Scripture, and that a sacrifice of praise signifies that & Read Lev. xxiii.; Numb. xxviii. xxix. 4 See Part i. p. [380,] &c. CHAP. | Third par- ticular end, to expiate guilt, whe- ther the sacrifice were bloody or un- bloody. Mich. vi. 7. 1 Sam. xxvi. 19. 60 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES bullock or other substantial thing, which is offered to God as an acknowledgment for His mercies. 3. The third particular end of offering sacrifice has always been, to expiate guilt, and obtain pardon of sin and freedom from punishment. To this purpose the Jews had their sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, and the Gentiles their hilastic or piacular victims. In this case the beast was thought to be killed instead of the man, who by sin had forfeited his life; and Dr. Outram has so learnedly proved this from the concurrent opinions of Christians, Jews, and heathens, that there is no occasion for me to labour in this pomt. And it was this that put the heathen upon offering men in sacrifice for the expiation of their guilt; for in this case they thought no perfect satisfaction could be made but by causing some other person to die instead of the offender. This, Cesar! assures us, was the principle upon which the ancient Gauls sacrificed men ; and it is not improbable, that the idolatrous Jews offered their own children to Moloch upon the same pretence ; for it seems these unnatural sacri- fices were generally performed for expiation, as the Prophet Micah intimates in these words, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” Yet it does not appear to me, that God did demand living creatures to be offered to Him by the Jews for their sins upon this consideration; though the latter Jews! had such a notion prevailing amongst them. Some of late are willing to suppose, that nothing but blood can expiate guilt. Now it is certain, that the ancient Jews had no such notion; David supposes, that though God were so displeased as to stir up Saul against him, yet He might be pacified by a mincha or meal-offering; and God Him- self, to express the heinousness of the sin of Eli*® and his sons, says, “ It shall not be purged with slain beast or meat- offering for ever :’’ by which is plainly implied, that the latter 1 Qui sunt affecti gravioribus mor- bis, quique in preliis periculisque ver- santur, aut pro victimis homines im- molant, aut se immolaturos vovent, administrisque ad eam rem Druidibus utuntur: quod pro vita hominis, nisi vita hominis reddatur, non posse aliter Deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur.—De Bell.Gal.l. vi. [c. xv.] j Vid. Outram, p. 231. k ] Sam. ili. 14. It is observable, that the LXX here turn ΠΣ, mincha, by θυσία ‘Sacrifice,’ and ΠῚ, xebach, θυμίαμα, which does not so usually and expressly signify ‘sacrifice’ as the former (065. ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 61 was as effectual to the purpose of taking away guilt as the SECT. former, and the offering of fine flour was as real a means Ls of making an atonement for sin, as all the cattle upon a thousand hills'!. The ancient heathen believed, that a cake or a little meal was as proper and effectual to expiate sin as the largest bullock ; and therefore St. Paul does not say ab- solutely, “All things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission ;” but he qualifies these expressions by adding ‘ almost.’ These three I call the particular ends of Sacrifice, because the ancients chiefly proposed to themselves some one of these ends in every sacrifice they offered. The occasion of sacri- ficing was, either to obtain some blessing, or to express their thanks and praise for some blessing already received, or else to procure forgiveness of sin, and to pacify the wrath of God, and be discharged from that punishment which was due for their sins; but 2. There were other general ends of Sacrifice, to which the ancients had an eye in all the sacrifices which they offered, over and above the particular ends which I have already mentioned. These general ends were 1. The acknowledgment of God’s dominion, and other at- First gene- tributes. And this is implied in all sacrifices offered to Him ; 18] 954 te for it would be to no purpose to worship and honour Him Gods do with our substance, if we did not believe Him to be that ᾿ Almighty Being, Who made and governs the world, and will hereafter judge it; and Sacrifice is that worship, which God hath always required of His people. Even before the giving of the Law™, ‘serving God’ and ‘sacrificing to God’ were phrases of the same import. God sufficiently declares by the Prophet Isaiah, that He accepted sacrifice as an honour Isa, xliii. done to Him, when He reproves the Israelites for not honour- 2°" Leva Vales ' (Θύματα) πάγκαρπα---ὅπως λυτη- reason, why the ancients said, ‘Far ρίους pium ;’ ‘quid enim est pium nisi οδ8- Evxas avdoxw.—Sophoc. Elec., tum? quoniam piare est propitiare.” _ ver. 635. I will add the trite verses of Ovid to Servius proves this, Mneid. y. p. 406, this purpose, from these words of Horace, Ante, Deos homini quod conciliare Mollibit aversos Penates valeret, Farre pio et saliente mica. Far erat, et puri luci ica sali And ὧν that of Tibullus, Farre "Past, Penne wd pio placant, et saliente mica. ™ Compare Exod. iy. 23 with Exod. And on Eclog. viii. he gives this v. 8 CHAP. L The Gen- tiles had this notion. Second generalend, to procure the Divine favour. 62 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES ing Him with their sacrifices. It is a homage, service, or quit-rent paid to Him, as the great Landlord of the universe ; and therefore St. Augustine” justly affirms, that ‘to sacrifice is part of that service which we owe to God Alone.” The heathen as well as Jews were sensible of this; and therefore the ancient idolaters called their gods Moloch, Baal, or by some other name importing supreme power or government. It is not indeed to be supposed, that they imagined all those gods, to whom they gave these titles, to be absolutely supreme and above all others, but only to have a prevailing power or jurisdiction in particular countries, or in those special things or matters in which the worshippers craved their assistance. It is true, the Gentiles did com- monly believe One God to be the Father of the rest; nay, they as well as the Jews believed, or, at least, did in words acknowledge a Sovereign Almighty God; but with this dif- ference, that though they generally acknowledged One Su- preme God, yet they supposed He had many peers that shared with Him in this sovereignty. And this was indeed the grand fundamental error of the heathen world. Though Jupiter was the god of heaven and presided im all affairs, yet Neptune governed the sea, Ceres the dry land; and besides this, every country had its peculiar guardian god, according to their notions; and they offered sacrifice to all these gods with rites, which though they were not exactly the same, yet implied no distinction of honours, but an equal worship was done to all: and indeed their very offering sacrifice to them was the greatest honour they could possibly pay them, if they had esteemed them all to be absolute sovereigns. 2. Another general end, which the ancients intended in all their sacrifices, was, to render the god to whom they were offered favourable and graciously affected toward the worshippers. It is evident by the Levitical Law, that not only sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, but burnt-offerings and peace-offerings had an atoning or reconciling virtue. It is true, that no sacrifice but a sin or trespass-offering could take away guilt; but yet burnt-offerings and peace-offerings did render God more propitious or merciful to them, who brought them to the altar. n I, p. 36, Ap. ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 63 It is said by God Himself, that “the blood maketh an sEcT. atonement for the soul.” Some would from hence prove, ieee that the bullock or goat which was offered for a sin-offering the beast died, by the will and intention of God, instead of the of- pir oe fender. Now, though this may be true, yet I think them ee mistaken who urge this text in favour of it; they might as 11. well from hence conclude, that a sencuaiicasie or a thank- offering died instead of the offerer; for the blood of these latter was “an atonement for the soul°,” as well as of the former. For it is certain, that whatever blood was sprinkled on the altar made an atonement; and therefore we cannot so restrain this phrase as if it signified only expiation of guilt ; for if other sacrifices could have procured forgiveness of sin, there would have been no occasion for an offering for sin or trespass. And it is very evident that the heathen had the same The opinion, and therefore not only the sacrifice offered by chouatif all Chryses?’ for the expiating Agamemnon’s sin, but that of- s2tifice propitia- fered by Nestor4 to express his gratitude for Minerva’s tory. appearing to him, are both represented by Homer as pro- pitiatory sacrifices. | 3. The third and last general end of sacrificing was, pre- serving covenant and communion with the God, to whom the sacrifice was offered. 1 put ‘ covenanting’ and ‘having com- munion’ under one head, as being in effect one and the same thing ; for all that offered sacrifice by fire, when they burned a part or the whole of what they offered, did it upon an opinion, that what was thus consumed was in an especial manner given to that god and accepted by him. Moses calls it ‘‘ Bread” or “ Food of God ;” because the fire which was on Lev. ix. 24; the altar did at first come eae from heaven, in token that se he God did graciously receive the sacrifices there offered; and therefore no other fire was there to be used but this, which was there first kindled by a Divine power; and Nadab and 5 “One lamb out of the flock—for P Φοίβῳ θ᾽ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην a burnt-offering, and for peace-offer- Ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν, bop’ ἱλασόμεσθα ings, to make reconciliation for them :᾽ ἄνακτα.---1]. A. ver. 443. the word here turned ‘make reconcilia- 4 “Oop ἤτοι πρώτιστα θεῶν ἱλάσσομ᾽ tion,’ is the same with that, Lev. xvii. ᾿Αθήνην, 11, and there rendered ‘ make an atone- Ἥ μοι ἐναργὴς ἦλθε θεοῦ ἐς δαῖτα ment.’ See also Ley. '. 4. See Ezek. OdAciav.—Odys. I. ver. 419, aiv. 15. 17. CHAP. L Deut. KX Xl, 98. Psalm 1. 5. Gen. viii. 91: Lev. i. 9°13; 1: 2. 9.12; iii. 5, &e. 64. ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES Abihu, for offering strange fire, were struck dead upon the spot. It was well known, that the heathen" endeavoured to ape the Jewish rites in this as well as other particulars. And even they who did not pretend to have this heavenly fire, yet always supposed, that their gods* feasted with them and pleased themselves with the reeks and steams which proceeded from their altars; nay, that they did, in some sense, “eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drink the wine of their drink-offerings,’ as Moses expresses their notion in this point. And latterwards, it is well known, [the] practice prevailed of placing the images of the gods, to whom they ᾿ sacrificed, on rich beds at the most honourable part of the tables, which were furnished with meats and drinks offered to them; so that the gods were made, as it were, visible guests at their religious feasts. Now eating and drinking together at the same table has always been deemed a token of friendship, mutual commu- nion, and striking or preserving covenant with each other. Upon this ground, Sacrifice has ever been thought to imply the closest communion with God that men are capable of in this life. God says of His people, that they ‘ made a cove- nant with Him by sacrifice ;᾽ for though He “cannot eat bulls’ flesh, or drink the blood of goats,” as the heathen be- lieved their idols did, yet He always approved and kindly received sacrifices, offered to Him with a pious and well- affected mind; He was as well pleased with these sacrifices, as if he had really “‘ smelt a sweet savour” or an agreeable perfume from the fire on the altar; and, in return for these sacrifices, He always bestowed on devout worshippers His promised blessings. And thus there was a mutual commerce between God and. those who sacrificed to Him in such a ¥ Τεῦξαν δ᾽ ἀπύροις ἱεροῖς Αλσος ἐν Greeks and Romans had the perpetual ἀκροπόλει. --- Pindar. Olymp. _ fire. [p. 66. Ὁ. Ed. Francofurt. 1599. ] Od. 7. [Ed. Tauchn. 1829. ] 5 Εὔχεο viv, ὦ keive, Ποσειδάωνι Nec longe inde collis Vulcanius, in ἄνακτι" quo qui Divine rei operantur, ligna Tod yap καὶ dairns ἠντήσατε, δεῦρο vitea super aras struunt ; nec ignis ap- poddyres.—Odys. I. ver. 43. ponitur in hane congeriem, cum pro- Αἰεὶ yap τὸ πάρος γε θεοὶ φαίνονται sicias intulerint. Si adest Deus sa- ἐναργεῖς crorum probator, sarmenta, licet vi- Ἡμῖν, εὖτ᾽’ ἔρδωμεν ἀγακλειτὰς ridia, ignem sponte concipiunt, et nullo ἑκατόμβας" inflagrante halitu, a Numine fit incen- Δαίνυνταί te παρ᾽ ἄμμι καθημένοι, dium. Solinus, cap. xi. Plutarch, in ἔνθα περ ἡμεῖς.---Οαγ5, H. ver. the Life of Numa, observes, that both 201. ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 65 manner as He had appointed; there was a continual ex- change of homages and services received, and of graces and favours returned, between God and those who attended His altar as priests or supphants. There was one particular cir- cumstance required of all that offered sacrifice; and that is, that it should be “seasoned with salt.” This was not only the practice of the Jews, but of the heathen toot. Homer® constantly mentions the seasoning of the sacrifice, and Moses explains this rite, when he charges every oblation of the meal-offering to be seasoned with salt, and adds, “ Neither Lev. ii. 13. shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offering ;” for as salt was esteemed a symbol of friendship and alliance, so by this text is intimated to us, that God intended by the use of it in their sacrifices to perpetuate the covenant betwixt Himself and the Israelites. And when all this is rightly considered, it will appear evident beyond dispute, that sacrifices were always designed to be a means of continuing covenant and communion betwixt God and the worshippers. It is certain the heathen carried this notion to an extrava- Extrava- _ gant height, when they conceited that their gods did really cane a take their share in what was offered to them, and perhaps some Pu of the more carnal Jews had the same notion concerning the True God and the sacrifices offered to Him; but this was a very gross and corrupt imagination. All that was in truth designed by God, in demanding some part or the whole sacri- fice to be burnt on His altar, was only to shew His accept- ance of their devotion and good-will in offering to Him of the best they had, and [His] rewarding their service by granting the boon which they asked. And if the use of fire SECT. IL. | t Plin. [Nat. Hist., lib. xxxi.] c. 7. Nulla (Sacra) conficiuntur sine mola Salsa. ἃ He not only speaks of the ovAo- χύται or οὐλαὶ in all his descriptions of Sacrifice, one ingredient of which was always salt; but he generally says σπλάγχν᾽ ἐπάσαντο, by which I cannot but think he meant that ‘they salted the entrails.’ He cannot mean that they eat them, for he always men- tions it before the roasting of them; therefore I conceive he meant to in- _ form us, that they sprinkled them with salt, and that therefore ἐπάσαντο comes JOHNSON. from πάσσομαι, not from πάομαι, as is vulgarly believed ; and I am the more confirmed in this, when I observe that in relating the sacrifice of Achilles he omits the words σπλάγχν᾽ ἐπάσαντο, and instead thereof says, Πάσσε δ᾽ ἁλὸς θεΐοιο.----1]. I. ver. 214. Mem. πάσσω makes πάσω in the future, and by con- sequence ἔπασα in the first aorist active, ἐπασάμην in the middle voice. Mr. Pope’s translation favours this sense. “The thighs thus sacrifie’d, and en- trails drest, Th’ assistants part transfix, and roast the rest.” CHAP. ia The Eucha- rist serves all these ends. Acts xiii. 1.2. 1 Τίπι. 1, ΠΣ 66 ALL THE ENDS OF SACRIFICES in sacrifice were only to denote God’s acceptance, then it will unavoidably follow, that fire cannot be necessary to the making a sacrifice, except it can be proved that God cannot accept of a sacrifice but by having some part of it burnt on His altar; which would not only give countenance to the false notion of the heathen, in supposing that their gods were really fed and refreshed with the fume of flesh, but would perfectly destroy the Sacrifice of Christ Jesus; for no part of the Sacrifice offered by Him was consumed by fire; therefore it is certain, a sacrifice may be accepted by God, though no fire be used in offermg it; and that a sacrifice may be a means of procuring covenant and communion with God, without being burnt on the altar. And it is evident that all these ends are served by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; and, . 1. All the particular ends of sacrifice. For first, and secondly, all prayers and praises for special mercies are most properly offered to God in and by the Eucharist; because the Eucharist is the peculiar worship of the Christian Church, as will appear in the next chapter ; and the primitive Christians practised it as such, and therefore used it in order to pro- eure any singular blessing from God; as for instance, when a Bishop or Priest was ordained, or when any of them or of the faithful died or were married, the Eucharist was offered to God in hopes of obtaining proper blessings and mercies on the persons concerned. The Eucharist was most pro- bably that “ ministry,” in which the Prophets at Antioch were engaged, when “the Spirit said unto them, Separate Me Paul and Barnabas,” and when they laid their hands on these two eminent Ministers of Christ. St. Paul exhorts, “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and eucharists, should be made for kings, and all that were in authority.” It can scarce be thought reasonable, that St. Paul should charge Christians to give thanks for such prodigies of vice and tyranny as then swayed the Roman empire; much less, that thanks should be given for all men without distinction, for the enemies and persecutors of Christianity; but it was — indeed proper to offer the Eucharist, the Christian Sacrifice, even for their most bitter enemies, that God might convert them or bring them to a better mind; that so Christians ATTAINED IN THE EUCHARIST. 67 “might lead quiet and peaceable lives.” The very name SEG T. ‘ Eucharist’ implies it to be a Sacrifice of thanks for all real blessings. It is also, by virtue of the personal Sacrifice of Christ, a means of averting all evil. And as to the third particular end, viz., forgiveness of sin, our Saviour hath taught us that this is one special end of the Eucharist, when He calls the consecrated Bread and Wine, ‘‘ My Body given” [to God], and “ My Blood shed for the remission of sins.” 3. The general ends of sacrifice are all obtained by the Eucharist. For, first, all gifts brought to God’s Altar are an acknowledgment of His dominion; and Christ expects that His disciples should bring gifts to the Altar, and those, too, material gifts, such as may be left behind them while they go to be reconciled to their brethren. And Irenzus* justly explains this as a gift given to our Great King, and by which we honour Him. And secondly, and thirdly, that the Christian Eucharist is a service by which we render God propitious to us, and by which we do covenant and commu- nicate with Him, is what I suppose will be denied by none. And the excellency of the Christian Sacrifice, above and Though it beyond all others, does appear from this consideration, that riskier Ae though it be but one, and always offered in the same man- ner, yet it does at once serve all the ends of all the Levitical sacrifices ; and we are actually to propose all these ends to ourselves, whenever we offer it. But there is one end in offer- ing of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which it differs from the generality of the ancient sacrifices. What this is, I am to shew in the next section. CHAP. I. SECT. ITI. One, and that the principal, end in offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is, to make a commemoration and representation of a greater Sacrifice; in this it differs from the generality of the ancient sacrifices. Tue first and principal design, which our Saviour proposed First end of . . . - . . . th E h am to Himself in the institution of the Eucharist was, that it sist apt ; 5 2 commemo- c, e, f, ΡΡ. 4,9, Ap. ration, F 2 68 ONE END PECULIAR TO THE CHAP. might be a standing, perpetual memorial of the Sacrifice .-. " offered by Him for the sins of the world. He clearly teaches us this truth in those words, “ Do,” or offer, “ this in remem- brance of Me.” Christ’s offering Himself a Sacrifice for the sins of men and resigning Himself up to death for their sake was certainly, in itself considered, the most astonishing and remarkable fact that was ever yet accomplished from the foundation of the world. If we search all the records of time past and examine all history that was ever written, we shall find nothing to be compared to it. That He, Who is the Son of God, and Very God, should not only become Maan, and take on Him the form of a servant, but also die the death of a common slave and malefactor, has something in it that does exceedingly surprise and raise the admiration of all that consider and believe it; and there is nothing re- lated by any faithful writer, that can im any measure be equalled to it. Our imaginations can scarce reach any thing that can surpass it. Christ did and suffered this, purely for our good and benefit. He did by this means purchase for us the most inestimable blessings; I mean, pardon of our sins upon our repentance and proper application made to God to this purpose, and grace and salvation to all that come to God by Him. These are infinitely the greatest blessings that men are capable of receiving; and these were procured chiefly by the Sacrifice offered by Christ in His own Person. On both accounts this Sacrifice of Christ de- serves to be remembered by us above and beyond all things that ever yet came to pass; not only as it is in itself the greatest and most worthy of our commemoration, but as it was intended wholly for our advantage, and as the advan- tage proceeding from thence to us is the most valuable and weighty of any other. Therefore it was fit and reasonable that this Sacrifice of His should always be kept fresh in the memory of those, for whose good it was intended. There- fore at the same time that Christ offered Himself a Sacrifice under the symbols of Bread and Wine, and the evening _ before He suffered on the Cross, He charged His Apostles to continue the memory of what He was now doing, and of what He was going to suffer, unto the end of the world. And as nothing does so well deserve to be remembered ; so SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 69 our Saviour took the best care to have it remembered in the SECT. most serious and solemn manner, by the most pious and ει worthy body of men that ever the world produced, that is, the Christian Church, in the most sublime ordinance of the most excellent religion that God was ever pleased to reveal to mankind. It is a mistake to think, that we are only to call this to All the vir- remembrance in our own minds or before men. We are soit certainly to shew forth Christ’s death in the Sacrament, not ** only to one another, but to God. Not that we are to suspect that God would forget it, if we did not refresh His memory; but because, by commemorating the Sacrifice once offered by Christ, we use the means appointed by Him for obtaining the effects of His death. We offer the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ to God, not only as a Sacrifice of praise for the merits of our Saviour’s Passion, but in order to render all our prayers and petitions more acceptable at the throne of grace, especially our prayers for the pardon of our sins, for grace to amend our lives, and thereby to obtain a happy resurrection to eternal life. So that, indeed, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, as it is a commemoration of Christ’s offering Himself in person, does answer all the ends of the ancient sacrifices ; forasmuch as the merits of His death are the most prevailing motive we can use with God, to render all our services acceptable to Him, to procure forgiveness of our sins and the continuance of all spiritual favours, especially those of our covenanting and communicating with God. And as the offering of any creatures to God is an acknowledg- ment of God’s dominion and other attributes; so the pre- senting to Him the Sacramental Bread and Wine, as the figures of Christ’s Body and Blood, is a very proper way and a method of Christ’s own choosing, whereby to own and recognize God as the first Author and Founder of our Re- demption as well as all other blessings we enjoy. It cannot be said of the generality of the sacrifices of the Ancient ancients, that they were commemorations or representations Stites of some other more ancient and excellent sacrifices ; however, — an they were not so in the intentions of those who offered them. of Christ. I doubt not but all the acceptable sacrifices offered by the Patriarchs and Israelites before and under the Law were, in Ὁ pss Pr 70 ONE END PECULIAR TO THE God’s secret intention, types and figures of the Great Sacri- —_——\ fice of Christ; but it does not appear that the generality of Passover, the only sacrifice of eommemo- ration to the Jews. Exod. xiii. 26, 27. Many Gen- tile sacri- fices com- memora- tions, but not repre- sentations. those who offered them were sensible of this. The chief design they had in sacrificing to God was, to procure or render thanks for some mercy or favour; that they saw Christ in the bullocks and lambs which they killed in honour to God, we have no evidence ; nor did God ever inform them that the beasts, slain every day in the tabernacle or temple, were types of Christ or of any other sacrifice past or to come. There was indeed one very singular providence, and the greatest, I think, that ever happened, except our redemption by Christ Jesus; and that was the deliverance of the Israel- ites from their bondage in Egypt, with the miracles which went before and followed it. This providence God was pleased to have yearly commemorated by slaying a lamb for every family, and offering it as a sacrifice to God, and consuming it in a religious feast. And this was indeed a commemorative sacrifice, both in the design of God, and of the Israelites by whom it was offered. Nay, and it seems that the lambs slain every year in after-ages were representations of the lambs slain at first, the evening before they went out of the land of Egypt; for God commands the people, when they were in future ages asked by their children, “ What mean you by this service?” to answer, “It is the Lord’s Passover, Who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt.” By which it appears, that all the lambs that were sacrificed on this festival, though many hundred years after the first institution, were commemorations and representations of the sacrifice of the Passover, which was first offered in Egypt; and it does not appear, that they had any other sacrifice of this nature. The Gentiles had many commemorative sacrifices, as many ‘as were offered by the Greeks and Romans every year as monuments of gratitude for signal benefits and deliverances. But 1 have not as yet met with any of these commemorative sacrifices, in which that which was offered every year was in- tended to represent the first original sacrifice offered, when the festival was new founded; such as were the yearly lambs at the Passover, in relation to the lambs offered in Egypt. Yet it cannot be denied, that the Gentiles had representa- SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 71 tive sacrifices. We are assured, that the Egyptiansy, Greeks’, SECT. if not Romans, used to make images, in paste or dough, of such creatures as they would have sacrificed, if they could have procured them. Pythagoras”, and his scholar Empe- docles, offered bullocks made of paste or other ingredients, ““ifices. because they were enemies to the practice of slaying animals. In fine, it is not to be proved, I believe, by any monuments The an- of the Jews or other people now remaining, that either of them had any notion of a sacrifice, whose virtue depended upon the merits of some more excellent sacrifice formerly offered ; though it is evident, that the Jews had one sacrifice another. of commemoration, and that their sacrifice of commemo- ration was a representation of that first offered in the land of Egypt. And though I do not observe any sacrifices of the Gen- tiles, which were both commemorative and representative ; yet they had some commemorative, others representative, though not of another thing actually before sacrificed. It is certain, Bread and Wine, by virtue of the Divine in- Bloody stitution, may be as effectual to procure the Divine favour as the blood of the most valuable animal; for no rational man will say, that the life of a beast is, in itself considered, an equivalent for the life of a man, much less for his soul; and unbloody bread and wine, by virtue of God’s appointment, may be an atonement for sin. We are sure, under the Law, that, if he who had sinned was not able to bring a lamb or two turtle- doves or pigeons, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour was sufficient for a sin-offermg; and with this the priest was “ to Ley, ν. 11 make an atonement for him, as touching his sin that he hath —!* sinned.” And Plinys, the learned heathen, tells us, “ The gods Υ Of δὲ πένητες αὐτῶν [Αἰγυπτίων] ὑπ᾽ ἀσθενείης βίου σταιτίνας πλάσαντες ὗς, καὶ ὀπτήσαντες ταύτας, θύουσι. —|[Herodot. Euterpe, c. 47. ] * See Suidas in the word Bods, and Dr. Potter’s Greek Antigq., vol. ii. pp. 214. 219. * Servius’s note upon the words Virgine cesa, A‘neid. ii. ver. 116, is as follows; Non vere, sed ut videbatur. Et sciendum in sacris simulata pro veris accipi; unde, quum de animalibus, que difficile inveniuntur, est sacrifi- candum, de pane vel cera fiunt, et pro veris accipiuntur. See him also on the words—latices simulatos fontis Averni. /En. iv. > See Sect. I. of this chapter. Athenzus has the following words concerning Empedocles; ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς δ᾽ 6’Akpayaytivos ἵπποις ᾿Ολύμπια νι- κήσας, Πυθαγορικὸς ὧν, καὶ ἐμψύχων ἀπεχόμενος, ἐκ σμύρνης καὶ λιβανωτοῦ καὶ τῶν πολυτελεστάτων ἀρωμάτων βοῦν ἀναπλάσας, διένειμε τοῖς εἰς τὴν πανή- γυριν ἄπαντήσασιν.---ἰ Lib, i. p. 8. Ed. Casaubon. Lugd. 1612. ] ¢ Nec minus propitii (Dii) erant mola salsa supplicantibus ; immo vero, ut palam est, placatiores.—Nat. Hist., lib. xii. c. 18, iy, Yet they had a sort of represen- tative sa- cients had ro notion of a sacri- fice, whose merits pro- ceeded from sacrifices can no more bean atone- ment by their own virtue, than ones. ta ONE END PECULIAR TO THE Cas P. were as well pleased, nay, better, with those that made their —— supplications with a seasoned cake,” than if they had offered more costly sacrifices. If God had pleased to have made mere natural bread in all times and places an expiation for sin, there is no reason to doubt but it would have been effectual to this purpose. He that in one case appointed an offering of meal as a sacrifice for sin, might have appointed it im all other cases; and therefore it can be resolved into nothing Heb. ix. 22. but the will and pleasure of God, that “ almost all things were by the Law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood was no remission.” The Apostle does not suppose that blood was in itself necessary or sufficient to do this; and if the blood of animals could in its own virtue atone for the sins of men, I suppose any other sacrifice had been needless, even that of Christ Jesus Himself. All that St. Paul says is, that blood purged all things ‘by the Law;’ and therefore not by its own worth or nature, but by God’s appointment. All accept- I am entirely in the sentiment of all Divines, both ancient ge rie and modern, Protestants and Papists, who agree in this, to the {ποῖ virtue est of my observation, that all the sacrifices before and under of Christ. the Law received the atoning virtue they had, from the will of God Who instituted and accepted them, not in regard to their own value or virtue, but in consideration of the Great and most meritorious Sacrifice, which was to be offered by Christ in the fulness of time; and that therefore these sacrifices were types of Christ in the purpose and intention of God, though not revealed to all that offered these sacrifices: and that therefore all acceptable sacrifices agree in this, that they are representations of the Grand one, which was offered by Christ in His own Person. And of all representative sacrifices, the Eucharist is cer- tainly the most excellent. TheEucha- 1. Because the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are, or πῶ i ρου .. . MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 83 leaven are necessary ingredients of the Sacramental Bread ; SECT. but all of them may either be put in or left out at discretion. ——~~— There was indeed a dispute in the middle ages of the Church between the Greeks and Latins, whether the Eucharist ought to be administered in leavened or unleavened bread ; but the wisest of each contending party have long since agreed, that this ought to be left to the custom and discretion of every Church. In another respect, the meal-offering of the Jews was a Meal-offer- very agreeable type of the Christian Eucharist; I mean, as ofihe Ea it was “a thing most holy of the sacrifices of the Lord,” ae which is a title never given to any thing offered at the altar, Lev. ii. 3. excepting the meal-offering and the sacrifice for sin and trespass. No Jew might eat any part of it, save the priests Lev. viii. 10 only, even when it was offered with a peace-offering; though — the greatest part of the carcase of the beast was to be eaten by the persons who offered it: yet the meal-offering was the priests’ portion; therefore it is called “the bread of God,” Lev. xxi. which was a title peculiar to that part of the sacrifice which aa was burnt on the altar, or which was reserved for the eating of the priests. It was therefore a most fit type of the Eu- eharist, which is the most sacred and solemn institution which God ever vouchsafed to men. And the greatest dig- nity of the Christian people consists in this, that they are admitted to eat “the bread of God,” to partake of that which is “ most holy,” as the Jewish people never were; and, in this _ particular, all Christian men are priests in such a sense as the Jewish laity never were, though both the Christian and Exod. xix. Jewish people are equally honoured with the title of Priests. = mae There is no certain evidence, whether the drink-offerings Wine offer- _ of the Jews were wholly poured out on the altar, or whether Στ some part were reserved for the priests or even for the people ; 272° but this is sure, that in the Gentile sacrifices some portion of reserved for the wine offered to their gods was generally kept to be drunk by the offerers. The idolatrous Israelites sat down to drink as well as eat, and St. Paul alleges this as a proof of their idolatry in these words, “ Neither be ye idolaters, as were 1 Cor. x. 7. some of them, as it is written, The people sat down to eat and a drink ; and he, in the same chapter, intimates that the same practice still remained among the heathen of that age, and 9 G w& 84 ANY MATTER, NOT SORDID, CHAP. therefore calls the wine drunk by them in the idol-temples, ᾿Ξ. the cup of devils,” as having been offered to them; there- fore Esther is represented by the Apocryphal writers as justi- et fying herself, that she had not “ drunk the wine of the drink- ; offerings ;” for it should seem that king Ahasuerus’s and Ha- man’s table was served with wine brought from the temples ; or else the practice of making libations to their gods, and by this means making all the wine they drank at their feasts an oblation, by pouring out some part of it in honour to their false gods, is supposed by this writer to have prevailed in the court of this prince; and that this was no fiction, we may Dan.i.7. learn from the sacred book of Daniel; for this Prophet “ re- quested that he might not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which the king drank ;” for it can scarce be conceived how the king’s wine could defile Daniel, but by having been offered to idols, by which means it became an abomination to all true Israelites. See fur- ther proof for the use of wine in sacrifice in Grotius, on Matt. xxvi. Wine mix- I have before in this section observed, that though many Ἄς τὰ old learned men believe that the Jewish drink- offerings were iv the Eu wine unmixed with water, yet there is no certainty in this point; and I have proved that the Gentiles offered wine and water together. This I observe, in order to answer a cavil made by some, as if water with wine were incapable of being offered in sacrifice according to the received doctrine both of Jews and Gentiles. Now it is certain, that the primitive Christians did offer water mingled with wine in the Eucha- ristical Cup. Justin Martyr", Irenzus', Clemens Alexan- drinus*, and Cyprian', do expressly mention it; and though we know there were several heretics that used water only in the Sacrament, yet we have not heard of any, in the most primitive times, that used wine alone either in the Church or without it. And this practice remained universal for the first fifteen hundred years after Christ in all Churches except- Matt. xxvi. ing that of Armenia. It is certain, three of the Evangelists ff ie do intimate that the Cup offered by Christ was wine, or “the Luke xxll. fouit of the vine ;” and since the Scripture makes no mention ; » a. p. 2. Ap, Ὁ. fs ΤΠ, i ff. p. 6. Ap. 1m. pp. 13, 14. Ap. MAY BE A SACRIFICE. 85 of water, I hope all learned charitable Christians will judge sECT. favourably of the Church of England for using none; and, a. on the other side, we of the Church of England ought by no means to censure others who put water into the Cup, for they have the consent of the Church Catholic of all ages with them in this particular. Pfaffius™ shews, that the cup of blessing among the Jews did for the most part consist of Wine mixed with water, and from thence concludes that the primitive Church took this practice from them, as it is certain they did several others. He might from the use of the Jews have safely inferred, that it is most probable our Saviour qualified the wine with water; for the wine blessed by our Saviour for the Eucharist was what remained after the con- clusion of the Passover. It is observable, that Moses takes Exod. xxiv. no notice of the water mingled with the blood of the cove- Ὁ“ nanting sacrifices offered at his own directions; yet St. Paul Heb. ix. 19. assures us that “ Moses took the blood with water.” No ‘certain conclusion can be drawn from the Evangelist’s omission, any more than from that of Moses. The mixture of water with the wine makes the old and new covenant more exactly to answer each other. I have said what is sufficient to shew, that Bread and Wine, in themselves considered, are substances or materials very proper for a sacrifice; and that though living creatures were perhaps in all ages offered by some people, but especially by the Jews and the Gentiles of the times next before and after our blessed Saviour, yet that through all these ages bread, wine, and all other valuable fruits of the earth, were esteemed proper sacrifices and used as such; and that therefore we have the unanimous consent and agreement of all the ancient people with us, when we affirm the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist to be fit materials for a real Sacrifice. And Bread and Wine offered in the Eucharist are not a Sacrifice only, but a most excellent one; and that, 1. Because, by the use of this Sacrifice we are freed from The sim- the yoke and bondage of those various sacrifices of the Jewish meg Sr Law, with the burden of those numerous ceremonies with es which they were attended. We have our minds no longer charist. encumbered and oppressed with the study and consideration ™ De Oblatione Eucharist., p. 173, ἅς. 86 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE CHAP. of that multitude of materials, which the Jews were obliged ἘΣ provide for the performance of Divine worship. The meaner people are no longer under doubts and scruples, whether they ought to put themselves to the charge of a beast or to carry only a meal-offering to the altar. There is one Sacrifice only to be offered by all, and for all our needs, wants, and joys; and in which all may contribute according to their several abilities. The substance or natural ingredients of our Sacrifice are not difficult to be procured or costly to be purchased. We are tied to no certain bulk or quantity of bread and wine, as the Jews were in their unbloody sacri- fices. We have no occasion to distract our minds with care, how the Bread and Wine, which we offer, be made; it is suffi- cient that it be bread and wine, the best that we can pro- cure. In a word, the Christian Sacrifice is like the Gospel itself, plam and simple, which does not employ either the mind or body with so many external observances, as the Jewish sacrifices did. ἢ Thedignity 2. But that which renders the Eucharist the most excel- ees lent and valuable Sacrifice that was ever offered, except the stance. —_ personal Sacrifice of Christ, is this; that the Bread and Wine, then offered, are in mystery and inward power, though not in substance, the Body and Blood of Christ. ‘This raises the dignity of the Christian Sacrifice above those of the Law of Moses, and all that were ever offered by mere men. As it is © natural bread and wine, it is the sacrifice of Melchisedec and of the most ancient philosophers: as it is the Sacrifice of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, it is the most sublime and Divine Sacrifice that men or angels can offer. CHAP. 1. SECT Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of the ancients, as to the commendable qualities of the Sacrifice. In treating of the qualities of Sacrifice, I shall, 1. Shew what ἘΠ Ὺ" have always been thought most excellent in sacrifices. ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 87 2. And in what measure these qualities gar to the a Eucharist. 1. What qualities have always been thought most excellent in Sacrifices; and these are, 1, That it be the best that men have to give, if they be left to choose what they will offer. 2. That it be what is most agreeable to the will of God, if His will in this particular be made known to us. 1. THat the most excellent property of Sacrifice is, that it Sacrifice be the best we have to give, if we be left to choose what we ee ae will offer. It seems highly probable, that this was the case δ }2¥% of Cain and Abel. God had not expressly determined what sort of things He would have in sacrifice, or what should be the qualities, properties, and conditions of the things which they were to offer in the honour and worship of God ; there- fore each of them offered such things as their craft and way of life furnished them withal; the husbandman of the fruits of the earth, the grazier of his cattle or of the wool and milk of them. But it is probable, that Cain had not due regard to this rule of giving the best he had to God, as his brother Abel did ; for we are assured that the latter gave ‘more’ or a ‘greater sacrifice’ to God than the former. He gave a proof of his faith in the goodness of God by offering in a more large and plentiful manner than the other, or by choosing what was largest in its kind, for the original Greek word will bear either of these significations"; but the word ‘ex- cellent’ is added by our Translators, and was not used by St. Paul. Noah chose of the clean beasts and birds, that 15," such as were fit to be eaten, and therefore most valuable. And it may be observed in general, that the sacrifices offered by Jews and Gentiles too consisted of such things as were most proper for food or at least for clothing, though not without some exceptions. The reason of this is very plain, namely, that sacrifices were used long before silver and gold or those things which we now most value were discovered, and before the standard of exchange, that is, money, was n Heb. xi. 4. πλείονα θυσίαν, ‘more,’ or a ‘more ample sacrifice,’ 88 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE CHAP. invented. And the custom of offering victuals and drink, Ξ being established before other things which are now counted more precious were in use, did still continue and was the universal practice of all nations. And the examples of melting down silver and gold and such-like novelties, as Croesus did, are very rare. For what is most ancient in religion has always been esteemed to carry a sort of authority with it. And, in truth, there is more intrinsic value in a loaf of bread and a flagon of wine than in all the gold and silver in the Indies ; because the former will for some time support our lives, the other cannot do it of itself, but only as by the consent of men it has a value set upon it, whereby it answers, and is the price of all things. This was I need not allege particular texts of Scripture, or the ee eprion sayings of ancient heathen writers, to prove, that whatever then. was offered in sacrifice was to be the best in its kind; that the animal to be slain at the altar, was to be without blemish and perfect in all its parts®°. The Law of Moses indeed, in one case, according to our translation”, allowed an animal that had “something superfluous or lacking” to be offered to God, but it was only as a “ free-will-offering ;” and the τ ancient Greek Translators do so render this text, that it is plain they only thought that such a beast might be killed by the owner for his proper use. And this seems most agreeable to the whole tenour of the law. The Prophet pronounceth a Mal. i. 14. curse on him, that “ having a male in his flock voweth and sacrificeth a corrupt thing.” And even Saul took care that 1Sam. xv. none but “the best of the sheep and oxen” should be sacri- a: ficed to the Lord. The careof Lhe heathen, excepting the Spartans, who offered the most the heathen scrubbed animals, had their priests‘ or other officers, whose point. peculiar care it was to view and examine the beasts that were to be offered; and Solon made a law at Athens, that none but select sacrifices should be brought to the altar. Virgil? speaks of “ chosen two-yearing” sheep slain in sacrifice. ® Ainsworth, on Levit. vi. 12, ob- it, σφάγια ἀποθήσεις αὐτὰ σεαυτῷ. serves*from Maimonides, that accord- 1 Μωμόσκοποι, and Μοσχοσφρα- ing to the notions of the Rabbies*the γισταὶ. very wood burnt on the altar was to be τ Lectas de more bidentes. A®n. iv. of the best, not worm-eaten, not the ver. 57. Ain. vi. 39; see Servius’s wood of old buildings pulled down. Notes there. P Levit, xxii, 23; the LXX render ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 89 And indeed it seems very clear, that by “a sacrifice of SECT. righteousness,” in the Old Testament, (for the phrase is not found in the New,) is meant a large generous sacrifice with- out any defect or imperfection. It is first used in Moses’ blessing to Zebulun and Issachar, of whom it 15 said, “ They * shall call the people to the mountain, there they shall offer x. sacrifices of righteousness; for they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and the treasures hid in the sands.” The meaning of which is, that these two tribes shall be enabled to offer costly sacrifices, and by this means to give a good example to their neighbours in going to Zion to perform their devotions; because of lying near to the great ports of Tyre and Sidon they shall grow very rich. Their riches indeed could not make them more pious or virtuous than their neighbours; but they were by this means qualified to be more liberal in their sacrifices. And every body knows that ‘righteousness’ often signifies ‘liberality’ in Holy Scrip- ture. David promises that, when God should “be pleased to be gracious and favourable to Zion” in making it the settled place of worship and to ‘ build the walls of Jerusalem,” then “ He should be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness ;” and presently tells us, what he means by this expression, namely, “ burnt-offerings and oblations” or ‘ burnt-offerings and whole-burnt-offerings,” as our last Translators have it ; by which is meant great plenty of these sacrifices. If David had meant a sacrifice consisting of righteousness; and by righteousness meant holy and virtuous affections and dispo- sitions ; this might as well have been understood before Zion was the place of worship, as afterwards. At another place, David calls upon his enemies to “ offer the sacrifice of right- eousness.” Achitophel had asked David leave to go to Hebron and pay his vows; this was only a pretence to make an escape from King David, and to join Absalom and his party; yet he did actually offer sacrifice. David had reason to suspect, that this politician under the colour of religion was brewing mischief; yet he advises him and his companions, if they did sacrifice, to do it as became men of their condition, _ that is, with a bountiful hand. Though if any man think that the Royal Prophet intended by this expression to give _ them an admonition, that they should season their sacrifices A sacr fea: of righte- ousness, is a large serie τον τ 12: Psalm li. 18, 19. Psalm iy. 5. 2 Sam. xv. ie σ ἘΣ τ ΕΠ Mal. iii. 3. The care of the Gen- tiles in that point. 90 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE with piety and holiness; I have no objection against this, but that in the two texts before-mentioned the phrase carries no such meaning. Malachi foretells of the Messiah, that He shall “ purify the sons of Levi,” the Gospel-Priests, so as that “they shall offer sacrifice in righteousness.” This too may signify a plentiful, ample oblation ; for Irenzeus testifies that many Christians offered all they had. But it is evident, upon the whole, that in whatever sense you take it, yet “ right- eousness” could not be the sacrifice itself, but the quality which belonged to it or to those that offered. So by a “ sacrifice of shouting’” is not meant a sacrifice made up of sound, but burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, over which the trumpets were blown. But though where men were left at liberty, they generally thought themselves obliged to present the best they had for the use of the altar; yet still the next rule often took place of this; 1 mean, 2. That if the will of God be known, that sacrifice is to be preferred, which He Himself hath chosen. For I suppose no man would ever dispute, whether God or man were the most proper judge of what is to be offered in sacrifice, or — what properties in the creatures offered are most acceptable to Him. For aught appears, God did never determine the quality of the things offered by the Patriarchs before the Law, but they were left to their own discretion ; but, under the Law, the Israelites were in a great measure stinted and confined in this respect. If they offered a bloody sacrifice, it must be a bullock, sheep, goat, a turtle-dove, or young pigeon: if it was intended for a burnt-offering, it must be a bull, a ram, or he-goat; if for a sin-offering for a private person, it was either a young bullock or a lamb or kid of the female sex; if it was a peace-offering, either bullock, sheep, or goat, male or female. If his sacrifice was unbloody, yet the quantity of the meal and wine was in most cases fixed and certain, and no room left for the offerer’s choice; and it was presumption in any man to pretend to choose better than God had done. The Gentiles, too, were sensible, that they ought not to offer any other thing than what their gods (such as they were) had singled out for this purpose; if they knew or * Compare Psalm xxxii. 6, Numb. x. 10. ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 91 fancied, or had by tradition been informed what creatures SECT. were most agreeable to them. It is true their pretended : gods were very fantastical in making their choice of sacri- fices, or, rather, they who would be thought the interpre- ters were very oddly conceited in this respect ; for some gods must have what they loved offered to them, as Mars a bull, Venus a dove, Aisculapius a cock; others what they hated, as Bacchus a goat, because it was an enemy to the vine; Ceres a sow, because that animal used to destroy the young fruits of the earth; Hecate a dog, because this brute uses to bark at the moon; for Hecate was no other than the moon herself. And the notions, which they had of the excellence of one sacrifice above another, were very uncertain and in- - consistent. The generality of them thought a bullock the best ; yet the Romans believed the sheep to be “the greatest sacrifice,” though not in bulk, yet in its fitness to be offered to the gods. Plato, as Cicero‘ reports his opinion, looked upon birds as “the richest present” to the gods; but Pytha- goras and his followers, the most ancient Greeks and Latins, judged cakes and fruit and sober drink-offerings, that is, in which there was no wine, most acceptable to them. It is certain they had no lght in this particular, but Their un- from their own conjectures or fond traditions. But that they pes tees Pr always acted on this principle, that the gods themselves were the most proper judges in this point, appears from this, that when they were at a loss what to offer, and had tried many sacrifices to no purpose, they consulted their oracles; for from them they hoped to have the most certain intelligence concerning the will of their gods in this as well as other matters. Cicero gives us a remarkable instance of this"; “ The Athenians,” says he, “ consulted Apollo, ‘What modes of t De Legib., lib. 11. post med. Aves divitissima dona. [The reading in Olivet’s and all other Editions of Ci- cero, which the Editor has consulted, is this: “ Divinissima autem dona, aves et forme ab uno pictore uno ab- solutz die ;’’ Cicero De Legibus, lib. ii. ce. 18. tom. 11]. p. 152. Ed. Olivet. Paris. 1740. It is confirmed by the passage in Plato, from which it was originally taken: θειότατα δὲ δῶρα ὄρ- νιθές τε καὶ ἀγάλματα, ὅσα περ ἂν ἐν μιᾷ ζωγράφος ἡμέρᾳ εἷς ἀποτελῇ.---Τ,6σ 6.11. xii. vol. viii. p. 608. Ed. Bekker, 1826. ] u Cum consulerent Athenienses Apollinem Pythium, quas potissimum religiones tenerent, oraculum editum est, eas, qué essent in more majorum. Quo cum iterum venissent, majorum- que morem dixissent sepe esse muta- tum, quesivissentque quem morem potissimum seéquerentur e variis, re- spondit, optimum. Et profecto ita est, ut id habendum sit antiquissimum, et Deo proximum, quod sit optimum.— De Legib. post med., lib. ii, CHAP. is And their supersti- tion. 92 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE worship they should retain?’ the oracle answered, ‘Such as their ancestors had practised.? When they came again, and said, ‘ The practice of their ancestors had been often altered,’ and desired to know, ‘which mode of the various modes of their ancestors, they should choose ?’ the answer was, ‘ That which was the best.’ And truly that which is best is to be accounted most ancient and most agreeable to the gods,” as Cicero there adds. And from hence we may learn the great uncertainty and inconsistency of tradition in things relating to religion; and yet at the same time the common notion of mankind, that, where it does appear to be certain and uniform, a great regard is due to it. From hence appear the endless doubts and perplexities of the heathen in reli- gious matters; and from hence we learn what their judg- ment was, as to the doctrine I am now speaking of; namely, that when the Divine will can be known concerning the manner and properties of sacrifice, we are to look no far- ther: for it was to this end that the oracle was consulted, though the question which they put was rather evaded than answered. They who looked upon themselves as better assured con- cerning the will of their gods, in relation to the quality of the beast which they were to offer, were most dotingly superstitious in taking care that the beast might be precisely such as that god required. Of this the Egyptians* are a very noted instance; who, being persuaded that their gods, especially Epaphus or Apis, though black himself, had a strong aversion to that colour in any bull that was sacrificed to him, used to appoint an officer on purpose to view and inspect with the most nice exactness the whole body and tail of the bull which was to be slain in honour to him. They did not think it sufficient to have him carefully surveyed as he was standing on his legs, but they threw him on his back and carefully pried into every part; and if but one black hair appeared, he was rejected as unworthy to become a sacrifice to Apis. If, after the strictest examination, not — one black hair was found about him, he was marked or sealed by the officer who made the inspection ; and it was present — death, by the law, to offer any bull that wanted his seal. x Herodot. Euterpe, c. 38, 39. ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 93 2. Now to apply what has been said to the Eucharist, and shee to shew in what measure these qualities belong to it ; Ὁ τῆς ome have here that sacrifice, which is, if we respect the ahh ties of qualities of it, such an one as some of the wisest men have Been on esteemed more agreeable to the nature of Divine worship ἃν der Nase than any other; a sacrifice free from all that stench and Sactiiog gore, with which bloody oblations are more or less accom- panied, and which made them loathed by men of nice and tender senses. But, because what has life and blood is in its own nature Especially _ to be preferred before that which is senseless ; because God, pe aoe eat in the Law which He gave to the Jews, preferred bloody 1° #2! sacrifices before unbloody ones, and allowed a meal-offering to be an atonement for sin, only in case the offender were | too poor to bring a bullock or a goat; and especially since Ged’s own sacrifice, the Passover, was a lamb, not a sacrifice _ of meal or of the fruits of the earth; therefore, to render _ ourselves sensible of the true value of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, we are to consider it as intended by Christ to be a full and perfect representation of His Body and Blood; and Christ’s Sacramental Body and Blood are as useful and beneficial to us, as if we had His natural Body lying on our Altars: and so the Eucharist has the purity and cleanliness of an unbloody sacrifice, and the value of a bloody one; it is of infinitely greater efficacy than all the bloody sacrifices of the Jews jomed together, as being the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not only the best we have to give; but it is that, which, by the will of God and our Redeemer, we are authorized to offer as long as the world endures ; for thus we are to shew forth Christ’s death until He come. And thus the holy Eucharist is the pure meal- offering, every where to be presented on God’s Altar; and this meal-offering is to us, in spirit and power, the Body of Christ, Which takes away the sins of the world. The intimation that I have given, that bloody sacrifices ἘΠῚ gies have somewhat of impurity in them, may at first sight seem relat par to reflect dishonour on the great Sacrifice of Christ, Who ἼΩΝ ἐς was slain as a lamb without spot or blemish; but this sur- mise will vanish, when it is considered, that the reason of this impurity proceeds from the corruptible nature of all the CHAP. 1: The slaying of Him im- pure; and therefore not per- formed by Himself. Acts ii. 22, 23. Acts iii. 15. Acts v. 30; x. 39. 94 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE bodies of living creatures; but now the Body of Christ Jesus was not subject to this weakness or infirmity; He “saw no corruption,” nor was He liable to any. By the will of God, and the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature with His human Body, He was freed from the common law of putrefaction. It is evident, there was one very gross impurity, a moral as well as natural turpitude, which accompanied the sacri- | ficing of Christ’s natural Body ; I mean the barbarous and inhuman violence, by which It was slain. If the slaying — this sacrifice had been an action necessary to be performed by the priest, it is evident that Christ could not have been a proper sacrifice, unless it can be supposed that the Holy Jesus could be guilty of laying violent hands on Himself; — and if we will believe Scripture, it is certain in fact that He did not. St. Peter directly charges the Jews with this — horrible murder; “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; | Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified _ and slain ;” and again, “ Ye denied the Holy One and Just, — and desired a murderer to be given unto you, and killed the | Prince of life.” And the same Apostle says twice, that the Jews “slew Jesus, and hanged Him on a tree.” And if : St. Peter had not charged the Jews with the murder of Christ Jesus in such down-right terms as he did; yet we have the history of the process of this whole affair. We know that the Jews extorted the sentence of death from Pilate by their importunate clamours; that Christ was the instrument of His own death, only by resigning Himself up to God, and submitting to the violence of His enemies. We are assured, that the soldiers nailed Him to the Cross ; he, that did most effectually shed His Blood by piercing His side, was a man of arms, and not a priest; and therefore we may safely pronounce, that though the sacrifice and oblation were the — most pure and perfect that ever were, or can be, performed ᾿ς yet, on the other side, the killing of this Sacrifice was the | most wicked action that ever was, or can be, committed; and that therefore it was necessary, that the slaying the Sacrifice, and the offering it, should be separated from each _ other. And Christ, by His wisdom, did not only make a ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 95 distinction between those two actions, by doing the pure SECT. part Himself, and leaving the wicked part to be done by His = enemies : but He put a considerable distance of time between these two actions: He performed the oblation over night, immediately after He had eaten the Passover; He offered Himself under the symbols of Bread and Wine, when He instituted the Eucharist; but He was not slain till the next day, till about twenty hours after He had as a Priest offered Himself a Sacrifice to God. We are therefore very certain, that Christ did not, could not offer Himself by*killing the Sacrifice; for then He must have killed Himself, and then this bloody sacrifice must have been in all respects grossly impure: but by providing that there should be so large an interval between the one and the other, He hath effectually secured the purity of the Sacrifice; and the slaying of this Sacrifice was done once for all, and is never to be repeated. But what Christ did, when He gave Himself to God under the types of Bread and Wine, we are commanded to do in remembrance of Him. Our Saviour, indeed, “laid down His life,” and so does How our every Martyr that dies for the honour of God and the benefit βάτου of the Church; so St. John tells us, “ We ought also to lay ΡΤ down our lives for the brethren:” but nobody, I suppose, will ; John iii. call him a Martyr, who puts himself to death. When there- δ fore Christ says, “I have power to lay down My life, and I John x. 18. have power to take it again,” His meaning is, that He had not only that power, which every man certainly has, to lay down his own life; but that He had power to take it again, in which He exceeded other men. A Martyr lays down his life, when by a devout act of self-resignation he expresses his readiness to die, in order to give testimony to the truth. Our Saviour laid down His life, when by a free act of His own will He did give His Body and Blood to God in the holy Sacrament. I question not but that our Saviour, as He was a Divine person, had power to shorten or lengthen His own life with- out the application of outward means ; but I believe very few will be of opinion, that our Saviour could by a Divine act shorten His life without a blemish to His virtue. He came to be a perfect example of all duty; and wilfully to hasten CHAP. i Mark xv. 44. 96 THE BEST QUALITIES OF A SACRIFICE a our own death will scarce be allowed to be agreeable to the ‘rules of religion; and we may safely presume, that our Saviour would never do any thing that is not reconcilable to the most strict rules of virtue. And though our Saviour’s Divine power was sufficient to have put a present period to His life, whenever He thought fit ; yet it is to be observed that it has always been the opinion of the wisest Christians, that this Divine power did not at all exert itself durmg the time of His temptation and crucifixion. Pilate indeed “ marvelled, if He were already dead:” but he had had no occasion to wonder, if he had known how our Saviour’s constitution was broken with the continual hardships of His life, the frequent watchings and fastings which He practised, with the zeal He had for God’s house and the purity of His worship by which He was eaten or consumed, with the contradiction of so many perverse enemies, and especially with that agony which seized and continued on Him so many hours the night before, which was so violent that it forced from Him great drops of © blood ; and, lastly, with His bearing the Cross, so long as His strength enabled Him; if, I say, Pilate had considered all this, he would not have found any occasion to wonder, that in six hours’ hanging on the Cross nature was spent and life failed. He that considers how our Saviour passed the fore- going night, and especially what He underwent in the garden, will see reason to conclude, that He must have been half dead before He was nailed to the Cross. There is no doubt but our Saviour died sooner than malefactors commonly did, or than the two thieves crucified with Him. Felons and muti- neers are for the most part a hardy race; they maintain nature well with plunder and rapine; whilst our Saviour by mortification and self-denial had made the stream of life run very low, even before He came to suffer. The two thieves had not undergone such an agony as our Saviour did the foregoing night, and had probably been strangers to most of those hardships, which reduced Christ Jesus to so weak and feeble a condition. They are hard put to it for arguments against the doctrine of the Eucharist, who will assert, that Christ offered Himself a Sacrifice upon the Cross only here on earth, and that He was offered only by being slain; and so render the Sacrifice ARE IN THE EUCHARIST. 97 of Christ a very bloody one indeed ; so bloody as that it can- SE OT. not be reconciled to purity of any sort, until killing one’s-self ———— be esteemed a virtue. CHAP. 1. SECT. VI. Concerning the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist, with the sacrifices of the ancients, as to the manner in which it is offered. My reader will not expect, when I undertake to shew the No certain manner of offering sacrifice, that I should enter into a long pacer. and needless discourse concerning all the lesser ceremonies ee used either by the ancient Jews or heathen or by the Chris- tian Church in offering sacrifice. This would be not only tedious and even endless, but also altogether useless. The music, dancing, habits, of the priests and assistants; the gar- lands, perfumes, and other rites used upon killing and offer- ing sacrifice, were rather the garnish than necessary for- malities. My business is to inquire, what were those rites or forms, whereby the ancients did offer their sacrifices, and which were so necessary to the offering of them, that with- out those rites and forms the sacrifice could not be; and my end in doing this is to convince my reader, that no certain rite or mode of offering a sacrifice, excepting that of prayer, is in itself so necessary, as that a sacrifice loses its nature by being offered in another manner. If indeed a Jew offered a beast without using the forms prescribed by the Law of Moses, or in manner contrary to that Law, as Saul did, it is confessed this was no legal sacrifice; but it was still a sacri- fice, and acknowledged so to be by Samuel, or whoever wrote this history; for he expressly declares that Saul “ offered a 1 Sam. xiii. burnt-offering :” and I suppose no one can doubt but that ἡ a burnt-offering is a sacrifice. Now the only rites or actions that can be supposed neces- sary to sacrifice, are either, 1. The slaying of it, if it were a living creature ; 2. Or the sprinkling of the blood ; 3. Or the burning all or some part of the sacrifice on the JOHNSON, H CHAP. sh Slaying, not the act of oblation among the Jews. Nor among the hea- then. 98 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, altar, whether it were a sacrifice with life and blood, or with- out it ; 4. Or the waving of the thing offered among the Jews, and the scattering of cakes or the corn and salt among the Gentiles ; 5. Or else the presenting any creature with prayer to God upon or at the altar. 1. The slaying of the sacrifice, if it be a living creature, is commonly thought a rite absolutely necessary ; and, indeed, it was so in all those sacrifices of beasts among the Jews and Gentiles, in which it was required that the blood should be poured out at the foot of the altar; but yet, even m this case, to slay the sacrifice and to offer were two actions distinct from each other; and, indeed, the Jewsy do expressly declare it. They own that the killing of the holy things, or even the most holy, that is, the sacrifice for sin and trespass, might be done by strangers as well as by the Levites or the lay-offerers; whereas the solemn oblation could be performed by none but a priest. And, indeed, it is very evident by what has been already said, that things which have no life or blood may be a true sacrifice, though they are incapable of being killed ; and if slaying the sacrifice were the act by which it is offered, and necessary to be performed by the priest, this would annul the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ Himself, except any one will blasphemously say that He murdered His own Body. And even the ancient Gentiles looked on the killing of the sacrifice, not as the action by which it was offered up, but only as an action necessary to be performed in order to the consuming of it; for the Gentile priest did not usually per- form this servile office. Chryses, in Homer, officiates as a — priest in the first sacrifice which that poet describes, but the beasts were killed by those who assisted at that solemnity 2; and he commonly uses the same words in the account he gives of other sacrifices. And in another narration, which the same poet gives of a sacrifice*, Nestor performed the — Υ See Ainsworth on Levit. 1. ὅ, and ver. 14, speaking of a well-grown beast Lightfoot. offered in sacrifice, thus expresses him- 5 Αὐέρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα, καὶ ἔσφαξαν self, καὶ ἔδειραν, Iliad, A. ver. 459. These et a grandi cervix ferienda words are repeated, as often as Homer ministro, describes a sacrifice. Juvenal, Sat. xii. 4 Odys. I. about ver. 450. NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 99 priest’s office, but Thrasymedes strikes the bullock down, SE oF and Pisistratus cuts its throat. No doubt, there are in- : stances of the priest’s killing the sacrifice upon some special occasions among the heathen as well as among the Jews ; but since this was not perpetual, it is evident they did not es- teem the slaying of it to be the rite, or one of the rites, by which the priestly oblation was performed; for then it must have been done by none but the priest. It is true, the later Greeks, being chiefly used to bloody sacrifices, and making their language agreeable to their practice, express ‘sacrificing’ and ‘killing’ by one and the same word?: but this was but a corruption of their language; for I have elsewhere‘ shewed that the word did at first signify not ‘to kill,” but ‘to burn,’ or otherwise to offer anything to God. 2. As to the sprinkling of the blood, this was indeed, ac- cording to the notions of the Jewish Rabbies, the very root of their sacrifices; that is, by this means the beasts became proper sacrifices. But then this can be meant only of those which had life; whereas I have shewed, that there is great reason to believe that more unbloody sacrifices were offered at the altar of Jerusalem than bloody; and the sprinkling of the blood could not be the root of a meal-offering. Nay, whatever the modern Rabbies may pretend, yet it is plain that both the goats offered on the day of expiation were a sin-offering ; and they are so expressly called by Moses: yet Lev. xvi. 5. one of these was not slain at all, nor by consequence could its blood be sprinkled by the priests ; it was “ presented alive Lev. xvi. before the Lord to make an atonement :” so that a sacrifice Ὁ might expiate guilt, though the blood of it was still running in its veins. But as to the heathen, they were perfect strangers to this rite of the priest’s sprinkling the blood. I have used my utmost diligence in inquiring into this matter, and cannot discover one single proof, that it was ever used at any altar or sacrifice, but the Jewish only. I have not only looked into Homer andthe Greek Dramatics, and made the strictest Ὁ Viz., Qvew. the guests set down, the Poet says of © See Part I. p-[74.] Imighthave Achilles, produced another passage from Homer θεοῖσι δὲ θῦσαι ἀνώγει Il. i. ver. 219, where, after the sacrifice Πάτροκλον, ὃν ἑταῖρον" ὃ δ᾽ ἐν πυρὶ was killed, a the feast prepared, and βάλλςε θυηλάς. H 2 CHAP, Burning not neces- sary to 100 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, search that I could into other writers both Greek and Latin, but into those who have made collections of Greek and Roman antiquities ; even the diligence of Gronovius hath not furnished us with one single example of “ sprinkling” blood onthe altar. It is true, the blood of the beast was commonly let out of its throat so near the foot of the altar, that it could scarce be, but that some of it must of necessity wet the altar; but this proceeded from the slaying of it, which I have shewed not to have been the action by which it was offered, nay, generally speaking, not performed by the priest. I have put in the margin@ those passages of the ancient writers, which relate to this affair, that so my reader may judge for himself. However, this is a rite belonging to bloody sacrifices only. 3. As to the rite of burning the whole or part of the sacrifice, it must be owned that this was more universally d Herodotus, Melpomene, c. 62, de- scribes a barbarous sacrifice of the Scythians to Mars, to whom they of- fered many beasts, and especially horses, and sometimes captive men. The altar was a very large wood-stack three sta- dia square, one side of which was a gentle ascent. An old scymitar was fastened on the stack, which was the ἄγαλμα, or representation of Mars; they killed the sacrifice in a certain vessel, and carried up the blood and poured it on the scymitar. It is pro- bable this sacrifice was, as to the man- ner of it, singular, and adapted to the bloody nature of the supposed god, to whom it was offered. On the contrary, when a sacrifice was offered to Peace, the Grecians slew it at a distance from the altar, “lest the altar of Peace should be defiled with blood,’ as we learn from Aristophanes’s Pax, versus finem. No conclusion can be made from these sin- gular instances as to the general rules of sacrifice, but only this, that some gods delighted to be drenched with blood, but that others abhorred it; and that, therefore, it was not any certain necessary rite of sacrificing. In the instance from Herodotus, not the altar but the agalma was perfused. Eu- ripides, Iphig. in Aul. ver. 1563, in de- seribing the sacrifice of that virgin, represents the priest, as taking the sa- crificing knife, and considering where he should strike; all hear the blow, but Iphigenia disappears; and in her stead a hart lies panting on the ground, and the altar is wet with drops of blood; the Greek words are ἐῤῥαίνετ᾽ ἄρδην. Now this could not proceed from any sprinkling of the blood, distinct from the slaying; for no other action or operation had passed upon Iphigenia, and the hart lying slain was only her substitute. That which is most to the purpose is a citation from Lucian, thus describing a heathen priest; ‘O δ᾽ ἱερεὺς αὐτὸς ἕστηκεν ἡμαγμένος, καὶ ὥσπερ ὃ Κύ- κλωψ ἐκεῖνος, ἀνατέμνων, καὶ τὰ ἔγκατα ἐξαίρων, καὶ καρδιουλκῶν καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῷ βωμῷ περιχέων" καὶ τί γὰρ οὐκ ev- σεβὲς ἐπιτελῶν ; [1)6 Sacrificiis, p. 186. Ed. Paris. 1615. ]. He says, ‘‘ The priest stood pouring blood about the altar;’ but one instance, and that a very late one, is of small weight in this case; and, further, Lucian’s authority may justly be questioned, because it is not to be supposed that he was a frequenter of the temples and sacrifices. Scoffers are not always the greatest knowers; and, after all, my reader will make a great difference between pouring and sprinkling; at another place, (viz., p. 185,) of this very Dialogue, he describes the gods, as πίνοντες αἷμα τοῖς βωμοῖς προχεόμενον, ‘drinking the blood poured on the altars,’ not “licking the drops sprinkled on the altars.” NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 101 practised than any other, though still not so universally as SECT. to make it absolutely necessary to a sacrifice. It is certain, make a sa- the Persians® used no fire in their sacrifices; Herodotus critice, ac- ς : : . cording to takes particular notice of this, and yet is far enough from the notion doubting whether they were sacrifices or not, on this account. {2 = They worshipped the fire as a god; and therefore to put what was offered to another god into the fire was, in their notion, to give that to one god, which was intended for another, The same writer assures us, that the ancient Scythians‘ used no fire in their sacrifices; and that the Nomades§, instead of laying what they sacrificed on the fire, threw it on the top of the house: and Diogenes Laertius® informs us, that Pythagoras performed his devotions at the altar of Delos, which was called the “ Unbloody Altar, the Altar of the Godly,” which was “without fire.” Yet I apprehend i that no wise man ever made a question, whether these nations or this philoso- pher did offer real sacrifices. Apollonius Rhodius* tells us of ‘a sheep offered as a sacrifice by being thrown into the sea. Virgil! describes to us a sacrifice of the same sort. Yet it is certain, the main of the Jewish and Gentile sacri- © Herodot. Clio, c. 132. Iamsen- στοτέλης ἐν Δηλίων πολιτείᾳ. In Vita sible Dr. Hyde (De Relig. veterum Pythag., p. 217.] Pers.) denies that the Persians wor- k Αἴψαδ᾽ by ἐσσυμένως ἐκρίνατο, καί shipped the fire with Divine honour; μιν ἀείρας and asserts, that they offered their sa- Σφάξε κατὰ πρύμνης, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἔννεπεν crifices by fire to the One True God. εὐχωλῇσι--- But his evidences are modern, or of an Ἢ ῥ᾽ Gua δ᾽ εὐχωλῇσιν ἐς ὕδατα uncertain age, and therefore I conceive λαιμοτομῆσας not to be laid in the scale against the “Hee κατὰ πρύμνη5.---ἰ Argonautic., unanimous suffrage of the ancients, lib. iv. vv. 1595—1602. Ed. especially in a point where men were Stephano, 1574. ] capable of being determined by their ! En. v. ver. 772. own eye-sight ; such was their burning Tres Eryci vitulos, et tempestatibus or not burning their sacrifices. The agnam, modern Persians of the Magian sect Czdere deinde jubet, solvique ex may differ froém their ancestors in these ordine funem. points. However, the old Grecians, Stans procul in prora pateram tenet, who denied that the Persians burnt extaque salsos their sacrifices, did, notwithstanding Porricit in fluctus, et vina liquentia this, allow them to be sacrifices; and fudit. therefore my argument holds good, And again, Ain. v. ver. 235, Cloan- whether the Persians consumed their thus makes this vow, Sacrifices by fire or otherwise. Di, quibus imperium est pelagi, f Herodot. Melpomene, c. 60, 61. quorum zquora curro, © Herodot. Id., c. 188. Vobis letus ego hoc candentem in h See Sect. 1. of this chapter, versus litore taurum jinem. Constituam ante aras, votis reus, Ὁ Diogenes La. says of Aristotle, extaque salsos _ that he denied that Pythagoras ever Projiciam in fluctus, et vina liquen- offered ἱερεῖον, that is, an animal sacri- tia fundam. fice. [ἱερεῖον δὲ μηδὲν, ὥς φησιν ᾽Ἄρι- 102 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, CHAP. fices were burnt in whole or in part: but if we will speak Bumi,a St¥ictly, the burning was not the action by which the sacrifice urning 7B. may becom: was offered; that was rather esteemed the Divine act, by sidered, ; ᾿ : either asan Which God accepted the sacrifice. It is well known, that te the fire on the Jewish altar first came from heaven, and this oF an act of fire was “ever to be burning on the altar, it was never to go Lev. ix.24; out ;” and what was devoured by this fire was esteemed to be a er on accepted by God, and was therefore called the “ Bread of God” 12,13. or “ Food of God.” The Rabbies tell us it was looked upon as an argument that God was not pleased with the sacrifice, if any part of the flesh laid on the altar remained unconsumed ; therefore many learned men are of opinion, that the people were thought by David™ to wish that God would “remember all his offerings, and turn to ashes all his burnt-offerings,” in token of acceptance. Both the true Israelites and the wor- 1 Kings shippers of Baal unanimously agree in this, that “ the God who xvii, 24. answered by fire, he should be God ;” and when the-fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt-sacrifice, all the people that saw it fell on their faces and said, “ the Lord, He is the God.” Thisis a demonstration,that the burning was indeed an act of God; and therefore it could not be the act by which the sacrifice was offered, for that must be an act of man. And though the fire did not come down on the altar at Jeru- salem, as often as sacrifice was offered, yet all sacrifice there was to be burnt with that fire, which first came from God; and therefore all of them were in effect consumed by the fire of the Lord, by which He shewed His acceptance of them. If indeed by “ burning” be meant only ‘laying it on the fire,’ in . this sense it must be owned, that burning was an action whereby the oblation was made. Therefore it is often said of the priests, that they “ offered the fat,” that is, they did in due form lay [it] on the fire of the altar; but if by “ burning” be meant ‘consuming it,’ then it is evident that this was no ~ action of the priest’s ; it was done by the fire of God, and by it the sacrifice was not offered but accepted. Nosacrifice Therefore, if we will discourse according to the rigid laws consumed : by being Of truth, we cannot say that any sacrifice, even among the offered. Jews, was consumed in being offered. The priest offered it by laying it on the altar ; God consumed it by the fire, which ™ Psalm xx. 4. See the margin of our English translation. eee ee al ts μι -- “ ' NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 103 He sent from heaven to shew His acceptance of the sacrifice there performed, and which was by His commandment always kept there for this purpose. And though these two actions of laying the flesh on the fire and consuming it were at a very small distance from each other in time and order of doing, yet they are widely different in the intention of the law-maker and in their import as concerning sacrifice ; for one was the act of man offering, the other was the act of God accepting. Not only the worshippers of Baal, but many other heathens, The hea- - ὃ . then looked have esteemed the consuming the sacrifice as an action per- on the formed by the god, to whom it was offered. It has been DUS 88 shewed®, that they thought the gods feasted with them, and acceptance. that what was put into the fire was esteemed the god’s share ; and therefore, as they likewise pretended to have Divine® or heavenly fire on their altars, so they thought the gods were more or less pleased with the sacrifice, according as the flame had more or less of brightness and vigour. No less a man than Cicero? promised himself good success, because, when his wife had sacrificed and was going to make some libations on the ashes, of a sudden the flame did of it- self rise out of the ashes to receive her devotions. Pindar? tells us, the Rhodians performed “a sacrifice without fire;” but that Jupiter rained down upon them “a golden shower.” This shews that the distinction between the offering the sacrifice and the acceptance of it was very old even among the heathen. ™ Sect. IT. of this chapter. © Servius on En. xii. ver. 200, has these words, Apud majores are non incendebantur, sed ignem Divinum precibus eliciebant qui incendebant altaria. Alphesibceus pleases himself, that the fire kindled itself on the altar to consume his offerings. See Virgil, Ecl. viii. ver. 105. Aspice; corripuit tremulis altaria flammis Sponte sua, dum ferre moror, cinis ipse. Bonum sit! And part of the same Poet’s descrip- tion of a hopeless sacrifice is this; Georg. iv. ver. 490. Inde neque impositis ardent altaria fibris, Nec responsa potest consultus red- dere vates. And again, Georg. iv. ver. 384, Ter liquido ardentem perfudit nec- tare Vestam: Ter flamma ad summum tecti sub- jecta reluxit. Omine quo firmans animum Euripides thus describes a hopeless sacrifice, Βωμοῖς T ἄφλεκτοι πέλανοι.---- { Helena, v. 1334.] P See Servius on Eclog. viii. ver. 105. Sine igne subito ex ipsis cine- ribus flamma emersit. Hoc uxori Ci- ceronis dicitur contigisse ; cum peracto sacrificio libare vellet in cinerem, ex ipso cinere flamma surrexit, que flam- ma eodem anno Consulem futurum os- tendit ejus maritum; sicut Cicero in suo testatur Poemate. a Pindar. Olymp. 7. Τεῦξαν δ᾽ ἀπύροις ἱεροῖς ἔΑλσος ἐν ἀκροπόλει. κείνοισι μὲν ξαν- θὰν ἀγαγὼν νεφέλαν, Πολὺν ὗσε χρυσόν. CHAP. I. Lev. ix. 24; 1 Chron. Xxi. 26; 2 Chron. Vii. 1. Neither burning, nor laying on the altar, abso- lutely ne- cessary. Exod, xii. ts 2 Chron. xxx, 11} Cain and Abel’s sa- crifice not offered by burning, nor Abra- ham’s, Gen. XV. Gen. xv. 9 — 104 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, Whether the “golden shower” were a fire or not, yet it is certain he meant it as a token of the Divine acceptance. This was probably an intimation of what is related concerning fires descending from heaven on the altars erected by Moses, David, and Solomon. This, I think, is clear enough from the notions of the heathen, as well as from our sacred records, that the consuming the sacrifice by fire was rather the action whereby the Divine acceptance of the sacrifice was signified, than the action whereby the sacrifice was presented to God. Nor were the rites of laying the sacrifice on the altar or on the fire so necessary as that nothing was esteemed a sacrifice, when this ceremony was omitted. It is certain, the Persians had no altars, nor the Nomades; and God’s own sacrifice, the Passover, was first offered in the land of Egypt, where it is not credible that every family of the Israelites could have an altar: and if they had, it is clear they made no use of it on this occasion ; for the blood of the lamb was sprinkled not on an altar, but on the two side-posts and the upper door-posts of their houses; though, after the temple was built, the blood of the lamb was sprinkled by the priests on the altar there, and by this ceremony the whole lamb became a sacrifice to God". If the Jews in after-ages did burn any part of it, which yet is not sufficiently proved, this was only adeparture from the first institution. God Himself made it a sacrifice, without enjoining this rite of laying any part of it on the fire ; and, sure, it must be allowed, that He is the most proper judge of what is a sacrifice, and of what ought to be deemed so by us. By what rites or in what manner Cain and Abel offered their sacrifices to God, we can only guess. If they did it by laying what they offered on an altar or fire-hearth, as is com- monly supposed, and God shewed His acceptance of Abel’s by causing fire to fall on it from heaven, which is the common opinion ; then we have another great evidence that the con- suming of the sacrifice is an act of God and not of him that sacrifices. Cain offered his fruits, as well as Abel his cattle ; but, upon this supposition, Abel’s sacrifice only was burnt, Cain’s was not; both of them had sacrificed, before either of their sacrifices was consumed by fire. Abraham’s covenant- τ See Sect. I. of this chapter. ‘Suppose the same may be said of the sheaf or omer of corn NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 105 ing sacrifice was performed without any altar, nor did either SECT. God or Abraham consume it by fire; but the-night after it was offered, while the beasts and birds which he had slain were lying in that order, [in] which Abraham had left them the day before, “a smoking furnace and a burning lamp passed between the pieces,” not only to signify the fiery trials into which Abraham and his posterity were like to fall, but to give Abraham an assurance of the confirmation of the covenant between God and himself. It seems probable, that all the other sacrifices before the Law, which are mentioned in Scripture, were consumed by fire. But there is no reason to believe, that nothing was esteemed Not the a sacrifice under the Law but what was burnt on the altar; for ἤνάκες ana not to mention what has been already said of the Passover, the ae LXX Interpreters expressly call the two wave-loaves “ a new ea ei sacrifice ;” though they were baked with leaven, and there- 15; πῆ: fore were not to be burnt upon God’s altar either in whole Lev. 17. or in part. We are sure that the scape-goat served the ends and purposes of a sacrifice for sins. It was twice presented Lev. xvi.7. to the Lord, once together with the other goat, and after- ag wards distinctly by itself. It was “ presented alive before the Lord to make an atonement,” and is called a sin-offering, Lev. xvi. 5. and had the sins of the people actually transferred upon it ; Lev. xvi. it is expressly said, that “all the iniquities and transgressions ~’ ~ of the children of Israel shall be put on the head of the goat ;” which is so full a declaration of the goat’s being deputed in the stead of the people, as is no where else to be found. And to dispute after all this, whether the scape-goat was a sacri- fice, is as mere a strife about words as was ever yet raised; and from hence it unavoidably follows, that it is not abso- lutely necessary that a sacrifice be consumed either by fire or by eating and drinking: it is sufficient that it be disposed of according to the will of God. 4. Some sacrifices among the Jews were offered to God by Waving, being waved or swung by the hands of the priest toward the tok several points of the universe. This was the action by which "ce. the loaves at the feast of Pentecost became a sacrifice ; and I Lev. xxiii, 15, 16; XXiii. 11; for the first-fruits. The beasts offered upon both these oc- * 12-16. casions were likewise to be waved, and so were several other CHAP. Nor scatter- ing the salted cake or corn. The great stress laid on meal- and drink- offerings by the Law. 7 106 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, sacrifices; but then they were also burnt in whole or in part, as the offering of the first-fruits was not, because leaven was mingled with it. But since those wave-offerings were but few in comparison of those which were offered in another manner, therefore no man will, I presume, suppose that this rite was so necessary as that no sacrifice could be offered in any other manner. It does not appear, that the Gentiles had any ceremony like that of waving in their sacrifices ; but they had univer- sally a custom of breaking cakes or scattermg barley mixed with salt upon the sacrifice before it was killed, if it was a beast, and of pouring wine upon the head of it. This is what needs no proof, because it is allowed by all. And, indeed, this was by the Greeks and Romans hardly ever omitted ; insomuch that ‘to immolate,’ that is, to cast the barley and salt upon a beast, and ‘to sacrifice’ it, are used as phrases of the same signification, and that very frequently. Yet it can by no means be said, that no living creature could be made a sacrifice without the use of this rite; for then the sacrifices ante | dell Mi, ie ee a of the Jews, which were not offered in this manner, must be — declared to have been defective. The Jews, indeed, had their meal-offerings and wine- offerings, and these two joined with all thew sacrifices of beasts’, excepting those for sm and trespass, as I have before observed; but there was this great difference between the Jews and Gentiles in this particular, that the meal and wine, which ushered in the heathen sacrifices, finished or concluded the Jewish; but they were esteemed as necessary to attend the oblation of a beast among the Jews, as to go before the oblation of it among the Gentiles. He that reads several: verses together in the twenty-ninth chapter of Numbers, ac- cording to the most ancient translation of the LXX, may be inclined to think that the meal-offering was indeed the Jewish sacrifice, and the beast killed before the meal-offering was intended to be only an introduction to it ; for thus they render the Hebrew, ver. 2, “ Ye shall offer burnt-offerings for a sweet savour unto the Lord, one young bullock, one ram, seven lambs of a year old, without blemish ;” 3. “Their sacrifice is [of] fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth-deals 5 See Exod. xxix; Lev. xiv. NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 107 to one bullock, two tenth-deals to one ram, and one tenth- SECT. deal to every one of the seven lambs ;” 5. “ And one kid of = the goats, for a sin-offering, to make atonement for you ay? 6. “ Beside the burnt-offerings of the new moon, and their sacrifices, and drink-offerings; and the continual burnt- offerings, and their sacrifices, and drink-offerings,” &c. 7. “And in the tenth month,” &c. 8. “Ye shall offer for a burnt-offering, one young bullock,” &c. (as ver. 2.) 9. “Their sacrifice shall be [of] fine flour :” again, ver. 11, “The con- tinual burnt-offering, and its sacrifice, and drink-offering,” &c. This is repeated no less than eighteen times more in this chapter, and five or six times in the twenty-eighth. In all these places, not the animal offered, but the meal-offering presented with it, has the title of a ‘ sacrifice’ given to it. And we have no reason to doubt but that, if the Apostles or Christ Jesus had had occasion to have cited any part of this chapter, they had also called the meal-offering, the sacrifice ; sincet so often as they mention any text, where the meal- offering is mentioned, they always allow it the name of ‘sacrifice ; and indeed do generally follow the Greek Trans- lation. 5. The only remaining manner or action, whereby a sacri- Prayer was fice was of old offered, is prayer or invocation of the Name of cece God. And this was, in all probability, the manner by which ποθ Ὁ i the Patriarchs offered their sacrifices. We read of Abraham taught by and Isaac, that they “ built altars, and called on the Name ts = 8: of the Lord.” I suppose that the most natural meaning of xi 4: xxi these texts is, that they offered sacrifices on the altars which 2. ὁ they erected, and offered them by calling on the Name of That God, in honour to Whom they at first built the altars. If we may believe Josephus, Noah offered his sacrifice by prayer". Samuel “cried unto the Lord,” when he offered 1 Sam. vii. a sucking-lamb; and David “called on the Lord,” when he ne sacrificed in the threshing-floor of Araunah: neither of these xxi. 26. sacrifices were performed according to the Levitical rites, but after the Patriarchal manner. They were neither of them sons of Aaron, and therefore sacrificed as Prophets, by an * See Sect. IV. of this chapter. σθαι τὴν θυσίαν παρεκάλει, καὶ μηδεμίαν u Jos. Antiquit., lib. ic. 3. Νώεος ὀργὴν ἔτι τὴν γῆν ὁμοίαν λαβεῖν. ᾿ς π--εὐμενῶς τε Αὐτὸν (Θεὸν) προσδέχε- 108 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, CHAP. extraordinary authority, rather than as priests, according to —— the settled laws of Moses. As no sacrifice was ever in earnest offered by a rational man but with an intention to do honour to that God to whom it was presented, or to procure some favour, or to avert some evil; so it must be owned to be very natural for them who presented it, to have their minds filled with devotion toward that God, with desires of procuring the good or avoiding of the evil, which were the occasion of the sacrifice; and it can scarce be conceived but that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth would speak. Prayerused Yet it does not appear by any certain text of the Law of eas Moses, that prayer was required by any express command of ae God to be used as the settled constant manner or rite of offering sacrifice to God. Yet this does not prove that they did not offer their sacrifices by prayer: for, indeed, the Law of Moses makes no mention of any prayers or praises to be said or sung over their sacrifices ; yet we are very sure that, 2 is “when the burnt-offering began, the song of the Lord began, os, ὃ 8 ail this continued until the burnt-offering was finished.” And the Apocryphal writer of the second Book of Maccabees 2 Mac. i. 23 says, that “the priests made a prayer while the sacrifice was a consuming, Jonathan beginning, and the rest answering thereto, as Nehemias did:” and one part of this prayer was, “0 Lord, receive the sacrifice of Thy whole people Israel ;” and the priests sang psalms of thanksgiving. It is true, this story seems to be a mere fiction ; but it cannot in reason be supposed, that the inventor would misrepresent the customs used in sacrificing, because this would have discovered the forgery to every common reader in the age, wherein it was first published ; I mean, while the modes used in the sacri- fices at Jerusalem were so well known by all the Jews. But the authority of Ecclesiasticus is sufficient, if there were no _ other, to prove that prayer was used in sacrificing; for this Eccles. i. Writer having described “the high-priest going up to the — altar, and the sons of Aaron with the oblations in their — hands, and finishing the service at the altar, and pouring the © blood of the grape at the foot of it,” he thereupon adds; — 11—19. “then all the people together hasted, and fell down to the earth on their faces to worship the Lord God Almighty, and — the singers also sang praises, and the people sought the Lord NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 109 the Most High by prayer, until the solemnity of the Lord was s ECT. ended.” It must be confessed, that it does not from any of these writers appear, that the officiating priest did offer the sacrifice by prayer. But what I would at present prove from these passages is, that prayer and praise was used in sacrificing, though it were not expressly required by the Law of Moses ; and the silence of the Law of Moses in this point can no more be an argument against the priests’ offering sacrifice by prayer than against the people’s using prayers upon this occasion. And if the people, with the assisting priests, did offer prayers and praises together with the sacri- fices; then the officiating priest too might perform the oblation by prayer, though the Law of Moses do not en- join it. And though prayer is nowhere in words at length com- Jewish _manded to be used by the priests in offering the Levitical acer é sacrifices ; yet there is just reason to believe that it was suffi- — wd ciently implied in the Hebrew word kapper, that is, ‘ making fice by an atonement.’ It is certain that Moses “made an atonement” oe for the idolatry of the people by his prayer. The vulgar χασί 30, Latin* commonly so translates it; and whatever the modern Jewish Rabbies may say to μι contrary, yet the Greek 1 Sam. ii. Translators, the Chaldee’, and the Syriac, do allow that the os Hebrew words pillel and kapper signify ‘to pray,’ or to make atonement with prayer. And whereas, on the murmuring’ of the people upon the death of Korah and his company, a _ plague broke out and destroyed many of them, whereupon _ Aaron put on incense, and made an atonement for the people; it is evident that the author of the Book of Wisdom by making an atonement understood praying; for thus he expresses this action of Aaron: “ He brought the armour of his proper min- istry, even prayer, and the propitiation of incense.” And from hence we may learn, that to pray in the people’s behalf was thought to be the duty of the priest, and a principal one too, though it was never expressed at large, but under this comprehensive word of ‘ making atonement’ or ‘ reconciling.’ Further, Dr. Outram argues with very great appearance of * Orabit. Lev. v. 6. 18; ix. 7, &c. ¥ See Critics on Psalm evi. 30. See Dr. Hickes’s Christian Priest- * Compare Numb, xvi. 47; Wisd. hood, p- 205. viii. 21. CHAP. 1. Gen. xlviii. 14; Matt. xix. 15; Deut. XXxiv. 9; i Tim-y; 22; Mark v. 23; vi. 5; xvi. 18; Acts viii. 18,19; xix. Be Heb. vi. Lev. i. 4. 15; iii. 8. 13; iv. 13. Lev. iv. 4; viii. 14, 18; Xvi. 2. Why there was no occasion for an ex- press com- mand. 110 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, reason, that the ceremony of laying hands on the head of the sacrifice did, according to the sentiments of the Jews, imply the use of prayer ; for it was a ceremony, by which, blessing, ordination to any office, curing the sick, and conferring the Holy Ghost, were performed. And I think there can be no just doubt but that, in all these cases, laying on of hands has ever been attended with prayer to God; and it is therefore reasonable to believe that when God enjoined the owner of the beast to lay his hands on the head of it, in order to offer it as a sacrifice, the meaning was, that he should by a prayer offered on the occasion present it to God. And this rite was enjoined in all common bloody sacrifices, excepting that of birds. And if the sacrifice were offered in behalf of a priest, or if it were a more solemn sacrifice of consecration or expiation, then the priest himself was to lay his hands on the head of it, and by consequence to offer it by prayer. It seems evident that the ancient Jews did so understand their law, and their practice was agreeable to their judgment. Dr. Outram? has given us the very words of the forms of prayer used by the priests in offering the sacrifices on the great day of expiation. Upon the whole, though it be very evident, that the Levi- tical Law expresses and requires the outward rites and formal- ities of sacrifice, in plainer and stronger words than it uses in relation to the prayers; yet it is pretty evident, that both the priests and people of the Jews did apprehend, that sacri- fice ought to be offered with prayer. The Jews and their ancestors had always worshipped God by sacrifice, as well as — all the other nations of the world; and to a people so well acquainted with the modes of this way of worshipping God, a hint was sufficient. They could not but know that their fathers and themselves, before the giving of the Law, did offer their sacrifices by prayer; and there was therefore no ne- cessity for God or Moses to be very large or express in their instructions as to this particular. The new rites of sprinkling the blood, and bringing the sacrifice to the door of the taber- nacle, and offering it upon the altar in that tabernacle, and by the hands of Aaron and his sons only, and other such-like circumstances, are indeed frequently and in very clear words 8 De Sacrif., p. [170. Ed. Lond. 1677. ] NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 111 SECT. repeated and inculeated ; but there was no occasion to be so Ὁ exact and to speak so largely on a point, of whieh scarce any one could be ignorant. Indeed, their own common sense would go a great way in directing them as to this matter; for they could not but know, that all sacrifice was intended as an honour to God, and either to beg somewhat of Him, or to praise Him for some mercy already received ; and it is as na- tural for men to speak their thoughts on such occasions, as it _ isto have such thoughts. And if it could be proved, that the Jewish priests and people did never express their devotions in words at the offering their sacrifices; yet it can not be con- ceived that they should sacrifice without the inward prayer of the mind, except you will suppose them to have béen per- _ fectly stupid as well as indevout. And what does further convince me that natural reason Gentiles will instruct men to offer their sacrifice by prayer is this, that °s""F ,, the Gentiles did universally offer their sacrifices in this man- P™yer- — ner. Of this we have abundance of proof both from Greek and Latin authors, who lived in those very times when this way of worship did universally prevail, and might be daily _eye-witnesses of it. I think this a matter of very considerable moment, and for that reason have in my margin? presented Ὁ Homer, in the description of the with Telemachus, landed at Pylos, and hecatomb sent by Agamemnon, and offered by Chryses as priest to Apollo, has these words, Iliad. A. 447. | — Tol δ᾽ ὦκα θεῷ κλειτὴν Exa- τόμβην Ἑξείης ἔ ἔστησαν ἐύδμητον περὶ βωμόν' Χερνίψαντο δ᾽ ἔπειτα, καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἀνέλοντο. Τοῖσιν δὲ Χρύσης μεγάλ᾽ εὔχετο, χεῖ- ρας ἀνασχών" Κλῦθί μευ, ᾿Αργυρότοξλ᾽, “Os ἔφατ᾽ εὐχόμενος Αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο, καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, κ. τ. λ. In the description of the sacrifice, in which Agamemnon performed the priest’s office, he has the following words, Iliad. B. 410. καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἄνέλοντο" Τοῖσιν 8 εὐχόμενος μετέφη κρείων ᾿Αγαμέμνων" Ζεῦ κύδιστε, μέγιστε, Αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο, καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, Αὐέρυσαν μὲν πρῶτα Minerva (in the person of Antenor), came upon Nestor and his guests while they were engaged in a sacrificial feast in honour to Neptune. Pisistratus says to the personated Antenor, Odys, ΤᾺ ver. 43. Εὔχεο viv, ὦ ξεῖνε, Ποσειδάωνι ἄν- ακτι" Τοῦ γὰρ kal δαίτης ἢντήσατε, δεῦρο μολόντες. Αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν σπείσῃς τε καὶ εὔξεαι, ἣ θέμις ἐστίν, κ. τ. A. Antenor prays accordingly, Κλῦθι, Ποσειδάον, x. τ. A, Nestor sacrifices to Minerva for having appeared to him; the ox and other things being prepared, Homer thus proceeds, Odys. Γ. 444. γέρων δ᾽ ἱππηλάτα Νέστωρ Χέρνιβα T οὐλοχύτας τε κατήρχετο" πολλὰ δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνῃ Eixer’ ἀπαρχόμενος, κεφαλῆς τρίχας ἐν πυρὶ βάλλων. Αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ᾽ εὔξαντο, καὶ οὐλοχύτας προβάλοντο, κ. τ. A. In a sacrifice mentioned by Apollonius Rhodius, you have these words, Ar- Cc κα P: 112 to my reader’s view great evidence of it, from the age of Homer down to that of Pliny and Seneca the tragedian. And from these authorities it will appear, not only that they gonautic. A. ver. 1593. καὶ uly ἀείρας Σφάξε κατὰ πρύμνης, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἔννεπεν εὐχωλῆσιν, Ἢ ῥ᾽ ἅμαδ᾽ εὐχωλῆσιν ἐς ὕδατα λαι- μοτομήσας κε κατὰ πρύμνης. Herodotus, Clio, ο. 182. de Persis, Τῶν δὲ ὡς ἑκάστῳ θύειν θέλει, ἐς χῶ- ρον καθαρὸν ἀγαγὼν τὸ κτῆνος, καλέει τὸν θεὸν. Idem, Euterpe, c. 39. de gyptiacis, ᾿Αγαγόντες τὸ σεσημασμένον κτῆνος πρὸς τὸν βωμὸν, ὕκου ἂν θύωσι, πυρὴν καίουσι" ἔπειτα δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ οἶνον κατὰ τοῦ ipniov ἐπισπείσαντες, καὶ ἐπικαλέ- σαντες τὸν θεὸν, σφάζουσι. Idem, Melpomene, c. 60. de Scythis, Πίπτοντος δὲ τοῦ ipniov, ἐπικαλέει τὸν θεὸν, τῷ ἂν θύῃ" καὶ ἔπειτα---ἂπο- πνίγει. Idem, Euterpe, c. 52. ἜΘθυον δὲ πάντα πρότερον οἱ Πελασγοὶ θεοῖσι ἐπευχόμενοι" ---- ἐπωνυμίην δὲ οὐδ᾽ ὄνομα ἐποιεῦντο οὐδενὶ αὐτῶν. Euripides in Iphigen. in Aulid. de- scribes the sacrificing of that noble virgin, and, after having set down Achil- les’s prayer at large, adds, ver. 1578. Ἱερεὺς δὲ φάσγανον λαβὼν ἐπηύξατο, Λαιμόν τ᾽ ἐπεσκοπεῖθ᾽, ἵνα πλήξειεν ἄν. And after the fatal blow was given, and the virgin disappeared, and the bleeding hart was seen in her stead, and was burnt on the altar, he has these words, ver. 1603. Ta πρόσφορ᾽ εὔξαθ᾽ ὡς τύχοι νόστου στρατός. Aristophanes, in Pace : In his mock sacrifice to the goddess Irene, which is very large and par- ticular, the people were thrice called on in these words, "AAN’ ὡς τάχιστ᾽ εὐχώμεθ᾽, εὐχώμε- σθα δὴ.---ἰν. 973. Ed. Dirdorf. Oxon. 1835. ] The prayer follows, and contains about forty verses, and in the prayer these words, Δέσποινα χορῶν, δέσποινα γάμων Δέξαι θυσίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν. Δέξαι δῆτ᾽, ὦ πολυτιμήτη, κ. τ. Am {vv. 976—978. ] After the prayer, the sacrifice is or- dered to be slain in the words imme- diately following, NO RITE BUT PRAYER, Λαβὲ τὴν μάχαιραν' εἶθ᾽ ὅπως μαγει- ρικῶς Σφάξεις τὸν οἷν. ----------------- Virgil. AEneid, iy. ver. 510. in Dido’s sacrifice, crines effusa sacerdos Ter centum tonat ore Deos, Ere- bumque, Chaosque, Tergeminamque Hecaten, &c. Idem, Georg. ii. ver. 388. Ergo rite suum Baccho dicemus honorem, Carminibus patriis, lancesque et liba feremus ; Et ductus cornu stabit sacer hircus ad aram. Ovid, Metamorph., lib. vii. ver. 593, de- scribing a plague, Admoti quoties templis, dum vota sacerdos Concipit, et fundit purum inter cor- nua vinum, Haud exspectato ceciderunt vulnere tauri! Idem, lib. xv. ver. 130, in his Apology for Pythagoras, Victima labe carens, et prestantis- sima forma (Nam placuisse nocet) vittis pre- signis et auro, Sistitur ante aras; auditque ignara precantem, Imponique suze videt inter cornua fronti, Quas coluit fruges aa Pliny, in his Natural History, 110. XXViii. c. 2. Victimas cedi sine precatione non videtur referre, neque Deos rite con- suli— Et mox Ne quid verborum pretereatur, aut preposterum dicatur, de scripto przeire aliquem, rursusque alium custodem dari qui attendat; alinm vero preponi, qui faveri linguis jubeat. Juvenal, Sat. vi. ver. 391. [ Ed. Lond. 1835. ] dictataque verba Pertulit, ut mos est, et aperta pal- luit agna. Seneca, in Thyeste, Ipse est sacerdos, ipse funesta prece Letale carmen ore violento canit, Stat ipse ad aras, ipse devotos neci Contrectat, et componit, et ferro ad- movet.—[vv. 689—692. in Corp. Poett. Latinorum. ] NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 113 offered their sacrifice by prayer, but that they did it just SEOT. before the sacrifice was slain; and that they-thought these prayers necessary to make a sacrifice ; that they had set forms of prayer, by which to perform this solemn devotion ; and that great care was used, lest any mistake should be com- mitted in rehearsing of them. If any man be disposed to think, that this manner of sacrifice prevailed by virtue of tra- dition rather than by natural reason, I see no occasion to dis- pute the matter with him ; but whether it proceeded from rea- son or tradition, it is, I suppose, evident, that both Jews and Gentiles agreed in it. Now to apply what has been said on this head to the Sacri- Prayer the : μι x proper way fice of Christ. It is certain, that whether He performed the of offering Oblation on the Cross or in the Eucharist, He did it not "°° either by sprinkling the Blood, or by burning any part of His own Body, much less by slaying Himself, or by any other outward ceremonious action then used by the Jews or Gentiles in sacrificing ; and it has appeared upon examining the parti- cular rites, that not any of them can be esteemed necessary to make a sacrifice. And if any man shall fancy that some one of them is necessary, though he cannot himself tell which, I shall leave him to enjoy his own airy thoughts; and only further observe, that it is very clear that no outward ritual ceremonious action can in itself be compared to prayer for true value, and we have the universal consent of all the civi- lized people in offering sacrifice by a direct address of words and thoughts to God. Herodotus‘ reflects on it as a singularity in the Scythians, that they did not pray upon offering their sacrifices ; yet he expressly tells us, that “they called on the name of that god to whom they sacrificed,” before they slew the beast ; therefore when he says they did not pray, his meaning must only be, that they offered no petitions, put up no particular requests, but left it with the god they worshipped to deal with them as he thought best. But to make general addresses to God, and to declare their design of honouring Him by the sacrifice _ then presented, has, I conceive, been the general practice of ¢ Herodot., lib. iv. ο. 60,61. [πίπ- aptduevos, οὔτ᾽ emomeicas' Ed. Gais- Tovtos δὲ τοῦ ἱρηΐου, ἐπικαλέει τὸν θεὸν ford. Johnson must have read it τῷ ἂν θύῃ. κατευξάμενος, as several copies have 4 [οὔτε πῦρ ἀνακαύσας, οὔτε κατ- it. ] JOHNSON. I CHAP. Christ did so offer the great Sacri- fice. 114 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, mankind from the beginning of the world: and in this man- ner of offering it all have ever agreed, though as to other rites there has ever been some diversity. The least that can in jus- tice be said is, that this manner of doing it is in itself most proper and natural, and has been more universally practised . than any other. And what rite or manner of offering the great Oblation should the Son of God choose, but that which had been prac- tised by the Patriarchs, which was then in use among all nations, both Jews and Gentiles? but that which did not con- sist In ceremony or any external formality, but which was an address or application of His mind to God the Father? And certainly the Psalmist, by a prophetic spirit, gave us a very just account of Christ’s performing His Priestly office, when he re- presents the Messiah’s offering Himself (as St. Paul intimates) in these words, “ Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, ‘and sacrifice for sin, such as are offered by the Law, Thou willest,” or choosest “not, nor hast pleasure therein; but a Body hast Thou prepared Me: Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God,” or rather, “15 come to offer the delightful thing,” which is, the prepared Body, just before mentioned. At another place, the same Apostle says of Christ, that “ by’ the Eternal Spirit He offered Himself to God for us.” By this it is very evident, that He performed the Oblation by lifting up His mind to God. Our Saviour in the institution of the Eucharist tells us, that His Body was then “ given” for us; by what action He does not there particularly inform us; but the Apostle tells us that it was by “the Eternal Spirit,” and therefore by a direct address to God. Isaiah tells us, that ‘‘ Christ’s soul made an offering for sin£ ;” in which words it is implied, that He offered the Sacrifice of Himself by an internal act of His € See Part I. p. [179.] and [207. ] f Heb.ix.14, There is indeed another signification of this phrase, very consis- tent with the former, and which ought not here to be omitted; I mean, a thing may be said to be done ‘in,’ or ‘ by the Spirit,’ when it is clearly represented to the view, not in natural substance, but by image or faithful representa- tion. Thus (Acts xx. 22,) “St. Paul went bound in spirit to Jerusalem ;” aud Ezekiel and St. John are said to be “in the spirit,’ when things to come are described and made visible to them, not by setting before their eyes the things themselves, but the pictures, landscapes, or emblems of them. Ezek. xi. 24; Rev.i.10. For the same reason Christ may be said to have offered His Body and Blood ‘in,’ or ‘ by the spirit,’ because He did it under the represen- tative symbols of Bread and Wine. & Isa. liii. 10. See the margin of the English Bible, and the critics on the place. NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 115 mind. Whether our Saviour did openly pronounce the words sEcT. of His mind, by which He offered His Body and Blood a ——~— Sacrifice for the sins of the world, we must be content to re- main ignorant. He lets us know when He performed this most solemn and important action; and that was upon His instituting the Eucharist, when He blessed the Bread, and just before He said, “ This is My Body given for you;” when He blessed the Cup, and said, “This is My Blood shed for you.” And we have no reason to doubt but the Apostles did clearly discern the very precise instant of time, when He actually celebrated this Most Sotemn Ostarion of His Body and Blood; for it can scarce be supposed but that the most momentous action, which He ever performed on earth, must have been attended with some outward expressions of a most exalted inward devotion; if not also with audible words, con- taining a direct address to God the Father, and a declaration of His offering up His Body and Blood to Him. It is, I suppose, very evident, that Christ, as a Priest, used no other rite in making the Oblation of His Body and Blood. He must indeed have broken the Bread and poured out the Wine; but I am not aware that these were necessary to make the Sacrifice, but only actions proper to signify the crucifixion of His Body and the shedding of His Blood. He offered the Sacrifice by the Eternal Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, Which always concurred with Him in all the most remarkable actions of His life; and, I suppose, it is not conceivable, how the Spirit of God should otherwise concur with Him in offering Himself to God, than by raising His human zeal and devotion to the highest pitch, and infus- ing a secret joy and comfort into His mind, while He was engaged in this most important act of our redemption. And Christian Priests are to offer the Eucharist, as Christ We are to did. This is what needs no proof; not indeed with an inten- oo tion, that His natural Body should again be given up to bt death, which was His intention, when He offered the Bread nounced. and Wine as the symbols of His Body and Blood; but that we may offer our thanks to God for the benefits we receive from that Sacrifice, and that we may have those benefits applied to our souls. But though the ends of our offering are not in all respects the same, which Christ proposed to 12 116 NO RITE BUT PRAYER, CHAP. Himself, when He first offered this Sacrifice; yet the manner or rite, whereby it is offered, does not at all differ from that used by Christ. To offer the Bread and Wine as the repre- — sentatives of His Body and Blood by a prayer or a direct address to God the Father, has been the constant practice of the Christian Church. To which purpose I will only present my reader with the prayer, which was used in the most ancient Liturgy now in being, and by which the primitive Church performed this most holy ministration. The Prayer immediately following the Words of Institution in the most ancient Liturgy now extant. ““ Wherefore, remembering Christ’s Passion, and Death, and Resurrection from the dead, and return into heaven, and His second coming with glory and great power to judge the quick and dead and to recompense every man according to his works, we offer to Thee, our King and our God, according to His appointment, this Bread and this Cup; giving Thee thanks through Him, that Thou hast vouchsafed us to stand before Thee, and to sacrifice to Thee. And we beseech Thee to look favourably on these Thy gifts, which are here set before Thee, O Thou Self-sufficient God: and do Thou accept them to the honour of Thy Christ, and send down Thine Holy Spirit, the witness of the Lord Jesus His Passion, that He may make this Bread the Body of Thy Christ, and this Cup the Blood of Thy Christ ; that they who are partakers thereof may be confirmed in godliness, may obtain remission of their ~ sins, may be delivered from the devil and his snares, may be replenished with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of Thy Christ, may obtain everlasting life, Thou being recon- ciled to them, O Lord Almighty.” And all the other old Liturgies have words to the same effect. By which it appears, that as Christ first offered the — Bread and Wine as His Sacramental Body and Blood by prayer, — so did the Church in the following ages. And though it does not certainly appear from Scripture, that Christ prayed upon this occasion with an audible voice; yet it is highly requisite, that His Ministers should pronounce the prayer in which the oblation is made, so as to be heard by the congregation: for NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE. 117 though men might safely depend on the silent inward prayers SECT. of our great High-Priest; yet they cannot so entirely rely ἘΞ upon the secret unheard devotion of a mere human Priest or Minister. And, indeed, this were much the same thing as to depend upon his intention, as the people are taught to do in the Church of Rome; and for which that Church is justly condemned by all good and wise men. I suppose it will be easily granted, that prayer is in itself This best . 5 fits the na- more excellent than any mere external rite, such as cutting ture of the the throat of an animal, sprinkling its blood, or burning #2" flesh, corn, or bread in the fire, or waving it toward the several points of the compass. Prayer is the most noble service that a man is capable of rendering to God by any power of his own: there is nothing here below which excels it, but the Sacrifice which is offered by it in the Eucharist. This is indeed infinitely more worthy and acceptable, as being the Body and Blood of Christ in power and effect, though not in substance; and prayer, being the most valuable action that we can do, is therefore the most proper manner of offering the most worthy Sacrifice that can be presented to God by mere men. Prayer is an exercise of our souls, which are by much the more honourable and perfect parts of us, and by our tongues, which are “the best members that we have ;” and is therefore a much more agreeable means of making the Oblation in the Eucharist, than the blood and fire and smoke, with which the sacrifices of the Jews and heathens were offered and consumed. ‘The Eucharist is a spiritual Sacri- fice, and therefore the offering it by prayer does best comport with its nature. CHAP. II. OF THE GREAT MOMENT AND NECESSITY OF THE EUCHARIST. I. IN GENERAL. II. AS IT IS A SACRIFICE. SECT. I. Of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist in general. When I speak of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist in general; I mean, as it is 1. A positive institution of Christ ; 2. As it is the principal and most proper worship of the Christian Church, and a constant commemoration of His Death ; 3. As it is a means of covenanting and communicating with God and each other. TheEucha- THE great moment and necessity of the Eucharist appears ἐς ΡΛ Ν from this, that it is a positive institution of Christ. And την this is what no Christian will, I presume, dispute with me. Christ Himself hath said, “Take, eat,” and “ Drink ye all οὗ this ;’ and “ do” or offer “this in remembrance of Me.” And — 1Cor.xi. St. Paul, if not Christ, hath charged us thus “to shew forth ΐ ὩΣ the Lord’s Death till He come.” The reasonings of men have often lessened the force of Divine laws. For the first hundred — years after the Reformation, so great a stress was laid on Σ᾽ faith and hearing sermons, that all practical religion and external ordinances were in danger of being swallowed up in ᾿ these two duties. Since that, the moral precepts of religion have been greatly magnified; but, I fear, some great men have much to answer for, in that they have extolled, first faith, and then obedience, or both of them together, in pre- judice to this Holy Institution of the Eucharist, (to say no- THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS AN INSTITUTION, &c. 119 thing now of the other Sacrament). The primitive Christians SEC T: thought they exercised their faith by their frequent receiv- : ing the Eucharist ; and to be ‘ one of the faithful’ and ‘a com- municant’ was, in their language, one and the same thing. In the Communion they exercised their charity both in giving and forgiving; in this ordinance they professed their inno- cence and sincerity in all parts of their duty, and their resolution of obedience for the future. If they had com- mitted any gross sin, they were separated for a season from the Lord’s Table; and when they were admitted to it again, they believed that they there received the full and perfect remission of their sins: so that the exercise of their faith and obedience and repentance did all tend toward the Eucha- rist, and at last centre in it. One great aim of some modern Divines has been to extol Though it and heighten the value of those duties, which they call duties gteamal of eternal obligation, such as the love of God and our neigh- Ese aly bour, sobriety, piety, and the like; and, on the other side, to 919. lessen and depress such as concern the men of some ages only, such as Circumcision and the Passover and the seventh- day Sabbath, which were enjoined only to the Jews; and Baptism and the Eucharist, which were not in force until since _ Christ Jesus came into the world. But I am of opinion that, if we impartially search the Scriptures of the Old Testament, we shall find that Circumcision, the Passover, and Sabbath, were duties which God bound upon the consciences of the Jews with as much care and force as even the greatest moral duties; and if Baptism and the Eucharist are as necessary to Christians as Circumcision and other external ordinances were to the Jews, we shall see no cause to think them of lesser obligation than the greatest matters of the Gospel. In truth, there are many articles of the Christian Faith, which were not necessary to be believed before Christ came into the world, as that Jesus was the Son of God, and Very God; that He shall judge the quick and dead, &c., which were not necessary before our Saviour made them so; and yet this does not at all abate or lessen the necessity of our believing them : nor is the Eucharist less necessary to be practised by us, be- cause it was a thing not required of the Father before our Savi- our’s incarnation and death. It is true, that all duties, which CHAP. Il. The great stress which our Saviour lays on this duty, John vi. John vi. 53. 120 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS cannot be performed without the help of other things or per- sons, cannot be so necessary as that a man shall eternally suffer for not doing them, when the reason why he does them not is, that he is destitute of those outward means, without which it is impossible to do them. To join in the public worship of the Church, and to give alms to others, and to hear or read God’s Word, are certainly very necessary duties; and he who wilfully omits any of them must expect to be treated by God as a transgressor; nothing can excuse him but the want of out- ward means; and the same may be said of the Eucharist. And, in such cases, it is not any want of value in the duties themselves, but the impossibility of the performing them, that will excuse us. We are as much obliged to practise these duties as any other, and the neglect of them renders Chris- tians liable to punishment, as well as the neglect of any other known duty; but no man is obliged to an impossibility. I have elsewhere" shewed at large, that our Saviour’s dis- course in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel was by Him meant of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood in the Eucharist; and that therefore, when He says, “‘ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you,’ He makes the receiving of this Sacrament necessary to all who are capable of receiving it. It is true, none do, spiritually and to their own benefit, eat the Flesh of Christ, but they who receive It with faith and love and thank- fulness and other holy dispositions, and especially with a sin- cere resolution of living in all respects as becomes the Gospel of Christ; and therefore, when Christ does so expressly re- quire His disciples to eat His Flesh, He at the same time requires us to clothe ourselves with all those virtues and graces, which are necessary to this end. Therefore it is not a mere outward formality, upon which our Saviour there doth so earnestly insist, but eating and drinking the outward sym- bols with that preparation and devotion of mind, which befits so solemn and Divine an institution; and since our Saviour has laid so great a stress on this duty, when performed in a proper manner, it certainly becomes all humble Christians to submit their judgment to His. The primitive Christians and ancient Fathers of the Church h See Part I, p. [457,] &e. ee -. Se Oe να eee, lee AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 121 did not only believe the Eucharist to be very necessary to be SECT. received by all that are members of Christ’s Church; but Ξ they grounded their judgment upon our Saviour’s discourse in John vi., as I have formerly proved at large‘. I shall not repeat what I have there said, but conclude this head with the words of St. Chrysostom*, “ As to come to the Eucharist rashly is dangerous; so not to partake of It is death and famine.” II. The moment and necessity of the Eucharist will appear, The Eucha- if it be considered as the principal and most proper worship able, Ee of Christ’s Church, and the constant commemoration of His μὸν Ch"s- Death. I put these two together as one and the same thing, cee kegs viz., the principal and most proper worship of the Christian Christ’s ) Candle and the constant commemoration of Christ’s death: aes. _ for it does not appear to me, that Christ did ever ordain any public worship for His disciples, but the Communion or _ Eucharist only. Prayer is a duty of natural religion. Christ is so far from being the first author of this sort of worship, _ that I suppose it was used by all men that ever pretended to religion. When Christ promises, that “if two agree upon Matt. xviii. earth as touching anything they shall ask, it shall be done ” _ for them,” and speaks of “two or three, gathered together in His Name ;” it is evident, that the whole discourse was di- rected to the Apostles only’, and in those words He confers a privilege on them in matters relating to discipline and govern- ment. The promise there given of being “in the midst of them” is an assurance of His confirming what they should determine in things relating to the peace of the Church; and this promise was not intended to be fulfilled, until Christ had “sanctified Himself™,”’ or offered His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and thereby “ sanctified” or consecrated “them” to the Gospel-Priesthood, as Moses did Aaron by offering Leviti- Lev. viii. 9. cal sacrifices: indeed, if we will speak strictly, then only we ask a thing in the name of Christ when we pray to God for it inthe Communion-service. To this purpose the words of our ] ' See Part I. p. [488]---[600.] whom He spoke, Matt. xviii, and the kN. p. 42. Ap. only persons concerned in this whole ' Compare Matt. xviii. 1. with Mark discourse. ix. 35. In this last text it is said, m See John xvii. 17—19, and the Jesus called unto Him “the twelve;’? Introduction to this Second Part. therefore these are the “ disciples,’”’ to 122 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS CHAP. Saviour deserve our consideration, which He spake upon His jonas urst instituting the Eucharist", “ Hitherto you have asked 24, nothing in My Name; ask, and ye shall receive.” Our Savi- © our had never before instructed them, how they were to pray — “in His Name;” but now, when He instituted the Eucharist, — He informs them, that the addresses made to God in that or- dinance of His own founding should be favourably accepted, as being offered in a way authorized and established by Him. — Jobn xvi. “Verily, I say unto you, whatever ye shall ask the Father in My Name, He will give it you.” And, indeed, it is reasonable to believe, that the Apostles did never make their solemn ad- dresses to God, when two or three or more of them assembled together upon any Church-business, save in and by the Eucha- rist, after our Saviour’s Death and Ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit. Our Saviour Himself observes to them, that notwithstanding the assurance He had given them, that when any two of them agreed in any matter they should ask, when they were met in His Name, it should be done unto them; — yet “ hitherto they had asked nothing in His Name ;” and He joka xvi. hints the reason of this in those words, “These things have I” formerly “spoken to you in parables,” in a more dark, ob- — scure manner ; “the time cometh, when I shall no more speak to you in parables, but shall shew you plainly of the Father.” And what He was to shew them of the Father was His readi- ness to hear them, when they should pray in His Name; and this appears by the next words, “ At that day ye shall ask in My Name,” &c. And hereupon the Apostles acknowledge John xvi. themselves fully satisfied in this point; for they say, “ Lo, = now speakest Thou plainly, and speakest no parable.” Now — that they had heard our Saviour explain Himself concerning praying in His Name, which He had formerly spoken of more darkly and concisely, and seen Him administer the holy Sacrament, they thought themselves fully informed in this | point; and, therefore, to pray in Christ’s Name is to offer up prayers in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, as the learned Mr. Mede has long ago observed. And whereas He says, “Tn that day ye shall ask in My Name;” by “ that day” ΗΘ. means after His ascension into heaven and sending of the: ale Holy Ghost, when He “ went to His Father,” when “ their " See the Introduction. _ the “fellowship” or contributions toward the relief of the poor, and the “prayers” _ tuary,’ or the priests’ apartment in the AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 123 heart should rejoice.” For it is very improbable, to suppose SECT. that the Apostles should commemorate this Sacrifice of Christ —_+— in the Eucharist, before the Sacrifice itself was fully com- pleted; and this could not be, until He had entered into the Most Holy Place with His own Blood, and had given a proof of His Sacrifice being accepted, by sending down the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, as a signal from heaven, to let them know that their Master was exalted to God’s right hand. It is very evident, that Christ Himself offered up the most earnest and momentous prayers for His Apostles and John xvii. for all believers, in that very prayer which He offered at His ἘΣ first administration of the Sacrament; for it cannot in reason be doubted but that the whole seventeenth chapter of St. John’s Gospel was a prayer used by Him in the institution of the Eucharist, though it must be confessed it is not easy to determine to which parts of the holy action every single clause of that most excellent prayer belongs; and if this could certainly be determined, it would give us better light to the more complete knowledge of this Divine mystery. But, I conceive, we know enough to determine us in this doctrine, namely, that Christ instituted no public worship but the Eucharist, and that to pray to the Father in His Name is to _ make our addresses to God in and by the commemoration of His Death. It is very probable, that the most primitive Church knew The most primitive no other constant stated Christian worship but that of the Church Communion. We are assured that the Apostles and new con- pra verts “continued daily in the temple, breaking Bread ° near stant prin- cipal wor- the sanctuary.” The preaching or “doctrine” of the Apostles, ship. Acts ii. 42. which are mentioned together with the breaking of Bread four verses before, were only looked upon as proper, if not necessary, attendants on the Eucharist, and do still make part of our own Communion-service. told, that the disciples of Troas “came together on the first Acts xx. 7. We are 9 Trender κατ᾽ οἶκον ‘near the sanc- that St. Luke means the upper room, in which Christ eat the Passover, in- temple ; so it evidently signifies, Luke _ xi. 51, where Barachias is said to have perished between the temple,” the ᾿ οἶκος, the sanctuary or priest’s apart- ment, “and the altar.’’ It is probable stituted the Eucharist, and appeared to the Apostles after the resurrection: of which see Mede’s Discourse on 1 Cor. xi. 22. CHAP. 11. A daily Eucharist during the Apostolical age. 124 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS day of the week To EAT BREAD;” this was the principal end of that assembly. And St. Paul, speaking of the Christian con- gregation at Corinth, uses the phrase of ‘‘ coming together?” or “coming together in the church,” in the same sense as “coming together to eat ;” which implies that this was their principal business when they met. “To come together not for the better but for the worse,” and “to come together for condemnation 4,” is the same thing with “ eating this Bread and drinking this Cup unworthily;” which is a fair intimation, that ‘coming together’ and ‘ eating’ were then inseparable things. It is indeed probable, as I before hinted, that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was never offered by the Apostles, until they knew the principal Sacrifice of Christ’s Body had been finished by Christ’s appearing in heaven, and giving the signal of it by sending down the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost: therefore the hundred and twenty, before the descent of the Spirit, “ continued in prayer and supplication',” without any mention of the Eucharist. It is true, prayer sometimes im- plies the Eucharist, as I have elsewhere shewed‘; but if you take it in its usual sense, it only proves that the Church did not make the Communion their constant stated worship, be- fore the day of Pentecost. It seems probable, that there was a daily Eucharist, at least during the Apostolical age; fort St. Clement of Rome” mentions the “continual Sacrifices” in a place, where he is undoubtedly speaking of the Eucharist under the type of the Levitical sacrifices. And it is evident, that this practice con- tinued till the time of Cyprian*, who speaks of the Sacra- — ment as daily administered and received. And it is well -known that several of the Fathers did, by “ daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer, understand the Eucharist; and it is very unreasonable to suppose, that their doctrine was contrary to their practice, as it must have been, if they did not daily receive it. It is true, they did not charge it as a necessary duty on all laymen to attend at the Altar every day of the P 1 Cor. xi. 33. Compare ver. 17, deleted by Dr. Mill, by the authority — 18, with ver. 33. of three versions, four Fathers, and 4 Compare ver. 17, 34, with ver. 27, three MSS. beside the Alexandrian. : 5. See Part i. p. [868.] r Acts i. 14. N.B. προσευχὴ may t Ibid., p. [152,] &c. here signify the ‘upper room,’ where " b. p, LwApok oe they were met, and the word δεήσει is x g, 1. p. 11, P27. 29 AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 125 week ; but therefore they did,in someChurches at least, permit SECT. them who lived at a distance from the place of assembly, to ——~—— carry home with them so much of the Sacrament as might suffice for several days following, as appears from some places in Tertullian’, and long after him from St. Basil. I see no reason to believe, that there was in the primitive No public Church of the first two hundred years any Common-Prayer or the public devotions for the faithful people, but in the Eucharist (>"Sta”, only. Justin Martyr, indeed, mentions prayers between the Eucharist. sermon and the Eucharist; but it is pretty plain that he means those prayers, which were offered in behalf of the penitents and catechumens, which are well known to have been used just at this juncture. The people did indeed keep Wednesdays and Fridays as station-days, and the more devout part of them did certainly meet together in the Church, and there put up their prayers to God; and by what Tertullian@ says it is evident that the people were under no strict obliga- tion to join in the Communion-service on these days, though it is evident that the Communion was then usually cele- brated. But the prayers then used by the people before the Eucharist were not public open prayers, pronounced aloud, and offered with the united consent of the whole congrega- tion; but they were private devotions”, left to the discretion of every single person, and for such favours and mercies as he himself most needed, or which he thought most necessary for others or for the public: and though very many did not join in the Eucharist, yet Tertullian justly reprehends them on this account. There are indeed public® Prayers for the evening and morning in the Apostolical Con- stitutions, and the Bishop is required to hold constant assemblies for prayer twice a day. The Synod of Laodicea in the fourth century mentions prayers made publicly in the church at three and six in the afternoon. But in the age of Ignatius it was not so; for he? speaks of the Eucharist and Prayers of the Church as inseparable things. The heretics Y i, p. 8. Ap. See also Part i. p. rant, nisi quod proximis obstrepunt ? [ 343. Immo prodendo petitiones suas, quid = d. p. 23. Ap. minus faciunt quam si in publico pa. p. & A orent ? . Ap. " Tertull. De Orat., ὁ. 13. Quid ¢ Ap. Const., lib, ii. c. 59. amplius referent isti qui clarius ado- qh. p. 2: Ap. — 126 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS . . OBAP, who abstained from the Eucharist, did by that means deprive —— themselves of the prayers too. Ali ofold ~ However, what is more certain is, that the Eucharist was obliged to A receive the constant stated worship of the solemn assembly on every Lord's day, Lord’s day ; and, I suppose, there is not one single proof, that the Eucharist was ever designedly omitted in any Christian assembly on this day, for many hundred years after Christ. Justin Martyr describes the Christian worship in this manner ; that “ on the day called Sunday all both in city and country meet together; and after the Scriptures read, the sermon; and some prayers, Bread and Wine mixed with water is offered to the Bishop;” and so he proceeds to give an account of the celebration of the Eucharist. Pliny, in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, gives this account of the Christians ; that on an appointed day they met together and — said alternately a set form of words; and took a Sacrament not to commit any villainy, not to rob, steal, &c. And for any — one of the faithful to come to church on the Lord’s day, and — not to receive the Eucharist, was a thing unknown in the first ages. Justin Martyr assures us, that it was distributed — to all that were present, and sent to all that were absent; all Clergymen and faithful laymen, that came to church, but did not partake of the Communion, had a censure passed against them by the most ancient® canons that are in being. . They, who There were in the primitive Church three ranks of lay- cove but men. First, the Catechumens, who had taken a liking to ceive, but do not, are Christianity and attended the sermons and reading of the a new sort ρῶν Scriptures, but, being born of Jewish or heathen parents, not truly had not yet been baptized. The second consisted of Penitents aa who had been baptized and admitted to the Communion, but per afterwards had been guilty of some great sin, and were on that account driven from the Lord’s Table for a time, and not permitted to sit or stand in the same part of the church with the faithful, but near the catechumens in an apartment toward the doors of the church ; both these ranks of laymen were dismissed as soon as the sermon was ended, before the — Eucharistical service began. The third and principal rank — was that of the Faithful; these alone were permitted to come — e Can, Apost. 9. See p. 48. Ap. AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 127 to the holy Communion, and in these it was a fault to stay away: and if any such person wilfully absented himself from church on the Lord’s day, or if he came but turned his back on the Lord’s Table, he was for a time shut out from all communion with the faithful; he was turned down into the rank of penitents, until he had sufficiently deplored and pro- mised to amend his fault. From which it appears, that there was in the primitive Church no such sort of persons allowed, as might communicate but did not; we have now, indeed, such a rank of laymen as are capable of communicating and are frequently invited to it, but yet live in a neglect or con- tempt of this holy ordinance; they are indeed exceeding numerous; no such men were permitted to have a place among the faithful in the primitive Church. But now-a- days too many affect that which was accounted the greatest punishment in the best times of Christianity ; I mean, to continue many years together and perhaps their whole life- time in a total abstinence from the holy Sacrament. And by this means it is very evident that they deprive them- selves of the privilege of Christian worship ; ; for I suppose it is clearly proved, that the Eucharist is the proper peculiar | worship of the Christian Church. Prayer is a duty of Natural Religion, and not peculiar to Christians. To pray in the Name of Christ is that manner of praying, which distin- -guishes the devotions of Christ’s disciples from those of other men; and then only we pray properly and strictly in the Name of Christ, when we offer up our prayers in and by the Eucharist. And it will, I presume, be easily granted, that the com- memoration of our Saviour’s Death was for very just reasons made the most proper and principal worship of the Christian Church. As the Death of Christ was the most wonderful and beneficial thing that ever happened; so it deserves to be the chief subject of our praises to God: and praise offered in a proper manner is justly esteemed the most excellent, rational part of Divine worship. The greatest honour that we can do to God the Father is, to acknowledge Him to be the source and origin of the Divine Son, that He sent Him into the world j to be our Saviour and accepted the Sacrifice offered by Him for the sins of men; and to do this is the first end of the SECT. The com- memoration of Christ’s death de- serves to be the princi- pal worship of His hurch. CHAP. Covenant- ing and communi- cating, the same, Heb. x. 22. 128 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS Christian Eucharist. Our Saviour, therefore, by making this ordinance the most proper principal worship of His people, intended the most signal and high honour to be done to His Heavenly Father; for I have proved and shall suffici- ently prove, that it is our business in the Eucharist to “ shew‘ forth” Christ’s Death, first and principally to God, and in the next place to each other. And further, it does and will appear, that another intention of our Saviour in the Eucha- rist was, to have His own Death so effectually there com- memorated, that they who duly join in the performing of it may be partakers of all the blessings, which by His Death were purchased for all mankind. It is therefore not only clear in fact, that Christ Jesus did make the commemoration of His Death the most proper and peculiar worship of His Church, but it appears from the nature of the Eucharist itself that it deserves so to be. III. The moment and necessity of the Eucharist in gene- ral will appear, if it be considered as the means of our cove- nanting and communicating with God and with each other. I join together ‘covenanting’ and ‘communicating’ with God, because I take them to be one and the same thing. Only I must give one caution, namely that, when I speak of cove- nanting, I do not mean the first entering into covenant with God, in order to bring ourselves out of that unhappy state in which we are by nature; this is done by Baptism, not by — the Eucharist ; but I mean the covenanting of those who are already baptized Christians. For they who will “draw near to God” must first have “their bodies washed with pure water;” and what the Apostle means by ‘ drawing near to God’ will be easily understood by those, who are already convinced that the Eucharist is the most proper Christian worship, in which we therefore make our nearest approaches to the throne of God: and St. Paul explains his own meaning in the following words, when he bids us “ hold fast the Oblation ofour faith without wavering ;” for I have elsewhere® made it appear, that by “the Oblation of our faith” the Eucharist is meant. It is true, there is no privilege or favour conveyed to us in the f "AvayyéAAew is the word used lation runs, ‘‘I profess this day to the 1 Cor. xi. 26; the same word is found Lord thy God.”’ Deut. xxvi. 3, where our English trans- 8. See Part I. p. [221.] AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 129 Eucharist, but what we first receive by Baptism; yet we re- SECT. ceive them in a much less degree in Baptism than in the Eu- ᾿ charist. In the first, we receive the remission of that guilt which we brought into the world with us, or of that which we contracted while we were in a state of nature, of Ju- daism, or [of] heathenism; in the other, we have our pardon sealed for such sins as we have committed, since we were bap- tized Christians: and the sins of baptized Christians are not (ordinarily) forgiven, but in the Eucharist. In Baptism or Confirmation, (which is but a completing of that Sacrament) we have the first livery and seisin, if I may so say, of all the favours purchased by Christ; in the Eucharist, we receive the continuance and improvement of them. By ‘ covenanting’ therefore in this place, it is evident, I mean the assurances that God is pleased to repeat of His favours and blessings to Christian people; and, on the other side, the assurances of duty repeated by Christian people toward God. And as there is no other rite or solemn action, by which baptized Christians can renew their covenant with God, but this of the Eucharist; so by thus renewing the covenant, they maintain a constant communion with God. For what com- munion can we have with God in this life, but that which consists in a continued flowing of His favour towards us and of our duty toward Him? and when I speak of communion with God, I suppose every one will thereby understand, that I mean not only with the Divine Father, but with the Son _and Holy Ghost; for I take it for granted in all my discourse on this subject, that we cannot have communion with one, but that we must have communion with all the three Divine Persons. Now these assurances of Divine favour are given us, not These pri- | vileges not singly or personally, but in our public capacity, as we are personal, _tInembers of that great body, the Christian Church. It was but Delons the Church, which Christ purchased with His Blood, for rp a which He gave Himself, and which is His flesh and bone; Acts xx. this is that Body, of which He is the Head and Saviour, and 5 ae Pek ὦ which He fills with His graces and blessmgs. Weare called to 28; i 33, peace, and for that reason we are called in “one Body ;” there- Col. iii. 15. fore the salvation purchased by Christ is a common salvation, Jude 8, οὗ which we cannot partake, but by uniting with that Body JOHNSON. K CHAP. Eph. v. 27. In the Eu- charist only, the Church covenants and com- municates with God. 1-Cor. x. 17. 130 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS of men, to which this privilege was granted. The Church is that Spouse, whom Christ presents to Himself; and none can be livmg members of this Spouse, but they who are most perfectly united to her, as limbs to the body; for be- cause there is no covenant or communion among men more strong or strict than that between a man and his wife, therefore the holy writers do under this figure represent the mutual alliance between Christ and His Church. But to shew us that the union is somewhat greater and more perfect than that between husband and wife, they do at other times describe it by the conjunction of the head of a man to his own body; and at the same time teach us, that we can re- ceive no benefit from the Head, except we are members of the Body. Now he who desires to keep in perfect covenant and com- munion with the mystical Body of Christ, which is His Church, can do it by no other means but by joining in those public actions, by which this covenant and communion be- tween the Head and members is continued ; and these actions are, principally, the Eucharist with its appendages; for I have already proved that this is the most proper Christian worship, and by which therefore the union and correspondence be- tween God and the Church are chiefly preserved and main- — tained. Faith and hope are indeed the invisible means, by which they are brought together, and without which no member can have true communion either with the Head or | the Body. An unbaptized Christian may have faith and hope too (in some measure), yet he cannot be said to be in perfect covenant and communion with God and Christ Jesus and the Church. A Jew or heathen might of old, and may to this day, hear our sermons and the reading of the Scriptures ; but the Eucharist being the proper and peculiar worship of the Christian Church, none but baptized Christians can joi in it; and therefore, in this ordinance only, the Church does” perfectly exercise its privilege of covenanting and communi- cating with its Head; there only the members do perfectly covenant and communicate with each other. Therefore the Apostle having said that we are all “ one Body,” he gives this reason for it, “because we are all partakers of that one loaf.” And if we would know, how we are made ‘one’ with Christ and AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 131 each other by the Eucharist, our Saviour answers this ques- SECT. tion in the words of institution, viz., “ This is My Blood of Br se, ., Matt. xxvi. the New Covenant,” as St. Matthew and St. Mark express it ; 28; Mark or “this Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood",” according *” ** to St. Luke and St. Paul. The Apostle, last mentioned, does at another place call “ the Bread, the Communion of Christ’s 1 Cor. x. 16. Body, the Cup, the Communion of His Blood.” By this he means, that God doth in this holy Sacrament impart to us the sum of all blessings and favours, which is the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, and that we by receiving them do devote ourselves to the True God; and therefore cannot, without a contradiction to ourselves, “have fellowship with” or “drink the cup of devils ;” which was the main thing that the _ Apostle had in his view in this chapter: and what very evi- : dently follows from hence is, that by the Eucharist we do covenant and communicate with God and with each other. | Nay, Christ solemnly affirms, “ He who feedeth on My Flesh, John vi. 26. and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him;” where, by “dwelling in him” that duly and frequently re- ceives the Sacrament, He means the most perfect and constant communion with Him. And there is no intimation in the New Testament of any means of a baptized Christian’s cove- nanting and communicating with God but in the Eucharist only. By faith and prayer and other acts of religion we do indeed perform our duty toward God; but I conceive that there is no other ordinance of religion but the Sacrament, in which God does impart anything to His Church. By Baptism God confers pardon and grace to particular men; but in the Eucharist, to Christian bodies and societies. In this He gives us the Body and Blood of His Son, not indeed in substance, but in life and power; and this Body and Blood of Christ do convey to all worthy receivers all the benefits of His Death. And, upon the whole, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is as necessary as the covenant between God and man in Christ Jesus ; it is as necessary, as it is for us to have communion with God ; for it does not appear that we can renew this covenant or continue this communion without the use of the Eucharist. h Luke xxii. 19; 1Cor.xi.25. Ava- There is but one place, where it can θήκη, the word here used, does parti- signify ‘a testament,’ viz., Heb, ix. 16, cularly signify ‘a covenant,’ not only 17. in sacred, but among profane writers. K2 CHAP. TL John xiv. 6; Rom. v. 16. 18. Pardon sealed to Christians in the Eu- charist. Matt. xxvi. 28, 132 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS It is certain, that by nature we have no communion with God, nor can we have it by any other means but what Christ hath appointed. He Himself hath said, “Noman cometh to the Father but by Me;” “a judgment to condemnation is upon all men,” and we are incapable of being relieved from this state by any other method, but that which Jesus Christ hath directed. We have no redress but from Him, Who hath taught us to deliver ourselves from this miserable state by entering into covenant with God by Baptism, and by renewing and continuing this covenant by the Eucharist. We cannot hope to attain eternal happiness by our own natural strength ; and if so, then it can be done by no other way but by cove- nant; and if by covenant, then not without the Eucharist, if it can be had. But that it may particularly appear how necessary it is to renew the Christian Covenant by the Eucharist, I will consider what is there mutually promised and agreed. 1. On God’s part. 2. On our parts. 1. On God’s part, there are three very great blessings assured to all worthy receivers, viz. (1.) Pardon of past sins; (2.) Grace to amend our lives ; (3.) Eternal happiness. (1.) Pardon of past sms is a most necessary blessing, and is the first of those which the Gospel promises to us. Baptism was intended for this purpose, and we are taught in the best of Creeds to believe “one Baptism for the remission — of sins ;’” but our Saviour has provided a remedy for the sins of His disciples committed after Baptism, and this remedy is the Eucharist. Christ Himself assures us that the Cup in the Eucharist is “ His Blood shed ror THE REMISSION OF SINS.” As the Cup is the covenant, so the first article of the cove- nant is forgiveness of sins. Upon which it is and ever was the belief of the most sound and understanding Christians, that we have our pardon sealed in the Sacrament, if we receive it with faithful, penitent, and obedient minds. St. Augustine’, speaking of these mysteries, says, “ In them is true remission of sins ;” and, according to St. Ambrose*, “ He who 'f. p. SI. Ap. k a. p. 26. Ap. AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 133 receives {the Eucharist] dies not the death of a sinner; for SECT. this Bread is the remission of sins.” The reader will observe ——~— that, in Ambrose’s opinion, they that receive unworthily do not eat the Eucharist; which was likewise Origen’s! notion. Cyprian™ speaks of “ the Cup of the Lord,” as “ relieving the sad and sorrowful heart, before oppressed with vexatious sins", with the joy of Divine forgiveness.” The most ancient Liturgy now in being teaches the Priest to express his ex- pectation®, that they who partake of the Eucharist “ may obtain remission of their sins : and there are many passages to the same purpose in all the ancient Liturgies. The Papists, mdeed, have for some hundred years past been obscuring this truth, by obliging men to receive from the Priest a full and peremptory absolution from their sins, before they permit them to receive the holy Sacrament of the Eu- charist ; but it does not appear that any such absolutions were used in the primitive Church, nor was there any other form of finally remitting the sins of penitents but by ad- mitting them to the Eucharist. The Bishop? or Priest did, indeed, lay their hands on penitents, and pray that God would pardon them; but they were not esteemed to be perfectly absolved until they had received the Sacrament. (2.) Another article of the covenant, on God’s part, is grace Grace as- to amend our lives. St. Paul, beyond all question, alludes ἐπῆρε φὴς to the Sacrament; when, speaking of Christians, he says, See “We have all been made to drink into the same Spirit.” Our 1 Cor. xii. blessed Saviour, after He had discoursed at large concerning the eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, gives His disciples to understand, that He did not thereby mean any material thing wholly destitute of inward power; for “ the John vi. 63. words which I speak,” or, the promises which I make, “they are spirit, and they are life;” which was by the primitive Church believed to be an assurance of grace and the Divine Spirit to be communicated to all worthy receivers of the holy Sacra- ment. ‘“ We approach the mystical Eulogies,” says Cyril of Alexandria‘, “and are sanctified by being partakers of the ε See Part I. aA ΠΝ 7 &e. ο cap. 52, 53. 1. 41. Ap. ™ m. 7. p. 13 P See Euseb. Hist. Eccl., lib. vi. n [Johnson ὯΝ angentibus ; ἴῃ 6 ο. 43. Benedictine text, used in the Appen- 4 1. p. 44. Ap. dix, has augentibus. | 134 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS CHAP. Holy Flesh and precious Blood of Christ.” Theodoret says’, “Christ does not change the nature” of the Bread and Wine, “but adds grace to nature.” Chrysostom speaks of a prayer in the Communion-service in his time’, “that Divine grace lighting upon the Sacrifice” (that is, the Bread and Wine) “might, by that Sacrifice, inflame the hearts of all.” Gau- dentius says of this Sacrament’, “ It refreshes and sanctifies even them who consecrate it ;”? and" he calls it “ a sweet medi- cine, a perpetual security against the poison of the devil.” Cyril of Jerusalem* says, “The Eucharist is distributed through our whole system to the profit both of body and soul:” and, “ In the New Covenant, the heavenly Bread and the Cup of salvation sanctify both the soul and body; and as the Bread is fit for the body, so is the Word agreeable to the soul.” Firmicus asserts, that? “It relieves them that languish, reclaims them who go astray, raises up those that are fallen :” Origen’, that “ It sanctifies them who use it with a wholesome purpose;”’ and? that “It is profitable in proportion to our faith, and is a means of illuminating our minds.” St. Cyprian‘ speaks of “fortifying the souls of Martyrs by the protection of the Body and Blood of Christ ;” and by this he means administering the Eucharist to them, and supposes that it was intended to be “a safe-guard and protection to them who received it :” and he says¢, “The Cup of the Lord does so cheer those who drink it, as to make them sober, and reduce their minds to spiritual wisdom.” Clement of Alexandria® affirms, that they who “ partake of the Eucharist with faith are sanctified both in -body and soul.” ‘Tertullian expresses his opinion to the same purpose, when he says‘, “ The body is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul may be replenished with God;” by ‘God’ meaning the Holy Spirit. So the most ancient Liturgy prays for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Bread and Wine, that the receivers “ may be filled with that Holy Spirit, and become worthy of Christ.” | F i. p. 46. Ap. aa.p. 9. Ap. ‘ch, Pp. Boa Ap, of, Ὁ 10a, t a. p. 30. Ap. 6:1. p. 12. Ap. “ce, p20. Ap, dm. 7. p.43.5Ap =h. p. 19. Ap. eb. pov. Ap. Y d. p. 19. Ap. fm, p. 8c ἌΡ. 2 p. 18. Ap. 8 ο, p. 53. 1. 42. Ap AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 135 (3.) A third thing promised, on God's part, in the Gospel- SEO ἐν covenant and the Eucharist is eternal happiness. Our 7 pica Saviour does very much inculcate this doctrine. He repeats rst, an as- surance of it five or six times one after another, that “ He who feedeth” a happy on this Bread shall live for ever ;” not indeed always in the tion. same words, but to the same sense: and, on the other side, ee 48 He never did, in more express and solemn words, pronounce a sentence of condemnation against any sort of men than against those who neglect this holy food ; “ Amen, Amen, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you.’ Nor are we to wonder, if Christ made something else, besides faith and obedience to the Moral Law, necessary to eternal salvation. Man, even in Paradise, had a positive law given him, over and above the laws of nature and reason, namely, “that he should not eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil ;” nay, if he had persisted in his obedience to this and all other laws, yet he could not by this means have attained eternal happiness, if he had not eat of the tree of life. If Man, by living in a constant course of obedience, without the use of any other means, might have secured to himself eternal life, this might have given him occasion to attribute his immor- tality to the virtue and power of his own righteousness and obedience ; but, by making the use of the fruit of the tree of life necessary to render him immortal, God gave to Man a demonstration, that eternal life and perfect obedience are two things that have no necessary dependence on each other. For the same reason, He hath required Christians not only to believe and obey in other respects ; but, in order to secure ourselves a happy resurrection, He directs us to feed on the Bread of Life, the holy Eucharist: for, by making this a necessary condition without which we cannot attain immortal happiness, He gives us a demonstration, that eternal life is the gift of God, and not the wages of our righteousness or obe- dience. When therefore our Saviour says, “ He that be- John vi. 47. lieveth on Me hath everlasting life,” the meaning is not, that faith alone is sufficient to salvation; but, that a true _ believer, by being a member of Christ’s Church and enjoying the Eucharist, has the means of eternal life provided for him h See Part I. p. (530. ] CHAP. LE John vi. 54 55. 136 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS by Christ Jesus, as Adam, by living in Paradise and having the fruit of the tree of life within his reach, might be said too to have eternal life. And it is very observable, how unanimous the ancient writers of the Church are, not only in asserting that this Sacrament is necessary to salvation, but, that it is a means, by which our bodies have a principle of a happy resurrection conveyed to them. This I look upon as a doctrine of very considerable moment, and to which our Saviour gives very great countenance in His whole discourse on this subject in John vi., but especially in those very ob- , servable words, ‘‘ Whoso feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh My Blood his drink, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day: for My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” Here our Saviour seems to magnify the excellence of the Sacramental meat and drink, and to ascribe to it the power of communicating the principles of a happy resurrection to all worthy receivers, (though not in such a manner as to exclude the necessity of His own immediate “mighty working.”) And that this was the universal belief of the greatest men in the purest ages of the Church will appear from the following authorities. Cyril of Alexandria’ speaks of the Eucharist as the Heavenly Life-giving Sacrifice, “ by which death is annulled, and [by which] this corruptible flesh which is from the earth puts on incorruption.” He calls it* “ the Body of the Word, Which quickens all things;” and! “because it is the Flesh of the Word, therefore it quickens all:”? but more fully still™, “ Christ, as God, helping our infir- mities, sends a lively power into the gifts” (the Bread and Wine) “ lying in open view, and changes them so as to become His Flesh in efficacy, that we may so receive them as to have Life communicated to us, and that the Body of Life may be found as a Life-giving seed within πι5.᾿ St.Chrysostom thus expresses his opinion®; “ Because our carnal nature was dead by means of sin and destitute of all life, Christ introduced another diet, or leaven, as one may say, being the same in nature but free from sin and full of life, that being nourished with it and putting off our former dead nature we may . 9. Ap. mm. p. 45. Ap. p- n Κι p. 42. Ap. Ρ. i e, k i, oma, AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 137 through this diet receive a tincture of immortality ;” and he wonders®, that any body should irreverently receive ‘the Body of Christ, by which we live and have our being.” St. Augustine gives us, not his own single testimony only, but that of the whole Punic Church, in those memorable words? ; “The Punic Christians call Baptism nothing but saLvatTion, the Sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing but tirz.” He calls this “ an Apostolical tradition and an inborn principle? of the Church ;” and afterwards adds, ‘What do they maintain, who call the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table tirr, but that which was said, ‘ lam the Bread of Life,’ and, ‘ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no Life in you?’” Ambrose tells his young communicant’, “ The food which you receive is the living Bread, Which descends from heaven, and ministers the substance of eternal life.’ Ephrem Syrus* gives the Eucharist the title of “‘ The mysteries full of immor- tality.” Gregory Nyssen‘ does at large assert this doctrine ; I will translate only a small part of it, viz., “The soul, being united to Christ by faith, has from thence the means of salvation ; but the body does, by another way, close and com- municate with our Saviour.—For as a little leaven makes the whole lump like to itself; so that Body” (he means the symbolical Bodyin the Eucharist), “ which was by God yielded up to death, being conveyed into our [body], changes and converts the whole into itself,’ &c. Epiphanius says", “The Bread is what we eat, the power in it is for the production of life:” Hilary*, “ This is the cause of cur life, that we have Christ Jesus by His Flesh remaining in our carnal selves.” Julius Firmicusy speaks of the Eucharist as “ the food, which imparts to mortal men the assurance of immortality ;” and _ adds, “Seek for the Bread, seek for the Cup of Christ; that, frail _ earth being overcome, the human substance may be replen- ished with immortal provision.” Cyril of Jerusalem asserts’, that “the Bread of the Eucharist is distributed into our _ system for the profit both of body and soul.” Athanasius eo Ὶ, p. 42. δ a. p. 23. Ap. Ρ P. p. 36. Ap. ud. p. 22. Ap. 4 {The Author read insitum for insti- * a. p. 20. Ap. _ tutum, which last has been restored in 7 p. 18. Ap. the present Edition. } zh. p. 19. Ap. * g. p. 26. Ap. © a. p. 25. Ap. a. p. 17. Ap. SECT. 1: CHAP. II. ——— and? “We have in this life the first-fruits of that [which is i 138 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS speaks of the Eucharist as “a preservative to eternal life ;” come], by partaking of the Flesh of our Lord, as He Him- self hath said, ‘The Bread which I shall give is My Flesh, &c., for the Flesh of our Lord is a Life-giving Spirit.” Clemens Alexandrinus tells us‘, that “to drink of the Cup of the Lord is to partake of His immortality.” Irenzus is most copious on this subject; for, discoursing against the heretics who denied the resurrection of the body, he thus argues‘; “ How can they say, that the flesh, which is nourished by the Body of the Lord and His Blood, should vanish into corruption ?” and, “ Our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer liable to vanish into corruption.” And again®: “ How can they say, that the flesh, which is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, and which is a member of Him, is not capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life ?—And as a branch of a vine laid in the earth does in time produce fruit ; and a grain of wheat, falling into the earth and dying, yet rises again with manifold increase by the Spirit of God; and © afterwards, by the Divine wisdom, they, coming to the use of man and receiving the Word of God, are made the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ: so our bodies, being nourished by the same [Eucharist], after they have been buried in the earth and dissolved in it, shall be raised again in their proper season.” But no one teaches this doctrine more clearly than the holy Ignatius, who‘ calls the Eucharist, “the One Bread, the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death and for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Cyril of Alexandria could not assert this doctrine in the fifth century more expressly than Irenzus did the same in the second; nor does I[renzeus more plainly assert it toward the latter end of the second century, than Ignatius did in the beginning of it. Thus the terms of the Covenant, on God’s part, do prove” the great necessity of the Eucharist ; for if pardon, grace, and eternal life, do depend on our duly administering and re- ceiving this Sacrament, and if baptized Christians have these Ae 11... "4: 7. Ap. ‘ i §. 1, 21. Ap. ἣν d Ds _— AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 139 promises there and nowhere else sealed to them, then it is SECT. very evident that the Eucharist is as necessary, as these Ξ blessings are, to our spiritual welfare. 2. If we consider the Covenant, on our parts, we shall still be more sensible of the necessity of the Eucharist. Now our part of the Covenant is, sincere obedience toward God, and mutual love and charity toward each other. (1.) The main article in the Gospel-covenant, required on Obedience - Ε Ε . eur . on our part our part, is sincere obedience: and since it is evident by the necessary -words used by our Saviour, that we are to eat this Bread and Ce drink of thisCup as a “Covenant ;” therefore, whoever partakes oe of this Sacrament, does thereby profess to stand to his part of it, and therefore to be in a full and steady purpose of walk- ing in all the commandments of God ; for otherwise he does not consider and use it as a “Covenant.” None therefore ean be worthy receivers but they, who come to the Lord’s Table with sincere obedience or with sincere repentance. Christ does absolutely require either the one or the other ; and, to lay the stronger obligations upon us, He commands us to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood, and thereby to make our profession of obedience or at least of repentance. And this was the only proper course He could take to lay His disciples under a necessity to preserve their covenant with God, (I mean a necessity without compulsion:) we either must profess ourselves His disciples by eating this Bread and drinking this Cup, and by doing this we must also declare our unfeigned resolutions of keeping all His /other laws; or else we must own that we are not His dis- ciples, that we do not profess obedience to His laws, and \therefore forbear to communicate in this Sacrament; and that, by consequence, we are in a state of sin, and that the τα ἢ of God abideth on us. It is vain for men to say, that | they do obey or do repent, but do not think fit to make pro- fession of it by receiving of the Eucharist ; for, it is certain, ‘the neglect of this one duty is sufficient to render all that we ‘do ineffectual ; for Christ Himself hath said, “ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have ‘no life im you.” So that Christ not only absolutely requires ‘us to obey or repent, but likewise to make profession of our obedience or repentance by doing this in remembrance of | | 140 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS CHAP. Him, if it be not impossible for want of outward means. He Ohrist, by making the use of the Sacrament so very necessary, intended to lay His disciples under the strongest obligations to obedience; and it is certainly proper and necessary, that all men should be sensible of their duty, and should openly profess this sense, and bring themselves under the most forcible ties for the performance of it ; and Christ designed to do all this at once, by expressly charging us to feed on His Sacramental Flesh and Blood. And it is very vain and wicked, on the other side, to pretend to lay hold on the Covenant, and to communicate, while we are in a state of disobedience or impenitence; for they, who do this, do cer- tainly “eat and drink their own damnation,” by pretending to covenant and communicate with God, while they are rebels in their hearts; or drawing nigh to Him with their lips, while their hearts are far from Him: so that, in fine, it is necessary not only in other particulars to comply with the Gospel-covenant, but to make open profession of it by the Communion ; and it is necessary, that the Communion should be received with faithful and obedient dispositions. Wilfully to abstain from the Eucharist, or to receive it with hypo- critical or profane minds, is dangerous and fatal; and it is therefore a very important and necessary duty to commu- nicate worthily, and in such a manner, as that Christ may be one with us and we with Him. And (2.) But mutual charity of Christians toward each other char’: and toward all men is so singular a duty, so distinguishing a necessary badge of Christ’s disciples, that it would be a fault not to for commu- nion Oe take particular notice of it. This is that which our Saviour each other. Matt, v. 23, to God’s Table, in those excellent words; “If thou bring thy a gift to the Altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the then come and offer thy gift.” By this He obliges all Chris- tians that have done wrong, to make satisfaction, and to use all proper means to procure a reconcilement, before they dare to offer their gift, or present their alms or oblations at the Communion-table ; and by several of His other lessons, He has obliged them who are wronged, to forgive the ΤΉ}, AN INSTITUTION OF CHRIST. 141 when the party who did it turns again and repents: and by this means Christ designed to make the Eucharist a means not only of communicating with God but also with one another, and to make the Sacrament of His Body and Blood a bond of universal peace and amity. And all, sure, will agree with me, that it was proper that our Saviour should lay upon men the strongest obligations to peace and holiness, and I suppose He could not do more to this purpose than He has actually done, by obligimg men to receive this Sacrament, and by obligmg them to do it with holy and peaceable in- tentions and resolutions; I mean, He could not have done ‘more, unless He had used direct force and compulsion. Rare. I SECr. TH: of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist considered as a Sacrifice. In affirming and proving that the Eucharist is a proper Sacrifice, I have not been at all upon the reserve, because 1 have had a cloud of witnesses, even among the Reformed, that have borne me out as to this particular: but, in speaking of the necessity of it, it will become me to tread more warily ; because, the most eminent vouchers of this truth among us being now dead, without having expressly delivered their sentiments concerning the importance of this doctrine, I am forced here to go by myself. I am very sensible, that if I should advance the necessity of the practising the Eucha- vist as a Sacrifice, in such a manner as to lay myself open to a prosecution, I have enemies enow, that are both able and willing to take the advantage; therefore I shall not proceed in the positive way, but only desire my reader to consider, I. Whether the Eucharist, having been instituted as a Sacrifice by Christ, sehen not, for that reason, to be used as a Sacrifice by us? 11. Whether the Eucharist can be esteemed and used as she principal service and worship of God’s Church, if it be not esteemed and used as a Sacrifice ? SECT. EK CHAP. Il. Divine in- stitutions not to be altered by us. 142 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS ITI. Whether the Eucharist can be the most proper method of Christians’ communicating and covenanting with God and each other, if it be not a Sacrifice? And, IV. Whether the symbols can be truly consecrated, with- out being offered to God? I. It seems to be very probable, that all imstitutions of Christ are to be used and practised according to the pattern and directions which He gave us. Protestants, for instance, — seem agreed, that in the Eucharist we ought always to eat and drink the symbols as well as to consecrate them ; because Christ did not only bless the Bread and Cup, but said, “ Hat this, Drink this.” They all seem to consent in this, that the — Cup is to be given to all the communicants, because Christ said, “Drink ye all of this.” To alter the institution of Christ in these particulars would be thought to be an im- pious profanation by all that have a true zeal for the ordi- nances of Christ, of which number I profess myself to be. Now if Christ did give the Bread to God as His Sacramental Body, and pour out the Wine as His Sacramental Blood for the remission of sins; if He did declare His Body to be now given, His Blood to be now shed, when He first adminis- tered this Sacrament to the Apostles; then it seems to me — that we are to do the same, if we are to do what Christ did, when He first instituted the Eucharist. If indeed it can be proved, that Christ did mean to say no more than, that His Body should hereafter be given or offered to God, that His Blood should be hereafter shed, then I will grant, that this is no proof of the necessity of offermg the Bread and Wine as the figures of His Body and Blood. But if this cannot be © done, then it well deserves the consideration of all sober Christians, whether they, who celebrate the Sacrament with- out offering the symbols to God, do fulfil the institution of Christ; and this consideration is of the greater weight, because — the ancient primitive Church did universally consent in this — practice, and did believe that they had the authority of Christ for so doing, as I have shewed in the First Part of this work. — If the offering of the Bread and Cup in the Eucharist be the | institution of Christ, all sound Christians will agree with me, that all the authority of men and angels combined together — cannot alter it. THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 143 II. The second question is, whether the Eucharist can be SECT. esteemed and practised as the principal worship and service anes of God’s Church, if it be not practised as a Sacrifice. That the princi- it is the principal worship and service of God’s Church is, Pere. I suppose, sufficiently proved in the last section: and now, ©?" if it do further appear, that the most excellent worship of God’s Church has ever been Sacrifice, then it may seem to follow, that if the Eucharist be not used and practised as a Sacrifice, it cannot be the most excellent worship. If indeed God have varied in this particular, and declared that Sacri- fice is not the most excellent worship under the Gospel, _ though it were so before, then it is owned that this argu- ment is of no force ; but if it were in all former ages declared to be the principal worship of His Church, and if He have revealed nothing to the contrary under the Gospel, then _ perhaps even judicious men may be of opinion that the Eucharist cannot be the principal and most excellent wor- ship, unless it be used and esteemed as a Sacrifice ; espe- cially when it is considered, that God is so far from having declared that He would have all men cease to worship Him | by sacrifice, that His own Son taught us to sacrifice, when He ordained the Eucharist, which I suppose I have already proved. Now that I may give some light to my reader in this particular, I will shew what seems to carry a fair degree of probability with it, viz. ——————————eeee—e——eeeee— . 1. That God did, either by the light of nature direct, or by | express revelation first command, or by His approbation con- firm and establish, the worshipping of Him by Sacrifice. | 2. That He did direct, command, or establish it, as the | rincipal worship, which He required. _ 3. That God did never wholly abolish Sacrifice, and that | therefore it still remains to be the principal worship due to Him from His Church. 1. That God did, either by the light of nature direct, or by Sacrifice, 5 Ἶ Ε instituted express revelation command, or by His approbation confirm py pivine and establish, the worshipping of Him by Sacrifice. I see no “erty. occasion for any man positively to determine, by which of these methods God was pleased first to settle the practice of Ι ee 144. THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS νὰ ς P. Sacrifice. It seems sufficient to say, that Sacrifice has been — the perpetual worship practised by God’s Church and settled by a Divine authority; that all pious people, before Christ, did worship God by Sacrifice, is so well known by all that read the Bible, that it will be perfectly needless to enter into the proof of it. That the Jews sacrificed by God’s express. command, there can be no doubt; that the ancients, from Abel to Moses, did offer sacrifice, is very clear ; but upon what — principles they did it, is not altogether so certaim. Here there are three opinions which deserve to be considered : Perhaps by (1.) The first is that of some ancient Christian writers, who ened t believed that Abel, Noah, and the other Patriarchs, offered sacrifice by the direction of their reason, or by the light of nature, or an instinct of conscience. And that this was their opinion is confessed &. I believe all will agree with me, that no law of nature was ever more universally received and prac- tised among all mankind, than this of Sacrifice. We are sure it began in the infancy of the world, soon after Adam’s re- moval out of Paradise, if not before; and the use of it was continued amongst all mankind until the coming of Christ; and our Saviour was never, by the Christians of the first ages, thought wholly to have abolished Sacrifice. If we were not assured by Scripture that Abel and Noah sacrificed, yet we must in reason believe that this way of worship came from the first parents of mankind; for it will otherwise be next to an impossibility to shew, how it should come to be the uni- versal practice of all civilized nations. Menmight But they, who deny that we have any ideas or notions of themselves Od or His worship written on our minds by nature, may ἐρηϑὰν τρια demand, how men could reason themselves into the use of Sacrifice? And I cannot think that there is any great diffi- culty in this; for all who believed that God governed the world, and that they received all the good things they had from Him, and that by sin they provoked His anger, could not but use all proper means to express their thanks to Him, and to procure His favour ; especially when they had reason to think, that they had forfeited it by any wilful transgression: of His Law. It may be thought, that praise and prayer might be sufficient to these ends; but the ancient people might ® Outram de Sacrific., p. 7—11. THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 145 think it reasonable to express the thanks and desires of their SECT. hearts by actions as well as words, as justly supposing that . ἘΞ actions, especially if they are expensive and magnificent, do give a greater proof of the earnestness of our thoughts than bare words can do. The ancients might think that they could not better declare the sense they had of God’s mercies and their wishes of obtaining His favour, than by offering to Him a part of the best they had. And all who believe the Scriptures, and yet think that Sacrifice was an invention of men, must suppose that the ancient people were led into the use of Sacrifice by some such notions as these ; and though they, in their modern wisdom, may think these reasonings very weak, yet they must be forced to allow that the great and infallible Judge, Who seeth not as they see, did allow and approve these reasonings; for He effectually declared His gracious acceptance of them. If nothing indeed could be said to be sacrificed but what is burnt in the fire, then it cannot well be conceived how natural reason could direct men to sacrifice. Reason can no more direct us to give a thing to God by putting it into the fire, than by throwing it into the water. But it has been shewed, that burning is not the act, whereby a thing is offered to God, but by which He declared His acceptance of it. And since some of the an- cient people sacrificed without fire, therefore it is possible that they might reason themselves into this practice. The Persians thought it sufficient to lay what they sacrificed in a clean place ; and even some of them, who used altars, yet put no fire on them, as hath been already shewed. (2.) The most prevailing opinion among the best Divines others of later ages is, that Sacrifice was instituted by an express ols revelation of God to Adam and his children. If we could pian kb in- itution ; depend on the authority of the LXX Translators, this point which is most pro- would be very clear; for the words of God to Cain, accord- jah). ing to them", should be thus turned, viz., “If thou hast offered rightly, but hast not divided rightly, hast thou not sinned?” For by this it seems evident, that God had not only prescribed | the manner of offering sacrifice, but the proportion to be ob- served in dividing it betwixt Himself and the offerers ; and it must be owned to be impossible by human reason to αὐτὰ h Gen. iv. 7, οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες, JOHNSON. F 146 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS θεὰ P. any proportions in dividing the sacrifice between God and —— the priests and people. And many learned men do approve of this translation, in particular Isaac Vossius and Father Simon; nay, St. Paul seems to countenance it, when he says, *‘ Abel offered more sacrifice than Caini,” for the word ‘excel- lent’ is not in the Greek. — ne I conceive, that all who have any regard for revealed Reli- positions gion must own, that Sacrifice was first enacted by the Divine sonable, Will, and taught to the first parents of mankind either by the than that Jight of nature or by express revelation. For otherwise it is anes not to be conceived, that Abel, who is proposed to us as an apa a example of faith and piety, should have presumed to offer it. It is certain, that during his life-time there was a settled intercourse between God and man. Adam was yet alive, who had a frequent correspondence with the other world ; when it is evident, that God did by an audible voice call © Cain to account for the murder, of which he had been guilty, and gave a charge to all men that they should not murder | him; when Cain was permitted to expostulate with God concerning the grievousness of his punishment; certainly it cannot be believed, that Adam and Abel either were not permitted to inquire of God what sort of worship would be most acceptable to Him (if they did not know it before by — their own natural light), or that they should of their own head choose a way of worship, without consulting God or receiving His instructions, when they might have had them for asking. Will-worship is thought blameable in us; but it was certainly more blameable in them, who could not want an opportunity of receiving directions from God Him- self. And while God did of His own free grace and favour so frequently communicate His will to man; it can scarce in reason be supposed, that He would not of His own accord inform him in that way of worship, which was most agreeable to His own will; which was the thing, which it chiefly con- cerned man to know. Ifitwerea (3.) But the Deists can allow no other beginning to human in- pre: Sacrifice but from the simple rude conceits of the ancient laa by people; and I find some late Divines joining with them in wae ψὰ this particular. What end they propose to themselves in i Heb. xi. 4, πλείονα θυσίαν “ABeA παρὰ Κάϊν προσήνεγκε. THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 147 doing this, the Deists know very well; the others I am persuaded can have none but this, namely, to bring Sacrifice into contempt, and especially that of the Eucharist; but in charity I believe they are not sensible, that by making Sacrifice a rude fond invention of men, they do very much lessen the wisdom of the whole Gospel-dispensation, the sum of which is this; that the Son of God took our nature upon Him, in order to render Himself a Sacrifice for the sins of men. And the Deists know very well, that if Sacrifice itself owe its beginning to the devices of the dark and ignorant ages of the world, this will be a means to degrade and bring into contempt the Sacrifice of Christ Jesus and the Redemp- tion wrought by it; for, upon this supposition, it must be said, that God sent His Son into the world to die as a Sacri- fice for sin, in compliance with a fond notion of the simple and rude ancestors of mankind, that Sacrifice was the most proper method of pacifymg God and reconciling Him to sinful men. It is much more for the honour of this Divine dispensation to assert, that Sacrifice took its rise from the will of a most wise and just God, Who, by a decree past from the beginning of the world and soon after revealed to mankind, resolved, that Sacrifice should be the means whereby men should seek His favour; and that, therefore, in the | fulness of time, His Son should restore lost mankind to His grace and mercy by the Sacrifice of Himself. And I _ conceive, that he who makes the Scripture the measure of | his faith must believe, that God had actually decreed that Sacrifice should be the means whereby men should render | Him propitious to themselves, before He declared that the _ Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. For _ there can be no doubt but that the meaning of this declara- tion is, that Christ, by the Sacrifice of Himself or by His Death, should overcome him that had the power of death, | that is, the devil; and if Christ were to do this by the | Sacrifice of Himself, then God must have, before this, decreed, that Sacrifice should be the means of obtaining His \favour; for the other decree of the Sacrifice of Christ is grounded on this decree last mentioned, that Sacrifice should | be the means of obtaining His favour. And since He had determined this within Himself, it is reasonable to believe, L2 SECT. I. CHAP. Tk Sacrifice, the settled Divine wor- ship, before Moses’ Law was given. Gen. xv. 9. Job ΧΙ]. 8. Exod. iii. 12. 18. Exod. x. 25, 26. Exod, xxiv. 148 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS that He did also make it known to men; and the practice of — Cain and Abel, in offering sacrifice to Him soon after, makes it highly probable that He did so. But let it be granted, or rather supposed, that Sacrifice was the invention of simple ignorant men; yet still it must be granted too by all that believe the Scripture, that God did approve this manner of worshipping Him, when performed aright ; for “ God had respect to Abel, and to his sacrifice,” or offering : and when Noah offered his burnt-offerings, “the Lord smelled a sweet savour,” that is, He was so far pleased with it as to accept it, and thereupon to declare that He would “no more curse the earth for man’s sake.” And the signal approbation which God gave of the sacrifices offered by these two eminent servants of God, was a very great — encouragement to other men to use the same method of — making their addresses to the Divine Majesty ; and by this means the practice of Sacrifice might be confirmed and estab- lished. It is certain in fact, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Melchisedec, Job, and Jethro, did offer sacrifice to God; and if they had no other grounds to hope for acceptance, but from the examples of Noah and Abel, yet it cannot be said, that by using this way of worship they acted without a warrant from Almighty God. But we are further assured, that God did, once at least, expressly command Abraham to sacrifice to Him; for when He says, “ ‘Take unto Me an heifer of three years old,” &c., by ‘taking’ He means ‘ offering,’ as all expositors do, I think, agree : and He positively charges Eliphaz to “ offer Him seven bullocks and seven rams.” It is evident, that Sacrifice was looked on as the established worship of God’s Church, while the Israelites werein Egypt; for ‘to serve God’ and ‘to sacrifice to Him’ are two phrases signifying the same thing in those texts of Scripture, “ Ye shall serve God at this mount,” and “Let us go, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God ;” and in those words of Moses to Pharaoh, “Thou must give us sacrifices and burnt-offerings unto the Lord our God; for of [our cattle] must we take to serve the Lord our God, and we know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come thither.” And it is certain that God’s promise was ful-_ filled, and the Israelites did actually sacrifice at this moun- THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 149 tain, before the Levitical ordinances were given. While the SECT. Israelites were in Egypt, they might justly be afraid to sacri- fice to God in public; but that they did it in secret, there is no reason to doubt. Not Sacrifice itself was first established ¥ Wisd. xviii. by the Levitical Law, but those numerous rites and ceremonies which were to be used in doing of it; and, especially, the restraint of Sacrifice to one place only, viz., the door of the tabernacle. Nay, it is certain, that if the Israelites had, during their abode in Egypt, thought themselves under no obligation to offer sacrifice to God, yet they must think themselves bound to do it for the future by virtue of an express law given to them, before the Levitical ordinances had ever been mentioned, before any intimation had been given them of God’s intention to have one peculiar taber- nacle for the performance of this worship; nay, before the making of the golden calf, which is commonly thought to have given occasion to the whole Levitical way of worship. The law, meant by me, is that which was delivered immedi- ately after the Ten Commandments, viz., “An altar of earth Exod. xx. thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy i burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in ali places where I record My Name, I will come unto thee, and bless thee :” and this is so far from being a Levitical law, that it was plainly revoked by that Law; for here the Jews were to make an altar of earth, and were to sacrifice, in every place where God should record His Name, on such an altar; but by the Levitical Law there was but one altar of burnt- elvis allowed, and that made of Exod. wood overlaid with brass. Nay, the Passover and the paste firstlings were expressly enjomed to be offered to God before τ. or upon the people’s going out of Egypt, and yet were as real io EV; sacrifices as any that were ever slain in the temple of Jeru- ὁ salem. From which it is very evident, that God had, by a very plain revelation of His will, confirmed and established this practice of offering sacrifice, before He enacted the Levitical Law: and that, therefore, if it should be granted without any proof, that Sacrifice was first invented by men ; yet it cannot be denied, that it was afterwards commanded by God. I proceed to shew, 2. That God did establish Sacrifice as the most excellent 150 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS ORAS: and prevailing way of worship. Now there is no way of ἘΞ 7a worship to be compared with Sacrifice, but only that of tended it to prayer and praise, presented to God with a pious heart and be themost ὁ. Pay Ws . excellent Volce; and this is now commonly magnified, as the only worship. spiritual and acceptable service; but to demonstrate that this is only a vulgar error, I shall prove these two things, 1. That Sacrifice implies prayer and praise ; 2. That it adds force and power to prayer and praise, and makes them the more prevailing with God. 1. As im- (1.) Sacrifice implies prayer and praise, that is, whatever plying prayer and material thing was ever offered to God, the intention of the prase- person who offered it was, to express his desire that God would either grant him some particular favour, or, in general, that God would grant him whatever he stood in need of; or else it was, to declare his thanks and testify his gratitude for some mercy which he had received. This was the judgment of Philo‘, the very ancient Jew; who says, that all, who offer sacrifice, do it “by way of prayer or thanksgiving :” and, speaking of the very ancient people, he says, ‘‘ They betook themselves to thanksgiving and prayer, by sacrifice’.” It is — upon this account, that the temple, which is im one place αὐ τ τως “the house of sacrifice,” is at another place called “the house Isa. lvi. 7. Of prayer.” It is a mistake in any man to suppose, that the prophet Isaiah, when he calls the temple an house of | prayer, means any other prayer but what was employed in ~ sacrifice. He explains his meaning by those words in the same verse, “Their burnt-offerings and oblations shall be accepted on Mine altar:” so that ‘to accept sacrifice’ and ‘to hear prayer’ were phrases of the same signification. The most learned Outram™ has so largely and effectually proved - this, both from the Jewish and heathen writers, that it will be altogether superfluous for me to dwell any longer upon it. And the Jews as well as Gentiles did, not only with secret and silent wishes and the inward devotion of their minds, — but by forms of devotion uttered by word of mouth, declare — k Philo, De Animalib. sacrificio ἔδοξεν ἀνθρώποις ἐπὶ τὰς διὰ θυσιῶν εὖ- idon. χαριστίας ἅμα καὶ λιτὰς ἐλθεῖν, κ- τ. A» 1 [Ei γὰρ βούλοιτό τις ἐξετάζειν a- p. 240.] κοιβῶς Tas αἰτίας ὧν ἕνεκα τοῖς πρώτοις ™ Outram, De Saerif., p. [235—246. } THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 15] their meaning in bringing the sacrifice to be offered. This anos will appear sufficiently evident to him who peruses the authorities I have elsewhere® produced concerning offering sacrifice by prayers. It is therefore impossible in the nature _ of things, that prayer and praise without sacrifice can be better than with it; because he who sacrifices as he ought does at the same time pray to God and praise God, and therefore offers what commonly goes by the name of ‘spiritual sacrifice ; and, by doing this, he does all that can be done with heart and voice, and by this alone equals the devotion of him who offers nothing but words and thoughts. But then he does something more too; he offers such a material sacrifice as God requires. And, (2.) Material sacrifice was designed to add force to prayer and praise, and make them more prevailing with God; and is therefore more excellent and effectual than bare prayer and praise, proceeding from the mouth and heart: and it is highly unreasonable, and is an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God, to suppose that He would establish a practice, or even countenance it, which put the worshippers to a very considerable charge to no purpose at all. It is, l conceive, granted by all, who confess there is a God Who governs the world, that prayer and praise is a worship which natural light instructs men to pay to Him. Now if these are as excellent and prevailing with God, when offered singly and apart, as when joined with material sacrifice, it will be utterly unaccountable, why God should institute or approve a way of worship, attended with so much expence and trouble. The Psalmist desires of God, that “his prayer might be set Psalm exli, forth in His sight as the incense; and that the lifting up of - his hands might be as the evening sacrifice :” but who ever wished that his sacrifice might be as acceptable as prayer? The ninth hour was an hour of prayer; and the reason of it was, because then the evening sacrifice was offered in the temple. Elijah chose this time for praying for fire from 1 Kings heaven to consume the bullock, thereby to convince the *“” people that the Lord was God. The incense® was always mn See Chap. I. Sect. vi. Talmuds, viz., “The trimming of the ° Ainsworth on Exod. xxvii. 21. has ἔνε lamps was before the blood of the the following words from one of the daily sacrifice; and the blood of the CHAP. II. Judith ix. 1. Luke i. 10. Ecclus. 1. 14—19. Psalm xxvi. 6,7; xliii. 4. 1 Kings viii. 22. 54. 152 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS burnt immediately after the slaying the morning and evening sacrifice ; and Judith chose this time to offer up her prayers too; as also the people generally did by an established cus- tom, as appears not only from St. Luke, but from the son of Sirach ; who, having described the daily sacrifice, and having related how “they finished the service, and poured out the drink-offering at the foot of the altar,’ adds, “ Then shouted the sons of Aaron, and sounded the silver trumpets ; then all the people together hasted, and fell down to the earth upon their faces, to worship the Lord God; and the people besought the Lord by prayer.” While the flesh of the sacrifice was burning upon one altar, and the fume of the incense ascending from the other, was the proper time for prayer; because sacrifice was intended to enforce other devotions, and render them more effectual and prevailing with God. For this reason the altar was thought the most proper place for all public prayer. Thither David went to “shew the voice of thanksgiving, and to tell of God’s wondrous works ;” this was the place he chose, at which to exercise the duty of praise with vocal and instrumental music; so he himself informs us, in saying, “I will go unto the altar of God, and on the harp I will give thanks unto Thee, O God, my God.” And Solomon did at the same place offer the most solemn prayer of dedication; for he expected that his prayers would find the better acceptance by virtue of the sacrifices there daily offered, and especially of those which he offered just before this prayer, which were so many that they “could not be numbered for multitude.” It could be for no other reason, that men, when they were under any pre- sent difficulty, did not think it sufficient to pray, but to pro- mise, that if they were vouchsafed a deliverance from their present troubles, they would offer sacrifice to God; which could be done upon no other foundation than this, that Sacrifice was of greater power with God than bare prayer. Nay, it appears from this, that Sacrifice, before it was actually offered, and only sincerely intended and promised, might move God to grant the petitions of His people, and that daily sacrifice before the trimming of incense.” [The reference given is to the two lamps; and the trimming of the Babylonian Talmud, in Ioma, ec. ὃ. the two lamps before the burning of fol. 33.] THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 153 prayer, without such a vow, was not so acceptable as with it ; SEOR. and it is well known, that all mankind did of old agree in these notions and practices, the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Nay, when the Jews were under a disability of approaching to God’s altar, and by captivity transplanted into countries many hundred miles distant from Jerusalem, yet they are directed to make their prayers toward this place of sacrifice ; 1 Kings and the heathen”, when they had nothing to offer, enforced ”” robe: their prayers by reminding their gods of the sacrifices, which - they had formerly presented at the altar. And as it was the priest’s office to bless the people; so it deserves our parti- cular observation, that the stated time for doing this was immediately after he had finished the sacrificial solemnity : “ Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed Lev. ix. 22. them, and came down from offering the sin-offering and the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings.” This was the first time of Aaron’s offering sacrifice, and was designed as a _ pattern of his ministrations for the time to come. And after the most solemn Passover kept by King Hezekiah and his ΠΟ people, and the magnificent sacrifices of a thousand bullocks and seven thousand sheep provided by that religious king, and as many bullocks and ten thousand sheep offered at the expence of the princes, we read, that “the priests, the 2 Chron. | Levites, arose, and blessed the people; and their voice was ~~ τοὶ heard, and their prayer came up to God’s holy dwelling- place, even to heaven.” So the son of Sirach concludes his description of the priest’s offering sacrifice, with these words ; _“ He went down, and lifted up his hands over the whole con- Ecclus. 1. | gregation, to give the blessing of the Lord with his lips: and ees | they (the people) bowed themselves to worship the second time, that they might receive the blessing from the Most High.” By this is fairly intimated, that by sacrifices duly offered men take the most effectual course to draw down blessings from heaven upon their own heads, and that the priest’s power of blessing the people is grounded on that of offering sacrifice ; and that for this reason the priest’s “minis- tering” to God at the altar does in the Scripture-language1 in —_ | | | P So Electra in Sophocles: Electra, "AD ὧν ἔχοιμι λιπαρεῖ mpdvaTny χερί. | ver. 1376. 4 See Deut. x. 8; xxi. 5; 1 Chron, “Avat Ἄπολλον, ἵλεως αὐτοῖν κλύε, xxiii. 13. Ἐμοῦ τε πρὸς τούτοισιν, ἥ σε πολλὰ δὴ CHAP. Il. Psalm Ixix. 31, 32. Prayer and praise ab-~ surdly pre- 154 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS lead the way to “blessing the people” in God’s Name. And* we are assured that the practice of the Jewish priests agreed — with this notion; for their time of blessing the people was just after the daily morning-sacrifice. And it is observable, {πε God first instructed Moses, and he informed his brother Aaron in the form and manner of blessing the peo- ple, just before the noble and magnificent oblations and — sacrifices were brought by the princes of the congregation — immediately before Aaron’s consecration, and was offered by him presently after it; for this was the first remarkable occasion which Aaron had to pass this solemn benediction, after he was consecrated. And by this we are to learn, that the priest’s solemn prayer for a blessing on the people re- ceived its efficacy from the sacrifice, which they offered. Τὸ have elsewheret spoken more on this subject, when I was — treating of the ends of Sacrifice. I shall therefore have done with this head, when I have observed, that there is one text of Scripture, which seems expressly to prefer solemn praises — offered with voice and heart before material sacrifices; I mean those words of David, “I will praise the Name of God with a song, and magnify it with thanksgiving: this also shall please the Lord, better than a bullock that hath horns © and hoofs.” But I must crave leave to render the last verse, “This also shall please the Lord by means of a bullock*,” — &c. This agrees with the sense of the Scripture in other places, which perpetually attributes to Sacrifice the power of | rendering other devotions more acceptable; and the Hebrew is altogether as capable of this sense, as of that which is commonly given to it. I cannot, therefore, but esteem it one of the most un-— accountable errors of this latter age, that prayer and praise r Ainsworth hath the following words from Maimonides, ‘‘ The priests went up to the bank or stage; after that the priests had finished the daily morning-service, and lifted up their hands on high above their heads, and one pronounced the blessing word by word,”’ &c. [on Numb. vi. 23. ] 8 See Numb. vi. 24, tothe end of the asall allow. It is true, the LXX render it ὑπὲρ τὸν μόσχον, κ. T.A., and it must — be confessed, that the preposition émép, with an accusative, does for the most part signify ‘above,’ or ‘ better than;’ — but ὑπὲρ, with this case, may signify — ‘after:’ the Hebrew }1) is so translated ο Hos. vi. 2, and it will very well fit the words in this place, viz., ‘‘ This song chapter, and the whole seventh chapter. * See Chap. I. Sect. ii. Ὁ 319 has this signification very often, shall please the Lord, [being sung] after the bullock has been offered as @ sacrifice.’’ THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 155 without material sacrifices are more excellent and prevailing SECT. with God, than with a material sacrifice joined with them. -- τ -- The only pretence for this is, that it is more spiritual, and, per by consequence, more agreeable to spiritual beings, such as God and the souls of men; and it was this, which made Porphyry’, after he had apostatized from Christianity, re- nounce not only all outward sacrifice but all use of the voice or any part of the body im the service of God. This has already so far transported the Quakers, as to make them abandon the Sacraments; and if hereafter any man of new light shall undertake to refine and improve upon the Quakers’ principles*, it may be justly foretold, that they will either wholly lay aside public worship, or, however, have none but silent meetings. It is certain, a worship is spiritual, when it is rational and intelligible. Material things, as books, and water, and bread, and wine, and bodily actions, as speaking, singing, bowing, kneeling, do not at all destroy the nature of spiritual worship ; nay, kissmg was thought very consistent with it in the Apostles’ days. ‘There is in Scripture mention made of “spiritual sacrifices ;’ but that nothing but prayer can be meant by that expression, has not yet been proved: _ May, prayer does never expressly pass by the name of a sacri- fice in the Old or New Testament. Prayer is sometimes said | to be “ offered,” and so is the fire with which the sacrifice or incense was burnt under the old Law; and Nadab and Abihu _ suffered for “offering strange fire ;” but neither the prayer nor fire are honoured with the name of sacrifice. I deny not but it may be, and is, called so by ancient writers in a _ figurative and improper sense, as likewise a “ contrite spirit” VY [@vcouev τοίνυν καὶ ἡμεῖς" ἀλλὰ Ὅμεν, ὡς προσήκει, διαφόρους τὰς θυσίας, ὧς ἄν διαφόροις δυνάμεσι προσ- “ He knows (the Spirit that in secret sees, Of Whose omniscient and all-spread- ἄγοντες Θεῷ μεν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, ds τὶς ing love ἀνὴρ σοφὸς ἔφη, μηδὲν τῶν αἰσθητῶν Aught to implore were impotence of μῆτε θυμιῶντες μήτε ἐπονομάζοντες" ov- mind) δὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἔνυλον, ὃ μὴ τῷ ἀύλῳ εὐ- θύς ἐστιν ἀκάθαρτον. Διὸ οὐδὲ λόγος τούτῳ, ὃ κατὰ φωνὴν, οἰκεῖος, οὐδ᾽ ὁ ἔν- δον, ὅταν πάθει ψυχῆς ἢ μεμολυσμέ- νος" διὰ δὲ σιγῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτοῦ καθαρῶν ἐννοιῶν θρησκεύομεν αὐ- τόν. --- Porph., De Abst., lib. ii. p. 78 That my mute thoughts are sad be- fore His throne,’”’ &c. He afterwards added this note: “I utterly recant the sentiments contained in the lines, &c., it being written in Scripture, ‘ 4sk, and it shall be given you;’ and my human reason being moreover convinced of the propriety of ~ - Ὡ χπτὰπ αν .} x [A late illustrious poet partly ful- filled this prediction, when he wrote the lines, offering petitions as well as thanks- givings to the Deity.’’—See Coleridge’s Poetical Works. } CHAP. God never abolished Sacrifice. Psalm xl. 6; Heb. x. 5, 6 ,&e. 156 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS is called a sacrifice by David, though it be no more than a disposition of mind fitting us for devotion and humiliation, — and may prevail with God, when no real sacrifice is to be had. The Jews, who lived far distant from the temple, were obliged, for the most part, to content themselves to worship God by — prayer and praise, without material sacrifice, in their syna- gogues; and this was the case of the Jews that were captives — or by other accidents dispersed in countries remote from Jerusalem; but sure, no rational man will doubt but that the temple-worship was in itself more to be valued and desired than that of the synagogues; else why was the temple built and rebuilt, and the building of it thought so great a blessing? and whatever is now said of prayer without sacrifice, it is certain it is but mere synagogue-worship. 3. I am to shew, that God never abolished Sacrifice; and that therefore it still remains the most excellent and prevail- ing method of Divine worship. Now in order to this, I shall consider those texts which may, in the opinion of some, seem to declare all Sacrifice abolished. The first text of this sort is that of David, “ Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not—burnt-offermg and sacrifice for sin hast Thou not required.” Many believe that these words are in some sense to be applied to the time of David, as well — as to that of the Messias; but it cannot im reason be sup- posed, that David did hereby intend to say, that sacrifice was a needless thing, or that the Law of Moses did not command men to offer it, or that that Law was out of date. The contrary to all this was certainly true, and David owned it to be so by offering sacrifice to God. He might indeed intend to declare his judgment, that God had no such desires or appetite to sacrifice as could make Him uneasy at the want of it, or that He did not choose it as a thing from which He received any real advantage ; so the Hebrew words here used may be understood; and in this sense it was true, not only in David’s time, but in all ages before and after him, that God takes no real delight, receives no pleasure or profit from any thing that we are capable of giving Him; He only accepts of it as of an act of obedience to His laws, and does not desire it for its own sake, as if He were a gainer by it. | This text is to be understood of the Levitical sacrifices. — THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 157 So the Apostle teaches us, when, having cited these words, SECT. he applies them to the sacrifices “ offered by the Law ; and | ry indeed it is absurd to suppose, that either David or St. Paul 6. 8, 9. should say that God desired no sacrifice at all; for this would render the Sacrifice of Christ Himself ie font vain and needless. Whereas it is St. Paul’s design in this place to prove, that “David taketh away the first,’ that is, the Levitical sacrifices, “that he may establish the second,” that is, the Sacrifice of Christ. And the ancients, particularly _ Eusebius and Augustine, do expressly teach us, that in the Eucharist Christ did “do the will of God,” or “offer the delightful thing’,” mentioned by David in this text ; and, by consequence, this text is so far from declaring all Sacrifice unnecessary, that it mightily confirms and raises the value of _ our Christian Sacrifice. The second text, which seems to look this way, is that of _ Asaph; the words are these; “I will take no bullock out of Peale I thy house, nor he-goat out of thy folds; for all the beasts anor the forest are Mine, so are the cattle upon a thousand hills: I know all the fowls upon the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are in My sight. If I be hungry, I will not tell thee; for the whole world is Mine, and all that is therein. _ Thinkest thou, that I will eat bull’s flesh, and drink the blood οὗ goats?” It is very evident, it was the Psalmist’s intention _ to expose the folly of those men, who looked on Sacrifice as | the giving God a meal’s-meat, or as intended to satisfy His _ appetite; who esteemed God no other than a greedy op- _ pressive prince, who robbed the flocks and herds of his _ subjects in order to fill his own insatiable stomach. It is certain, this was the notion of many heathen concerning their ) gods, and, probably, of some gross carnal Jews. Now God | by His Prophet here declares, that He was so far from any such wants of flesh broiled on their altars, that He would | “take” or ‘ accept of’ no bullock or goat at the hand of any man that had such unworthy notions of Him. No man will, _ I suppose, say, that the sacrifices of the Law were, by virtue of this or any other declaration in the Old Testament, im- _ mediately abolished; it is certain that they were in full force until our Saviour’s Death. Υ See Part I. -158 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS CHAP. If any man look on these words as a prophecy, that all bloody sacrifices were to cease in the time of the Messias, I readily agree with him: but then it is observable, he mentions only bloody sacrifices, and that Asaph here declares that even Psalm 1.14. under the Messias men were to offer a “sacrifice of thanks- giving,” and this is the plain English of the word ‘ Eucharist ; and that this does commonly, in the Scripture, signify some material sacrifice, I have formerly proved at large’. Psalmli.16, The third text is that of David, “Thou desirest no sacrifice, else would I give it Thee; but Thou delightest not in burnt- offerings.” Now it is impossible that these words can imply an utter abolition of sacrifice ; because we are sure that David himself did offer sacrifice not only before his inditing this 2Sam. vi. Psalm, I mean, upon his bringing the ark to Zion, but after 2Sam. _1t, when the angel appeared to him in the threshing-floor of xxiv.29. Araunah. And indeed he speaks in this very Psalm of a time yet to come, when men should offer such sacrifices, and when God should accept them, though at present He did is not: this is evidently the meaning of those words, “Ὁ be ᾿ favourable and gracious unto Zion, build Thou the walls of Jerusalem; then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifice of righteousness, with burnt-offerings and oblations, then shall they offer young bullocks upon Thine altar.” I have already* shewed, that a “sacrifice of righteousness” signifies a noble or rich sacrifice, such as was proper for king David to offer. These words therefore may signify no more than this, that in- case of murder or adultery God neither required nor accepted a sacrifice. And as this is a certain truth, so it was much to David’s purpose to observe it: for his design in this Psalm was to ask God’s pardon for these crimes committed against Uriah; and if David had said that God desired not an offering for sin, this would have given further advantage to this inter- pretation ; but he mentions only burnt-offerings and sacrifices, _ that is, peace-offerings. Now since it is evident, that God for some time did nail desire sacrifices, and yet David expected a time to come when He would again shew His approbation of them; and since David tells us when this time would be, namely, when God should be “gracious to Zion, and build the walls of 7 See Part I. p. [379.] * Chap. I. Sect. v. : : THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 159 Jerusalem ;”’ from hence I think it may fairly be concluded, srcr. that David had conceived some hopes, that God would here- after shew that He had chosen Zion to be the constant seat of His worship, and that then He would give some visible token of His acceptance of the sacrifices there offered. He had, for some years before, removed the ark thither, and upon that occasion offered sacrifice, as was just now observed. If God had then declared that He had chosen Zion for the place of His worship, by sending down fire from heaven to consume the sacrifice, he had no doubt forthwith complied with the will of God, and settled Divine service in that place. It had long been his wish that “ God would come to him,” that is, take Psalm ci. 2. Zion for the place of His residence; and at last, “ when 1 Chron. David saw that God answered him by fire, he sacrificed **i: 3° there,” and presently said, “This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel.” But _ he composed this Psalm, before God had been thus “ gracious _ to Zion,” while he was in suspense where the place of sacri- fice was to be : and it seems probable, that he never did sacri- fice at all between the time of his bringing the ark to Zion, _and “the Angel’s smiting the people ;” nor had he sacrificed then, if Nathan had not expressly charged him to do it in the Name of God. Therefore when he says, “Thou desirest no sacrifice, though” I have given it Thee, and Thou delightest | not in burnt-offerings,” I take his meaning to be this; that God had not yet shewed him His acceptance of the sacrifices offered in Zion, as he hoped He would hereafter; and when it should please the Divine Majesty to do this, and to “ build the walls of Jerusalem,” and make it a place fit for so noble a | sacrifice, then he promises God plenty of sacrifices; “Then,” says he, “shall men offer young bullocks upon Thine altar.” In the mean time, the tabernacle of Moses and altar of burnt- offering was at Gibeon, though the ark were in the new taber- -nacle upon mount Zion; and so David, as well as others, was under an uncertainty where to offer sacrifices with just hopes οὗ acceptance, and of this he complains in this text. The fourth place to this purpose is that of Isaiah, “To Isa. i. 11— what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me, saith ©” the Lord? I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the * 4 often signifies ‘though,’ and this I take to be the proper meaning here. eee CHAP. 41: Isa. lxvi. 8. 160 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats: when ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hands, to tread My courts? Bring no more vain oblations ; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting: your new moons, and your appointed feasts, My soul hateth ; and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you, yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are fullof blood.” It ought first to be considered, of what it is that God says, “ who hath required this at your hands?” and it is certain, this is here particularly applied to ‘appearing before God,’ and ‘treading God’s courts’ or coming to the place of religious worship: therefore it cannot so be understood as to say, that God did not require the duty here mentioned, which was, the performance of public worship ; but what he says is, that He did not require it at their hands, He never intended that such vile wretches, as they were, should presume to come into His house: for it is observable, that no sacrifice was appointed for the expiation of murder by Moses’ Law ; and God here speaks to men, whose hands were full of blood, who had either actually shed innocent blood or were fully disposed to do it. I need say no more in relation to this text, but that Sacri- fice is here set on the same foot with “‘sabbaths,” “the solemn meetings,” and “prayers;” God declares them all to be “‘abomi- nations,” and that He “will not hear” their devotions. It is very evident therefore, that God could not declare against the things themselves, for they were all expressly enjoined by His Law: He could no more say of Sacrifice than of “sab- baths” or “prayers,” “who hath required them?” But He might very well say, “who hath required them at your hands?” For God never designed that His ordinances should be used by impenitent sinners. If Sacrifice be here abolished, prayer is abolished with it. ὦ The fifth text is from the same Prophet, and to the same purpose, “ He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck ;” and the reason of this is given in the next words, “They have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abomina- THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 161 tions.” Their vices polluted all their services and devo- SEC T. tions. The sixth is that in Jeremiah, “ Your burnt-offerings are Jer. vi. 19, not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto Me:” and the reason of this is given in the foregoing words, “ because they have not hearkened to My Word, but rejected it.” The seventh text is that of the same Prophet, where God is represented as saying, according to our Translation, “ I Jer. vii. 22, spake not to your fathers in the day that I brought them = forth out of the land of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people.” Now this text does not tend to the abolishing of Sacrifice, nor does it deny Sacrifice to be of God’s own institu- tion. It only seems to say, as we have rendered the words, that God did not command the Israelites to sacrifice at the time of His bringing them out of Egypt. But this cannot be their true meaning, because it is certain, that God did speak to them of Sacrifice, that is, of the Passover, and the sacrificing of the first-born, at the very time that He brought them out of Egypt: and He speaks to them of burnt-offer- ings in the. very same chapter, in which He gives us the Ten Commandments; therefore we must turn the words thus, “1 spake not to your fathers, &c. concerning the manner¢ of burnt-offerings and sacrifice,” meaning by “the manner” the numerous rites and ceremonies which are enjoined in the three last Books of Moses, which were not indeed spoken of, when God brought them out of Egypt. Irenzeus? under- stands the words, as if God had said, “I spake not to your fathers, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt for the sake of sacrifices ;” or, as if the main intent I had in de- ivering them from their bondage were, that I might have eater plenty of beasts offered to Me. And, it is certain, the | ebrew words will bear this construction, and so will the Greek Translation. The words are by the generality of inter- preters understood to mean no more than this, that God did aot at His bringing them out of Egypt insist so much on Sacri- Ι τ ery for navy ‘de holocaustis,’ but ‘holocaustorum δ Advers. her., lib. iv. ο. 32, but gratia,’ or the like: and it is certain, then the Translator of Irenzus ought mept has this signification. not to have turned περὶ ὁλοκαυτωμάτων JOHNSON, M CHAP. ΤΙ. Hosea vi. 6, Amos y. 21. Micah vi, 6—8. 2 Kings iii. 27. 162 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS fice, as He did on obedience to His commands ; and the words, so taken, do not in the least hint to us any design of God to abolish Sacrifice. | The eighth text is that of Hosea, “I will have mercy, and | not sacrifice ; and the knowledge of the Lord, rather than : burnt-offerings.” And no more can be meant by this, than that God chooses mercy and the practical knowledge of Him-— self, rather than Sacrifice. In this all interpreters agree; and this does by no means abolish Sacrifice, but only makes it less valuable than universal obedience to the Moral Law. The ninth is that of Amos, by whom God says, “I hate, I despise your feasts, I will not smell in your solemn assem- blies; though ye offer Me burnt-offerimgs and meat-offer- ings, I will not accept of them.” This is no more than what God said before by Isaiah, that He abhorred, not the sacri- fices themselves, but their profane way of offering them; for their crimes are particularly mentioned in this very chapter. They are said to “turn judgment to wormwood, and to have left off righteousness, to have trodden upon the poor; their transgressions were manifold, and their sins mighty.” For it is the greatest abuse of Sacrifice to suppose, that it was in- tended to protect men in their villainies. ; The last passage in Scripture to this purpose is that of Micah ; “ Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, and with calves of a year old; will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord thy Goa require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” The Prophet here compares Sacrifice with justice, mercy, and humility, and gives the pre- ference to the latter, in which I suppose all agree; but it1 probable, that he means heathen sacrifice. Grotius supposes that, by ‘giving the first-born for one’s transgression,’ he re- flects on the story of the king of Moab, related in the second Book of Kings. When Micah asks, “ What doth the Lord require, but justice,” &c., he cannot in reason be supposed to — exclude all other duties, excepting those here mentioned. God THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 163 certainly requires us to love Him above all things, and He SEC T. further demands of all in this age, that they should believe ———— in Christ ; and yet neither of these duties are so much as hinted by the Prophet; therefore by the three moral virtues here mentioned, Micah meant all other graces and moral duties, and he plainly enough declares that they are more acceptable to God than sacrifice. It appears from these texts, that obedience to God’s Moral Ones _ Law was better than any of the sacrifices that could be offered, sacrifice. before Christ came, in itself considered; and this is the only | conclusion that can be drawn from these texts to the lessen- ing of the excellence of Sacrifice. It is true, there is another consequence to be drawn from them, namely, that no sacri- fice, how valuable soever, shall be accepted from wicked hands, so as to render it beneficial to him that offers it; but this does not at all lessen the value of Sacrifice, but only shews the odiousness of sin, which turns the greatest bless- / ings into the greatest curses. I shall therefore at present | only consider the true meaning of this maxim, that “ obe- : dience is better than Sacrifice,” or, as it is expressed in the Gospel, that the “love of God and our neighbour is better Mark xii, than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices.” Some seem willing iy ‘from hence to conclude, that he who loves God and his rash and absurd; for it ever was and ever will be the duty of /men to sacrifice, as well as to love God and man: we must | do the one, and not leave the other undone. To love God δια man is ἃ more weighty and momentous duty than | prayer; it does not therefore follow, that prayer is needless or unnecessary. ‘The prayer and sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination in the sight of God. If the prayer and ‘sacrifice of the righteous added nothing to Him, then it \must follow, that prayer and sacrifice were to no purpose: \the good would have no occasion for it, and the bad by offer- ‘ing it would make their case still worse. Though therefore obedience be better than Sacrifice, yet not in such a sense, as that he, who does in other respects obey God’s laws, is free from the law of Sacrifice. Therefore the meaning of ‘this maxim is, | 1. That a virtuous life is much better than the mere out- M 2 CHAP. Obedience better than Prayer. Better not to sacrifice, than to offer what isforbidden, or without ficed as he did, directly contrary to God’s Law. If he had | commission. i Sam. xv, Sacrificed according to God’s directions, as pious Israelites — 22; xiii. 12 13. 164 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS ward work of sacrifice ; for sacrifice offered by wicked men, whose hearts are void of any inward good dispositions, is merely an outward performance; and it is of such sacrifices, that all those texts of Scripture, which I have now produced to this purpose, are to be understood. 2. That in case we cannot perform both, we are to choose to obey a moral law rather than the law of Sacrifice. So our Saviour chose to converse with heathen men and sinners, in order to do a real charity to their souls, rather than to obey a law® relating to Sacrifice, which was to avoid the touch of an unclean person, and, by consequence, not to eat or drink with him; and hereupon Christ justified Himself for eating and drinking with such men, by that saying, “I will have mercy and not (or rather than) sacrifice ;” for he who eat and drank with such men was thought unclean, and there- fore not fit to offer sacrifice. But neither of these considerations does at all lessen or disparage the excellence of worshipping God by sacrifice. For the same things may as truly be said of what men now commonly call ‘spiritual worship ;’ for, certainly, of the two, it is much better to obey in all other respects, and to omit prayer and praise, than to be frequent and constant in prayer and praise, and to omit all or many other duties; especially, if our prayers and praises are merely formal and external, as the devotions of all men, who are negligent in other duties, commonly are. And no man can doubt but that prayer and praise are to be omitted both in public and private, when they interfere with any act of charity, which cannot so well be performed at another time; so that they, who by this maxim, that “Obedience 15 better than Sacrifice,’ would prove Sacrifice unnecessary, must by conseqecsa prove all prayer and praise to be so too. When Samuel told Saul, that “to obey is better tha sacrifice,’ his meaning must have been, that it had been better for him to have obeyed God’s will, than to have sacri- > did, he had obeyed and sacrificed both in one; and it is © Numb. xix. 22, ‘‘Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth, shall be un-— cican,”’ &e. THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 165 further to be observed, that he does not mean obeying the SECT. Moral Law, but complying with an express positive law or - = revelation. Saul’s fault was, the saving the Amalekites, which God by Samuel had commanded to be destroyed, and his invading the priest’s office. These were neither of them moral laws. By sacrificing he broke one law, because he was not called of God to the priestly office, as was Aaron; by saving that which was devoted to destruction, under pre- tence of intending to offer it in sacrifice, he brake another law. From this we may learn two things; first, that it is much more pious and commendable to forbear sacrifice, than for a man, under pretence of some urgent motive or neces- sary occasion, to offer a sacrifice without a call or commis- sion from God. It is certain, that Saul was rejected from the kingdom of Israel for this presumption. The other is, that we should take heed that we do not offer such materials in sacrifice, as God has forbidden; for such were the cattle of the Amalekites. This naturally brings me to consider, whether all bloody ΑἹ] sacri- _ sacrifices, and all other sacrifices, except that of the Eucha- rit ie fe vist, be now utterly abolished. I have sufficiently proved, tS 2? that God did never declare any intention of abrogating all Sacrifice: but now it remains for me to shew, how all Sacri- fice is abolished, except that of the Eucharist ; and I suppose it will be granted me, that whatever was typical was done away in Christ, because He was the completion of those _ types. It has ever been the judgment of all sound Divines both ancient and modern, so far as I am able to inform myself, that every bloody sacrifice, offered before and under the Law, was a figure of Christ to come; that they were shadows, and Christ the Body; and they now, being all verified and accomplished, do cease for the future. And that the unbloody sacrifices of the Law were also types of the Eucharist, was the judgment of the ancients; who, there- fore, believed, that the Prophet Malachi, by the “ pure meal- offering to be offered in every place,” did foretel the Sacri- fice of Christ’s Sacramental Body and Blood; and, since the Christian meal-offering has taken place, the Jewish meal- offering is to be no more. By this means only, the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath was annulled; it was “a shadow of what Col.ii. 17. 166 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS CHAP. was to come;” and, by the same reason that the Sabbath ‘__ gave place to the Lord’s day, the bloody and unbloody sacri- fices of the Law gave place to the Sacrifice of Christ. Dr τεῆς Though, in truth, there is no necessity that we should prove needless. bloody sacrifices to be abolished by any express declaration — of Almighty God in the New Testament, it is sufficient that — they are perfectly needless and superfluous. And I shewed — that they are so, when I proved‘, that the Eucharist does effectually and abundantly answer all the ends of the ancient — sacrifices. For what man of common discretion will put him- self to an unnecessary charge, or be at the expence of an animal, when the frugal and pure Sacrifice of the Christian Church is of infinitely more value than all the cattle upon a thousand hills? What man in his right senses will make it © his choice to offer a bullock or ram, when he is convinced, | that there is a Sacrifice far more precious and prevailing with God? Therefore, though by the express words of St. Heb. x.9. Paul the Levitical sacrifices are “taken away,” yet there is no general declaration of God’s abolishing all bloody Sacri- — fice, either in the Old or the New Testament. Under the Old Testament, bloody sacrifices were always required ; under the New, there was no need to declare them abrogated ; they must fall, of course, without any such declaration; and the Great Sacrifice of Christ, offered in person, did at once render the Eucharist a perpetual unchangeable Sacrifice, and made all other sacrifices altogether needless. A recapitu- Thus I have made good what I undertook, viz., that Sacri-_ oem fice was originally founded upon a Divine authority; that it was intended to be the most excellent way of worship, as being not only prayer and praise but an enforcement of them ; that God never declared any design of wholly abolish- ing Sacrifice ; and though the Levitical sacrifices were indeed abrogated by the Death of Christ, yet Sacrifice in gener never was; that the Death of Christ, which extinguished the sacrifices of Moses, gave life and birth and perpetuity to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. And though no other sacrific but those of the Levitical Law are expressly declared to abolished, yet all other sacrifices vanished, as types that were accomplished by the Sacrifice and Death of Christ ; or, how- f See Chap. I. Sect. ii. “εὑ 0 Ml Ob ed Wr κεν. δὰ ων τ cd we ᾿ [ THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 167 ever, are become wholly unnecessary by reason of the more sufficient and perfect Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; which does better serve all the ends of Sacrifice than any or all the other, which were used either by the Jews or Patriarchs. It does indeed appear, that the love of God and man is more excellent than the bare external action of offering sacrifice, let it be never so perfect in its kind; but then he, who does both love God and man and offers sacrifice under this blessed disposition of mind, does much better, than he, who fulfils these two great laws of the Gospel without ful- filling the law of sacrifice; ‘‘ for he who offends in this one point is guilty of [not having kept] the whole Law.” Τῷ is certain, that the best obedience which we can perform is im- _ perfect, and therefore not acceptable, without the merits of Christ ; and I have shewed that one main design of the Eu- charist is, to plead the merits of Christ in the most effectual and prevailing manner before our Heavenly Father: and I therefore humbly recommend it to the consideration of my judicious reader, whether the Eucharist can be esteemed | the principal worship of God’s Church, if it be not a real Sacrifice and practised as such. If worshipping God by offer- _ ing to Him no material thing but barely thoughts and words, _ be the most spiritual and the most excellent service, I desire _ it may be considered, whether the worship used by the Jews _ in their synagogues be not as spiritual as that which is used —— -ῦ σας -- by those Christians, who declare against all material Sacri- fice, and if it be as spiritual, then why is it not to be preferred before the old temple-worship ? It may be said, that prayers offered by the Church in the | Name of Christ are as available as if the Eucharist were offered together with those prayers; but I desire my reader would consider, whether what I have said under the second head of the foregoing section, be not sufficient to shew, that to pray in the Name of Christ is to offer our petitions to God _ ™ and by the Eucharist. I believe it very proper and com- mendable, that all prayers, both public and private, should end as they usually do, with those words, “through Jesus Christ our Lord ;” but I wish that people do not lead them- selves into an error, by taking from thence an occasion to think that our Saviour meant nothing else by what He calls SECT. Sacrifice necessary as well as obedience. Praying in Christ’s Name with- out the Eu- charist, not so available as with it. CHAP. II. God ever communi- cated with His Church by Sacrifice. 168 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS “praying in His Name,” but only using these or such like words at the conclusion of our devotions. III. I proceed to the third question, viz., whether the Eucharist can be the most proper method of Christians’ com- municating and covenanting with God, if it be not used as a Sacrifice? I am far from even supposing, that Sacrifice is the only rite or method of covenanting with God. Nobody can question but that Baptism at present, and Circumcision of old, was a rite of entering into covenant with God. But the question is, whether they who are already in covenant with God, as all baptized Christians certainly are, can properly continue or renew that covenant without actual Sacrifice ; and the following reasons incline me to think it probable, that, after we have first struck covenant with God, our Covenant and Communion with Him is to be maintained by Sacrifice. 1. Because God has always, since the first institution of Circumcision, prescribed this method of covenanting and com- municating with them that were already His people. Before Circumcision was instituted, it does not appear that there was any other method of God’s communicating with men, but Sacrifice only. Since the time of Abraham, Sacrifice is the only method of renewing the covenant with them that had before entered into it. This, then, is evident, that Sacrifice has always by God’s appointment been a method of covenant- ing and communicating with Him, and the only method, by which they who were already His people could renew it; and there is not any probability of His having made any altera- tion in this point, smce it does not appear that He ever intended to abolish Sacrifice, as hath appeared upon a parti- cular examination of all those texts, which are supposed by some to look this way. And if Sacrifice be still in force, then certainly it is to be performed with the same view, and to the °= ™ same ends, for which it was first established. And one end, and that the principal, always was, for the renewing of cove- nant and communion with God, and to recover it, when it was lost or endangered by wilful sin. And, certainly, if the Church of God did ever preserve its communion with God principally by Sacrifice, it will very well deserve our serious thoughts, whether it can now be preserved by any other THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 169 means, except it can be proved that God hath made new SEC εἰ laws or provisions as to this particular. -ΞΞΞΕΣ 2. Another just reason I have to question, whether Cove- The Eucha- nant and Communion can be continued with God by the Eu- a βδέενςς charist, when it is not used as a Sacrifice, is this, viz., that as pea ἐς it is on all hands allowed, that this Sacrament is the principal re with means by which the Church communicates with God, so it aredae seems to me altogether as plain, that this Sacrament was ee instituted by Christ to be the constant standing Sacrifice of His Church. Now, if the Eucharist be by its institution a Sacrifice, it seems from thence unavoidably to follow, that it was designed for the same end with all other sacrifices; and that Christ made it a Sacrifice for this very purpose, that by it this Covenant and Communion might be made perpetual : and that, therefore, if it be not practised as a Sacrifice, not only the institution of Christ is in this respect neglected, but the end of the institution, which is preserving covenant and communion with God, is not so effectually attained. 3. There is greater reason still for this question, because Sacrifice, in it seems highly probable, that sacrifice is, in strictness, the ‘¢!) the most proper only proper or most excellent manner of maintaining com- seamen munion betwixt God and His Church. The most clear and with God. perfect notion of Communion that I can conceive, is this; that it is ‘a mutual giving and receiving ;? and mutual giving and receiving implies perfect friendship, consent, and good inclinations towards each other, which is the truest agree- ment, alliance, or confederacy. Now Sacrifice is, I think, the _ only religious solemnity, im which mutual solemn pledges pass between God and His Church. Ireneus® teaches us, that this was the end of the ancient sacrifices, in those excellent words; “God wants nothing, but man wants communion with God; and He grants the communion of Himself to them _ who want it.” He shews further, that God did this by “ sacri- _fices and oblations.” And, certainly, of all sacrifices that were ever offered, the Eucharist is best contrived by the _ Divine Wisdom for continuing a constant covenant and com- ᾿ munion betwixt God and His Church. For in it the Church presents to God the very best she has to give, that is, the | Bread and Wine, made the Sacramental Body and Blood of ® Lib. ix. cap. xxviii. CHAP. This ap- plied to in- ward com- munion. 170 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS Christ by His own appointment, and receives them back again enriched with the special blessing of the Holy Spirit, as an earnest of all Divine graces that we can enjoy in this life or hope for in the next. This seems clearly to have been St. Paul’s notion; for he says", that the Israelites in their sacrifices did “‘ communicate with the altar,” that is, with the true God, Whose altar it was; and he supposes that the Gentiles in their sacrifices “communicated with devils,” to whom their sacrifices were offered, and from whom they received some share back again. He mentions “the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ,” as exactly answering these sacrifices; and by “the Communion of the Body and Blood,” we cannot, I humbly conceive, more properly understand any thing, than the mutual giving and receiving It; our presenting It to God, and having It restored to us again for the strengthening and refreshing our souls. Sacrifice, therefore, being the fixed, settled method of com- munion between God and His Church, and the Eucharist being the only proper Sacrifice we have to offer, I leave it to the judgment of all serious and impartial inquirers, whether they who do not use the Eucharist as a Sacrifice do not thereby neglect the only or most proper means of covenanting or communicating with God; for no one can — doubt but this Communion is most EPS when something — is given or offered to Him, as well as received from Him: and if, therefore, the Jews in their service did offer something ὶ to God, and Christians do not, whether it will not be hard © to prove that their services, in this respect, were not more excellent than ours. to concern only the external communion betwixt God and His Church on earth. Therefore it well deserves our con-— sideration, whether inward communion with God can be pre- What I have hitherto offered on this head, may be supposed served without the use of this outward means. In the last © part of the former section I shewed', that all promises are — made to Christians, as they are a Church, that is, a body of © men combined together for the service of God and Christ h 1 Cor, x. 18. 20, κοινωνοὺς εἶναι most exact version is ‘to have com- and κοινωνεῖν are indifferently rendered munion with.’ by our Translators ‘to have fellowship i See Part I. p. [384.] with’ or ‘to partake with;’ but the THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 171 Jesus ; and every branch and twig of a tree must be sapless and barren, if it have no communication with the body; and our communion with the Body does chiefly depend upon our joining in this most proper and principal worship; and the Eucharist seems to be this most proper and principal worship by Its being a Sacrifice. It is true, this communion between God and the souls of good men is continual; nothing inter- rupts it, but presumptuous sin. But then I conceive, it is chiefly supported and rendered perpetual by the fresh streams of Divine grace flowing upon the soul in this Divine ordi- nance, and by the constant disposition of the mind toward this Spiritual Food, when It may be had; (for no man shall suffer for the want of It, but for his own wilful neglect.) Itis true, Prayer has the promise of all blessing annexed to it ; but then, I conceive, it must be a prayer offered in Christ’s Name ; and no man ought to be so secure that he prays in Christ’s Name, but he who offers his devotions in the Eucharist. It is certain, that prosperity and success in worldly affairs, and even some spiritual mercies, as opportunities of good instruc- tion, religious knowledge, good tendencies and dispositions, _ the escaping great trials and temptations, are often the effect | of private prayers, and are probably granted to many without asking at all; however, to great numbers that keep at a | distance from the Lord’s Table. But, I conceive, the chief benefit of our communion with God consists in the pardon of our sins, in the more plentiful supplies of Divine grace and - inward strength against our spiritual enemies, and in the assu- vance of Eternal Life; and these benefits, though they are _ always to be asked in prayer, yet are not, I humbly conceive, conveyed or actually sealed to us in this life anywhere but in the Eucharist. These are the covenant-blessings of the Gospel; and though we must always pray for them, yet there is no certainty of receiving them, unless we lay hold on that Covenant, in the way which Christ Jesus has directed. And _ I submit it to the judgment of my readers, whether, in order to make more sure of these blessings, we ought not to make it | our chief care to have it administered and received, according _ to the pattern given us by Christ, that is, as the standing cove- _ nanting solemnity of His Church, and therefore as a Sacrifice? I am sensible, that some make the communion betwixt 172 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS CH = p. God and the soul to consist in Divine in-comes, in haying the —_—— soul carried out toward God by an irresistible overcoming sweetness. If by these and such-like phrases they mean any thing that is intelligible and can be expressed in plain words ; it is, 1 suppose, that fervent zeal, which good men exercise in their prayer, and that secret pleasure, which they perceive in the performance of that duty. And that this, when it is real, is an effect of God’s grace, I doubt not: but no man ought too much to rely on these inward soothing motions of his own mind, or to draw from thence any certain conclusions of God’s special good-will toward him; for there is just reason to believe, that they very often proceed from a warm fancy ; and, at the best, they are not to be compared to that sure Word of Promise, which has made the Sacrament a Covenant in Christ’s Blood, and therefore the most certain method of inward as well as outward Communion with God. Communion But it has been before observed, that the Eucharist is Christians, Not only a communion between God and His Church, but coca between the several members of His Church with each charist. other. I need spend no words to prove, that Jesus Christ intended that His Church, the whole multitude of His Priests and people, should be united in the bond of peace and love, and knit together in a continual league and friend- ship. It is certain that people did of old confirm their Gen. xxxi. Covenants with one another by sacrifice. Thus did Laban “δ. and Jacob: and though the Israelites could not in this most solemn manner enter into covenant with other nations, because no people but themselves worshipped the True God and Him only; yet it is evident, that their unity among themselves in worshipping the same God, at one place, and in one and the same manner, was intended to be the founda- tion of a perpetual peace and alliance with each other. And Josh. xxii, Ὁ was for this reason, that Phinehas the priest and the heads ase of the ten tribes charge the Reubenites and Gadites for — “rebelling,” or rather ‘turning apostates,’ not only “ against God,” but against their brethren of the other ten tribes, because they had built a new altar; for Phinehas and the rest of the Israelites apprehended, that they designed on this altar to offer sacrifice to some strange god, or, however, not to join with them in offering their sacrifice according to THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 173 the Law of Moses; and this they rightly judged to be an SROR apostasy, rebellion, or violation of the covenant of perpetual —~~— peace, which was grounded on their sacrificing at the same altar and to the same God. The Reubenites and Gadites purge themselves from this crime) by declaring, that the new altar was not built for sacrifice, but to be a witness between _ themselves and the other tribes ; lest it might in future ages be said to them, “ Ye have no part in the Lord:” for, by being excluded from the public worship, they were sensible that they should be looked upon as a people lopt off from the main body of that nation, because the bond of peace, which was their sacrificing at the same altar, would thereby be broken. That the heathen confirmed their leagues by joining together in the solemn offering of sacrifices, is com- monly observed by writers on this subject ; and I have given two remarkable instances of it in the margin*. Nowsince it is evident that our Saviour intended, that His disciples should regard one another as members of the same Body, that they should be of one heart and one mind, that there should be no divisions among them, and that universal love and mutual affection should be the mark whereby good Christians should be distmmguished from the rest of the world; and since He laid so very great a stress upon this single duty; therefore it was necessary, that He should bind it on our consciences in the most strong and effectual manner. And it cannot be conceived, how God could lay a higher obligation upon us to preserve continual love and peace together, than by requiring us all to join in offering the same Sacrifice, and thereby to i [i. e. crimen ; crime is here, evidently, a Latinism for ‘ criminous charge.’ ] * Menelaus in Homer says, “Exxeov, ἠδ᾽ εὔχοντο θεοῖς αἰειγενέ- Tnow.—libid., 292. ] Turnus, in Virgil, says, Οἴσετε δ᾽ ἄρν᾽, ἕτερον λευκόν, ἑτέρην δὲ μέλαιναν, Γῇ τε καὶ ᾿Ἤελίῳ" Au δ᾽ ἡμεῖς οἴσο- μεν ἄλλον. ἼΛξετε δὲ Πριάμοιο βίην, ὄφρ᾽ ὅρκια τάμνῃ Adrds.—Tliad. Γ. ver. 103, &c. Κήρυκες δ᾽ ἀνὰ ἄστυ θεῶν φέρον ὅρκια πιστά, “Apve δύω καὶ οἶνον eippova.—ibid., 248. 7H, καὶ ἀπὸ στομάχους ἀρνῶν τάμε νηλέϊ χαλκῷ" Οἶνον δ᾽ ἐκ κρητῆρος ἀφυσσάμενοι δεπάεσσιν Fer sacra, Pater, et concipe foedus. puraque in veste sacerdos,— /En. xii. ver. 13. Setigeree foetum suis, intonsamque bidentem Attulit, admovitque pecus flagranti- bus aris.—ibid., 169, &c. Talibus inter se firmabant federa dictis Conspectu in medio procerum; tum rite sacratas In flammam jugulant pecudes, et viscera Vivis Eripiunt, cumulantque oneratis lan- cibus aras.—ibid., 212. CHAP. Christ by the Eucha- rist design- ed a most perfect union among Christians, 174 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS profess to God and the world our resolution of following — whatever makes for peace, and for keeping the Christian Covenant and Communion entire and unbroken. And by this means it comes to pass, that we cannot transgress the laws of justice and charity toward men, but we must at the same time break covenant and communion with God. And- it is certainly necessary, that men should be under the most powerful restraints from malice and ill-will, and under the strongest ties to mutual friendship and affection; especially, when not only the peace of the world but the eternal salvation of their souls does so much depend upon this article of religion. St. Paul informs us, that all good Christians are ‘ One Bread” or loaf; and gives this reason for it, that “ we are all partakers of that One Bread” in the Eucharist. For all the several masses of Bread, offered in the several congregations of Christians dispersed throughout the world, are all in the Mystery but One Body of Christ, and all the single Christians and congregations but One Church, represented on this 86- count by the Apostle as “One Loaf;” and, therefore, in assist-_ ing at this Sacrifice and offering this One Loaf to God, we offer not only the Sacramental Body of Christ, but His mysti- cal Body the Church ; and are thereby understood to profess, that we look on all good Christians as united to Christ and each other, as the several grains of wheat are kneaded into one loaf; and that therefore we desire the same blessings and favours for all other members of Christ’s Church, as we do for ourselves. ‘The Church offers itself through Christ in the Eucharist,” says St. Augustine’. “ If any one offer Wine only, then the Blood of Christ is without us; but if the Water be alone, the people is without Christ™.” And thus our Saviour has not only commanded the Christian to love his neighbour as himself, but has rivetted the practice of this duty into the most solemn office of His religion. And he who does not wish and pray for the same spiritual bless- ings for all other Christians, that he does for himself, cannot _ perform his part in the Christian Sacrifice. And upon the whole it must be owned, that the Divine Wisdom of the Son of God has most illustriously displayed itself in the con- lA. p. 84, Ap. ™ m. 8. p. 18. Ape THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 175 trivance and institution of this most excellent Sacrifice, and especially in rendering the use of it necessary for our com- munion with God, and by making our communion with each other in this most solemn manner a very important article of that Covenant, which is renewed in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. IV. There is a fourth question still remaining on this προ head ; and that is, whether the Eucharist can truly be conse- necessary crated, when it is not offered to God? It is certain all sacri- {0 ‘e.®o™-, fices were ever consecrated by being presented at the altar, eg hee and being offered on it in whole or in part; and on this account the flesh of the beasts that were sacrificed was called “holy” or “ most holy ;” by this means they deserved the title of being called “the Bread” or food ““οὗ the Lord”.” I have formerly shewed, that the primitive Church did offer the symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood to God, in order to their being made the Body and Blood of Christ, not only in figure, as they were before, but in life and power. And since Christ declares the Bread to be “ His Body given” for us; therefore we cannot in reason doubt but that He had given or offered it to God, though His manner of doing it, or the words He used on this occasion, are not recorded in the SECT. Gospels. n See Part I. p. [331—334. ] ° Mons. Pfaffy observes, that “there are several Offices in the Gothic Missal, in which there is no mention of a Sacri- fice or Oblation.”’ p. 332, And there is thus much of truth in what he says, that fifty-seven Offices out of eighty- one have not a proper form of Oblation in the usual place, viz., between the Words of Institution and the Prayer of Invocation: there are but ten Offices that have a just form of Oblation, viz., the 8, 11, 12, 20, 27, 36, 65, 77, 79, 80; there are nine more that have some- thing that looks like an Oblation, but not express and clear, viz., the 3, 4, 5, 17, 21, 28, 75, 76, 78. This seems a great objection against what I have here and elsewhere advanced, but is = reality nothing at all to the purpose. | For | 1. Wherever the proper Oblation is wanting, there what Mons. Pfaffy calls the Prayer of Consecration, on which jhe lays so great a stress, is wanting also. ! For the first fifteen hundred® years after Christ 2. Wherever the words of oblation are wanting, there the whole Canon Misse, or, however, the Words of Insti- tution, are not to be found; excepting the sixth and thirty-seventh Offices, and the ninth Offices, where I noted the Ob- lation to be very doubtful and imperfect. There are no less than fifty-seven Offices in which all the three parts of Consecra- tion, viz., the Words of Institution, the Oblation, the Prayer for the Holy Spirit or Divine Benediction, are not to be found ; these fifty-seven are all that have not been particularly by me num- bered in this note, excepting the two first, and the last, which are almost or altogether wanting. Upon the whole, it is evident that these Offices, as pub- lished by Father Mabillon, are very defective, and that too in the most es- sential parts. 3. Where the Words of Institution are inserted, yet they are not set down at large, but thus, Qui pridie quam pateretur, &c. From this we have a demonstration, that the defects of par- CHAP. If 176 there is, I conceive, not one single instance of a Church, —_—— that thought the Elements consecrated without offering them ticular Offices were to be supplied; and that either (1.) By some general directions at the beginning or ending of the book; and the original MS. in the Queen of Sweden’s library might at first con- tain such directions, though they are now worn away; for Mabillon lets us know that several leaves are wanting at the beginning and the end, and in- deed the two first Offices and the first part of the third, and the last (except- ing the title, and twenty or thirty words) are now lost. The general di- rections might be either in the first or last of these Offices; and one would rather think they were in the last, be- cause the title of it still remains, and is, Missa cotidiana Romensis ; which seems to import, that it contained the common orders of the Communion Service, where provision had not been made by the several foregoing Offices. (2.) Or else, the defect of the par- ticular Offices was supplied by the memory of the Priest; and it is rea- sonable to believe, that the Priests in that age could as readily supply the defect of the Oblation and Prayer for the benediction of the Spirit, as they could that of the Words of Institution ; and since they all follow one after the other, therefore the same item, or ‘ &c.’ might serve to remind the Priest of all three. The book called Micrologus, published in the eleventh century, does much countenance this notion. It contains an account of Divine Offices in the Church of France, where this Gothic Missal too was used in the ninth and tenth centuries. The twenty- third chapter of this book contains Brevis descriptio celebrandez Missz ; and after the Words of Institution, it directs the Priest immediately to say, Unde et memores nos, Domine, servi Tui—Christi Filii Tui Domini Dei nos- tri, tam beatz Passionis, necnon et ab inferis Resurrectionis, sed et in ccelum gloriose Ascensionis, offerimus pre- clare Majestati Tuz de Tuis donis ac datis—Hostiam puram, Hostiam sanc- tam, &c. And in the eleventh chapter you have also these words, Compositd Oblatione in Altari, dicit Sacerdos hance Orationem, [juxta Gallicanum Ordi- nem;] Veni, Sanctificator Omnipotens, zterne Deus, benedic hoc Sacrificium, ὅς. Deinde ante Altare inclinatus di- cat hane Orationem, non ex aliquo Or- THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS dine, sed ex ecclesiastica consuetudine ; Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas, hane Obla- tionem, quam Tibi offerimus in me- moriam Passionis, &c. By this it ap- pears, that there were certain Forms of Oblation used ‘‘ by the custom of the Church, not read out of any Service- Book.” Father Mabillon inclines to think that the Priest trusted his me- mory as to these Forms, which were then, says he, ‘commonly known ;’”’ and he cites, upon this occasion, the first clause out of the twenty-third chapter of Micrologus, as above. See his Preface to his three books, De Li- turgia Gallicana, sect. 13. (3.) Whatever the reason was for omitting the Forms of Oblation in their proper place, it is certain it was not done upon an opinion that the Oblation was not necessary ; for the compilers of these Offices do several times express their sentiment, that Jesus Christ in- stituted the Sacrifice; Father Mabillon mentions some of these places in the — tenth page of his Preface. I will give my reader but one taken out of the twenty-eighth Office [i.e. of the Gothic Missal, p. 237.] in which, if there be an Oblation, it is directed to God the Son, contrary to all the sentiments of the primitive Church; but in a previous exhortation you have these words ; Sacrosanctam, fratres dilectis- simi, hodierna die inchoandze Pasche sollennitatem, ac salutiferam Dominice immolationis effigiem in Sacrificio spi- ritali transfusam—ce]ebrantes—Chris- tum deprecemur; Qui hee in sacri Corporis et Sanguinis Sui Oblatione benedicere et sanctificare dignatus est; ita offerentium famulorum Suorum Munera Oblata benedicat; ut per in- lustrationem Spiritiis Sancti, deferen- tibus nuntiis, odor suavitatis ascendat. Per Dominum, ὅθ. It is in the Office for Maundy Thursday.—[Missa in Cocena Domini. ] I say nothing of Mons. Pfaffy’s ob- jection against the Oblation “as made before the Consecration’? in these and all other ancient Liturgies; he speaks according to the sentiments of the Lu- therans, who attribute the Consecration — chiefly to the Prayer for the Divine Benediction, though sometimes they allow that the Words of Institution do also contribute to it. The truth is, the ancient Church believed the Consecra- tion to be performed by all three, viz. THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 17. to God. In the Liturgies of the middle ages, there are forms SECT. of Oblation scattered through the whole Office; and the _ βθα symbols are commonly offered two or three times at least ; but all of them agree in making the solemn Oblation of the | Bread and Wine, after repeating the Words of Institution, | whereby the elements were, in the words of Christ, appointed ἕο be His Body‘and Blood, and before the Invocation of the | Holy Spirit. But the most ancient Liturgy now extant con- tains no other Oblation but this last mentioned; therefore | I humbly recommend it to the serious consideration of all judicious Clergymen and laymen, whether this Form does ‘not deserve to be received by all Churches, until one more /ancient can be discovered. ‘Though I am in my own mind persuaded, that if we had the very words in which St. Peter and St. Paul consecrated the Eucharist, it would not differ in substance from that which I am now mentioning. The reader has it in the Appendix to this Vol. II. No. I. In the ‘mean time let every pious well-instructed Christian pray with good king Hezekiah’, “The good Lord grant atonement for every heart that directs itself to seek the Lord God of ‘their fathers, though not according to the purity of” the ‘Sacrament or Holy Institution. | Grotius? has a singular fancy, that our Saviour, being g, otis obliged to keep the Passover the day before that: on which it eee ΕΝ fell, because that was the day assigned for His crucifixion, the Pass- could not have the lamb offered as a sacrifice in the temple feast ge by a priest; and therefore kept the Passover only as a feast. This is improbable in the highest degree, especially because our Saviour had declared, that He would fulfil the Law to he least jot and tittle. But if He did not solemnize the Passover by offering the lamb as a sacrifice, it is evident He Wine: whereas all the ancient Forms of Invocation pray, that the Bread the Words of Institution, the Oblation, and Inyocation. But I must further ake leave to observe, that ali the an- tient Forms of Invocation that I ever saw are direct evidences against the Lutheran doctrine, which is, that the Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ, which we receive in he Sacrament, but that the natural ody and Blood of our Saviour, which ey assert to be diffused through the vhole world, are united tothe Bread and JOHNSON. and Wine may become the Body and Blood; or have words to that effect. Ῥ 2 Chron. xxx. 18, 19. Secundum LXX [Κύριος ἀγαθὸ: ἐξιλάσθω ὑπὲρ πάσης καρδίας κατευθυνούσης ἐκζητῆσαι Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἁγνείαν τῶν ἁγίων], et Hebraicam veritatem. 4 Grot. in Matt. xxvi. 18, Ἰ 178 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY AS CHAP. did not keep the Law. It is true, the Jews do keep the Pass- over thus by halves in their present dispersion, I mean, as ἃ feast only, not as a sacrifice. Grotius owns that this was an” imperfect Passover, because the oblation was wanting. The Jews are forced to maim their Passover; they want the altar, at which alone they were to offer sacrifice, I mean, that at Jerusalem: and Christian Princes would scarce allow” them the liberty of a public solemn Paschal sacrifice. I can only desire the prayers of all my readers, (that are convinced of this great truth, that the Eucharist was by Christ insti- tuted to be the continual Sacrifice of His Church,) that God in His goodness would dispose the hearts of all governors of His people to restore the use and practice of the Christian Oblation ; that so, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, the Peace-Offering may be offered to God. uh I am sensible that many men, who have Religion much ὃ Eucharist heart, do think, that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist lessens Bart , the value of the Great Sacrifice, and intrenches upon the all- lad sufficient merits of Christ’s most precious Blood. And if I Blood. could discern any just grounds for such an opinion, I should think it my duty to apply the same or greater zeal for the abolition and annulling of this Sacrifice, than I have hithert shewed for the re-establishment of it. But, certainly, Jesus Christ Himself is the best judge of what makes most for the honour of That Sacrifice which He offered. He well knows that nothing could more effectually raise That Sacrifice t such a just degree of esteem and dignity as it deserves, than to have the memorial of It perpetually repeated in that devout and solemn manner, that He Himself at first offered It; and that by obliging His Church to make her most important addresses to God in and by this Sacrifice, He took the most proper course to engrave this truth on the minds of men that we are to expect no blessings to ourselves but through His Body and Blood. If indeed by sacrificing an ox or sheep only, or any other creature, that was not His Flesh and Blo od in that manner, as the Bread and Wine is, we hoped to pre- vail with God, and to procure the mercies that we want; then there might be some pretence for saying, that by our — own sacrifice we undervalued the Sacrifice of Christ; but — since we offer nothing in the Eucharist, but what He, by His — THE PROPER CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 179 own institution and deputation, hath made His Body and SECT. Blood ; and since, by offering this, we do not pretend to add τ to the merits of His Death, but only to draw down to our- selves, and apply to our own souls, the blessings which He purchased by dying for us; this is a full demonstration, that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is so far from abating the value of His Blood, that nothing can more heighten and exalt It ; for by this we fully declare our belief, that there is no other name under heaven, whereby we can be saved, but that of Jesus; that His Passion is the centre of all our hopes. If, indeed, Christ Jesus could have applied the merits of His Death to every single believer, at the same time that He offered up the Great Sacrifice, then it must be confessed, that all further sacrifice had been perfectly needless and super- fluous: but this was impossible to be done, because very great numbers of men were not then born; who were yet in future ages to be members of His Church, and who could not be saved but by having the mercies, which He purchased by His Death, applied to their own persons. Infinitely many sins were to be committed in ages to come, as Christ knew full well, and which therefore could not then be pardoned, \ because they were not committed; there would be many spiritual wants to be supplied; wants of men that were not in being, when our Saviour suffered. And that Christ might be a Saviour to men of all ages to the end of the world, that β their pardon might be sealed, and that a means of relief ‘might always be at hand for those that stood in need of it, Christ imstituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist as the main hannel, by which all Divine graces and favours should be onstantly communicated to His Church, and applied to the ouls of particular persons in such a manner, that it might vidently appear, that His Death and sufferings are the pring-head of all the blessings we receive; for the most owerful, the only Sacrifice we have, is that of His Sacra- ental Body and Blood. ) / ' \ 180 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY CHAP. Il. CHAP. IT. SECT. IIT. Of the necessity of a frequent Eucharist. WueEn I speak of the necessity of a frequent Eucharist, this implies two things : 1. That the Church take due care, that it be often cele- brated ; 2. That it is the duty of private Christians frequently to join in the celebrating and receiving it. Pastors 1. It is necessary that the Church take due care that it toadmi. be often celebrated. And this care belongs chiefly to the rater Bishops and Priests; for the people cannot receive it oftener than the Priests administer it. It is hard to say, whether the sin of the Church of Rome in preserving the daily Sacri- - fice without a daily Communion, or the sin of some other Churches in laying aside both the daily Sacrifice and the daily Communion, be more inexcusable. ΤῸ maim the ordinances of God, by making it a Sacrifice without a feast, is what ca never be defended ; no more can the rareness of Communions in some Reformed Churches. The Lutherans, I am well assured, in this particular de excel all other Protestants; for they have a Communiol every Sunday and holiday throughout the year. The Church of Rome makes the same excuse for her private Masses, that we do for the rareness or unfrequency of our Communion The Council of Trent’ expresses her wishes, that all faithful who are present at Mass would communicate in thi Sacrament; and it is commonly said, that our Church orde! the greatest part of the Communion-office to be read ¢ Sundays and holidays, although there be no Communion, t intimate her earnest desire that the people would be pre vailed upon to be more frequent in receiving the Sacrament. What the Council of Trent says concerning the desire of their * Sess. 22. De Sacrific. Misse, cap.6. _ tali etiam Eucharistie perceptione c¢ m Optaret quidem sacrosanctaSynodus,ut municarent. [Concilium Tridentinum, — in singulis Missis fideles adstantes non Ed. Paris, 1823. ] solum spirituali affectu, sed Sacramen- TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 181 Church that the people would receive the Sacrament oftener, SEC seems mere colour and pretence; it is certain, the Clergy of that Church have the people so much at their disposal, that they might have good numbers of daily communicants, if they did not make it their business to discountenance frequent Communion. On the other hand it must be owned, that the generality of our Clergy do often and earnestly press the people to be more frequent in this duty; and therefore I do by no means despair of a cure for this evil, especially, if my Lords the Bishops would please to call on the Clergy to use their most diligent application to their several congregations in order to bring them, or a good number of them, to a weekly Communion. And I can see no reason to doubt but that, if they could but prevail on ten or half that number at the first, they would by degrees find that the company would be always growing by the prudent care and encouragement of their several pastors; and, by this means, _ we should by degrees imitate the primitive Church in the _ frequency of her Communion, as well as in other particulars. | It is well known, that about forty years ago the Sacrament _ was generally administered but three or four times a year even in most of our populous places, and in our very Cathedrals _but.once a month. The very same industry and application, _ which has in some measure already rectified this miscarriage, | would still bring us nearer to the perfection of the Aposto- ' lical age. , 2. And, certainly, the people ought to look on themselves And the _ to be as much bound in duty frequently to join in the cele- PeoR’,°. ! brating and receiving this Sacrament, as the Priests to ,administer it. I do not find either in Scripture or early antiquity, that there were any laymen who thought them- selves at liberty to abstain or receive it until Tertullian’s time; | who* speaks of very many that turned their back on the Eucharist on the Station-days (that is, Wednesdays and Fridays), because they fancied that by taking the Sacrament ) they should break their fast: but it is plain, that Tertullian ‘himself did not approve this practice, and that he judged the | Eucharist would rather raise than slacken men’s devotions on be= Station-days. It is deplorable to consider the great cold- "1 p. 8. Ap. CHAP. Il. Spiritual eating of Christ’s Flesh extra Cenam, a false notion. » 182 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY ness and indifference, which reigns now among the generality of Christians of all sorts, as to this great duty of communi- cating: and though I have never met with any Divine of note, either in my reading or conversation, who has not been sensible that the backwardness of the people in this respect is both a sign and cause of the decay of Christian piety; yet I cannot say, that a due degree of zeal and persuasion has been used for the cure of so great an evil. And there are some opinions and prejudices, countenanced by Divines as ~ well as others, which will be a perpetual bar to keep men at a distance from the Lord’s Table, or however to render them less frequent and f6rward in their approaches to it. If we will speak the truth, we shall find, that the Divines of the Church of Rome have themselves furnished the people with such notions as do effectually dispose them to be cold and indifferent as to the poimt of receiving the Sacrament. For it is a prevailing doctrine in that Church, that the by- standers at Mass may spiritually receive the Body and Blood of Christ; and this is supposed by the Council of Trent* in the same chapter, where they profess their wishes that the people would more often Sacramentally communicate. They elsewhere say", that Spiritual Communion consists “in a desire of eating the Heavenly Bread laid before them, and in a lively faith.” But, sure, all will agree with me, that a desire of eat- ing, which yet does not carry them so far as to satisfy this spiritual appetite, even when the Heavenly Bread is laid before them, must be very imperfect and insincere. I have else: where shewed that, when men do in earnest wish for the Sacrament but cannot possibly obtain it, God takes the will for the deed ; and, therefore, in this case, men may be said 0 receive Christ’s Body in a spiritual manner. But the Trent Divines suppose that a man has it in his power to receive it with his mouth, though for some reason he chooses to abstain, and that such a man does spiritually receive the Sacrament; which I cannot conceive, except you will say that these men τ Ubi supra. lle quoque Misse cuerunt—alios tantum_ spiritualiter (viz. private) communes censeri de- (edere), illos nimirum, qui voto propo- bent ; partim, quod in eis populus spi- _situm illum Ceelestem Panem edentes ritualiter communicet, &c. fide viva, que per dilectionem opera- " Sess. 12. cap. 8. De usu admira- tur, fructum Ejus et utilitatem sentiunt bili hujus Sacramenti. — Patres —- do- TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 183 do indeed come with holy hunger after this Food, but that SECT. their appetite is damped by some mistakes and prejudices = infused into them by the false guides of that Church. And alas! to what purpose was it for the Council of Trent to wish that the people would frequently communicate, when at the same time they help them to an excuse for not doing it, by pretending that they do spiritually communicate, while they are only by-standers at the Sacrament? They that are most opposite to the Papists in other respects have, in truth, gone further than the Council of Trent in this particular ; I mean, by asserting that, not only by a desire of the Sacrament but by any act of faith or devotion, men do spiritually eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ. It signifies little for Clergymen to spur men to the Communion, if at the same time they check them too, by assuring them that they had as good forbear; for that all the spiritual advantages to be re- ceived in the Sacrament may be had by an act of faith or good works. These mistakes proceed from the misunderstanding our Sayiour in His discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John, which I have elsewhere* largely proved to be meant of the Eucharist. It is evident, that the Council of TrentY did not believe that context to speak strictly of Sacramental eating -and drinking; and it was this that carried them into the imaginary conceit of receiving Christ’s Flesh and Blood in a spiritual manner. Torre’, a notable Divine, insisted on the revoking of that decree, which left this discourse of our Saviour to be understood as every man pleased; for he asserted with good reason, that it was to be understood of communicating in the Sacrament: but he could not be heard ; especially because it was apprehended that, if John vi. were taken as meant of the Eucharist, it must follow, that it was absolutely necessary that the people must communicate in both kinds; for our Saviour declares it to be altogether as dangerous to omit the drinking of His Blood as the eating His Flesh. But this loose notion concerning the sixth of John prevailed not only in the Council of Trent, but long | ® See Part I. p- (457, ] &e. utcumque juxta varias sanctorum Pa- y Sess. 21. cap. 1. Sed neque ex trum et Doctorum interpretationes in- sermoné illo, apud Joannem sexto, telligatur, &e. | recte colligitur, utriusque speciei Com- * See Father Paul’s Hist. of this munionem a Domino preceptam esse, Council, book vi. | 184. THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY CHAP. before; and most of those Divines, who began the Reforma- ——— tion of religion, brought this error along with them from the Church of Rome, as they did several others; and by this means the generality of Protestants have been led into the same mistake. None that believed John vi. to be meant of the Eucharist, could ever have thought it sufficient to receive the Sacrament but once a year, which has been the settled _ judgment of the Church of Rome for many ages past. Calvin says4, “The devil was the author of that law.” It 15 certain, that one chief motive for the passing of it was the opinion, that John vi. was not meant of the Sacrament but of some other notional manner of eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. | } It is my present business to shew, that it is necessary not — only to administer and to receive the Eucharist, but to do it~ very frequently. And the very same reasons, which served to prove the necessity of it in general, and as it is a Sacrifice | in particular, will also effectually prove the necessity of doing it very often. These reasons, as before shewed, are Christ de- 11. Because it is a Divine Institution, and such an insti- signed fre- ° 2 Ξ : quent Com- tution as is to be performed not once only in our lives, as munion. Baptism, nor once in the year only, as the Jewish Passover, but is frequently to be repeated; and our Saviour, when He first instituted this feast upon a sacrifice, sufficiently intimates this, by saying, “ Do” or offer “ this, as oft as ye drink it ;” and, “as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup.” But He does this more fully and with greater force in His discourse on the Eucharist in the sixth of St. John’s Gospel: for I have elsewhere” shewed, that the following verses of that chapter are thus to be rendered, viz., ver. 49, “ Your fathers fed upon manna in the wilderness, and are dead ;” ver. 50, “ This is the Bread, which cometh down from Heaven, that a man may feed thereon, and not die;” ver. 51, “ If any man feed on this Bread, he shall live for ever;” ver. 53, “Except ye feed on the Flesh of the Son of Man, and make His Blood your drink, ye have no life in you;” ver. 54, ““Whoso feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh My Blood his a Institut. [lib. iv. cap. xvii. sect. 46. cunque tandem ministerio invecta fu- “Et sane hee consuetudo, que semel _ erit.’’ quotannis communicare jubet, certis- > See Part I. p. [532,] &Xe. simum est diaboli inventum; cujus- TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 185 drink, hath Eternal Life ;” ver. 56, “ He that feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh My Blood his drink, dwelleth in Me, and I in him;” ver. 58, “This is that Bread which came down from Heaven, not as your fathers fed on manna, and are dead; he that feedeth on this Bread shall live for ever.” From this it is evident to a demonstration, that it is not any occasional eating and drinking, not a receiving the Sacra- ment once upon a death-bed, or once or twice a year, but a constant “feeding on it” and “making it our drink,” that Christ requires of us. Manna was the daily food of the Israelites in the wilderness; and it is evident by this dis- course of our Saviour, that He intended His Sacramental Flesh and Blood to be the constant spiritual provision of His Church. Therefore the most primitive Christians lived in the daily use and practice of it, and called and esteemed it their “daily Bread.” They, who dwelt near the place of public assembly, did every day join in this holy ordinance. They did not find it inconsistent with their worldly business to spend an hour or more every day in the week in attending on this most beneficial Divine service. They kept their assemblies before day, and by this means they endeavoured not only to meet with the greater secrecy, that they might not be discovered by their persecutors, but also to leave time : enough for their worldly trade and affairs. And, certainly, a daily Communion duly celebrated was the intention of our Saviour, when He speaks of making it our food, if we will take Him in the most strict sense; and they, who do of choice and from a principle of conscience daily administer and receive the Eucharist, they do in the most perfect manner comply with the will of our Lord. And we ought to pray and endeavour that the whole Church of Christ may be by degrees restored to this state of perfection. I apprehend, that a weekly Communion is the most that we can at present hope to attain; and, by going thus far, we shall come up to the practice of the generality of Christians in the second and third centuries, though not of the first Apostolical age. It is observable, that our Saviour and the writers of the New Testament have nowhere directly and plainly declared, how often every Church or congregation shall assemble together, how often men should hear sermons, or even pray in private; SECT. Ill. CHAP; II Frequent Communion necessary, because this is the most pro- per Chris~ 186 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY therefore we are not to wonder, that the certain time of com- municating is nowhere expressly determined. And, indeed, if we consider the various circumstances of Churches and of private men, we shall find that it is next to an impossibility — to fix any certain stated rule in this case, which may fit all ages and places and conditions of men. Therefore, when Christ bids us to “ pray always,’ when St. James exhorts us to be “swift to hear,” and when we are called upon in the sixth chapter of St. John to “feed on the Flesh of Christ” in the Eucharist, the safest way of understanding those texts 1s, to look upon them as laws obliging us to perform these duties as often as possibly we can, without doing any notable damage or convenience to ourselves as to our temporal concerns. He, indeed, that is a layman cannot communicate oftener than — the Priest, under whom he lives, will administer it; and if, therefore, he never willingly omits an opportunity of receiving, he can have nothing further to answer for. If the Priest be tardy or backward in this principal part of his office, he alone must bear the blame of his neglect. If his hands are tied by the laws or customs of the Church to which he belongs, or by the obstinacy of the people, who persist in refusing to join with him in this ordinance, then the Priest is innocent ; and the guilt of neglecting or rarely celebrating the Com- munion falls upon the governors of the Church for not re- pealing or altering such laws as restrain or discountenance frequent Communion ; or upon the people, who withstand his persuasions and shew an aversion to their duty. If the law or custom of any Church do not allow of a weekly Com- munion, it is certain, that law needs amendment, and that custom is not to be endured. If the laws of the Church do admit of weekly Communions, but the Priest or people or both do rather choose to follow the custom of monthly or quarterly Communions, they who are guilty of this neglect must remember, that they are to give account of themselves for passing a slight on this Divine Institution. . II. The necessity of frequent Communion will appear, if we consider the Eucharist as the proper peculiar worship of the Christian Church. St. Paul assures us, that the old Church, consisting of “the twelve tribes, did instantly perform their service or worship night and day;” that is, TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 187 the continual morning and evening sacrifice. was without SECT. intermission offered by the priests in the temple, and the ee shew-bread was perpetually placed before the Lord. And ship. what was done by the priests in behalf of the whole body of 2 **"* the Jewish people and at their expence, is spoken of by the Numb. Apostle as a thing done by themselves. Now, certainly, the ah ges! new people of God, the Christian Church, must not be desti- si tute of a continual sacrifice, no more than the old one. As for the sacrifice of private prayer and praise, this was as constantly offered by all single pious Jews, as it can be by Christians ; but this is not the Sacrifice of the Church, this is not the proper public worship of Christ’s mystical Body. ‘The continual Sacrifice’ was the title of old given to the Eucharist by St. Clement‘, the fellow-labourer with St. Paul, and by Chrysostom® above three hundred years after him ; and, certainly, it ought to be esteemed and practised as such in all ages, at least in all Cathedral churches, and wherever a competent number of communicants can be found. It is true, the main body of the people of the Jews were Christians not obliged to attend the public worship above three times Hg ne in the year; and what they did on the Sabbath-days in feqeetin their synagogues was not the proper peculiar worship f¢ than of the Jewish Church. No other worship but that per- ae formed at the altar m Jerusalem was ordained by the Law of God. Synagogues were mere human inventions; and the devotions there offered were a will-worship, though very good and commendable. There is no mention of these Psalm places of assembly till the time of Asaph the Psalmist ; not τὰν; the Asaph who lived in David’s time, but he who lamented the devastations of the temple under Nebuchadnezzar or Antiochus. They could not personally join in eating of their sacrifices but at the three great feasts, or when they came of their own accord to offer some occasional devotions. At other times they could join in the public worship, as they did, only by praying with their faces toward Jerusalem, at the time when the continual burnt-offering was laid on the altar, and the incense was burning; but the Christian Sacri- fice is to be consumed by the Priest and people feasting © See Part I. p. [152,] ἃς. iil. tom. xi. p. 23. Ed. Ben.] he calls it ἃ In Epist. ad Ephes.[eap.i.Homil. θυσία καθημερινὴ. CHAP. Il. 188 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY together ; or at least by a number of Clergymen assisting at this holy ordinance, which was the case at the first institution of it by our blessed Lord; for He had then none but His Apostles present with Him. And all good Christians cannot but wish that, wherever there is a body of Clergymen living within a convenient distance, they would combine together in order to restore the Daily Sacrifice and Communion ; and there is no reason to doubt but that the people, by the in- fluence of their example, would gradually be wrought into a zeal and holy emulation in this most peculiar Christian worship. Chrysostom, in the place before cited, does most passionately lament the backwardness of the people in receiv- ing the Sacrament, at the beginning of the fifth century. This has ever since been a growing evil, and especially here in England. In the late Great Rebellion, the Eucharist was wholly disused and laid aside in many populous places; this was one signal instance of the glorious Reformation intended by the faction which then prevailed. And it is very grievous to consider, what vast numbers of grown men and women do still die amongst us without ever receiving the Sacrament at all, and yet are looked upon and treated as persons that lived and died in the communion of our Church. In the Church of Rome, he is a good Catholic, who receives once a year; and, among the Greeks®, he is esteemed a Christian of the highest rank, who does it three or four times in twelve months; and the Lutherans, I know, greatly complain of the tardiness of their people as to this great duty. God give to all Christians a sense of their sinful neglect of this most excellent and singular worship! And I persuade myself, that if they would once permit themselves to be convinced of this great truth, that the Eucharist is’ the only proper peculiar — public worship of the Church of Christ, they would mend their pace, and be more ready and frequent in this Gospel- service. For how is it possible, that men who are in earnest Christians, can answer it to God and their own consciences, when the question shall be seriously put to them, how they dare live in a long and wilful neglect of the Christian wor- © See Christoph. Angelus’s Enchi- ἢ dls, ἢ τρὶς, ἢ τετράκις τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ridion, cap. 22. [Ed. Cantab. 1619.1] μεταλαμβάνειν τὸ τίμιον Σῶμα καὶ Αἷμα Εἰώθασιν οἱ εὐγενεῖς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἅπαξ, τοῦ Κυρίου. TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 189 ship? He would scarce have been thought worthy of the BEC ἐν name of an Israelite under the Law, who wholly forbore going : to the temple at the three yearly feasts; or who, if he did go, yet thought it sufficient to hear the Law read or the glosses or discourses of the learned Doctors upon it, or only joined in the psalms or prayers that were there sung or rehearsed ; but refused to perform his part in the sacrifices there to be offered, which was the most principal and perfect part of the service for which the temple was built, and which made way for the acceptance of all the other devotions which the Law required. Just such a Christian is he, who is constant in other less valuable parts of Divine worship, but chooses never or very rarely to keep consort with the Christian Church in this most necessary and important branch of the Gospel-service. This will be of greater weight still, when it is considered τ that the reason of Christ’s making the Eucharist the principal oe ee worship of His Church was this, namely, because it is the (Oras: rateChrist’s commemoration of His Death. For the Death of Christ being Death ac- the greatest and most admirable Providence that ever did or THis zie could betide us, the foundation of all our hopes and of our Se claim to the Divine favour, therefore it was not only proper but necessary, that the commemoration of it should be our principal Christian worship. And it is for the same reason | necessary, that we should be frequent in doing it, not only | because by this means we express our gratitude for the greatest benefit which God ever vouchsafed to mankind ; but because we have no other thing to plead with God, where- | by to move Him to bestow His mercies on us. And, there- fore, he who seldom communicates is one who is seldom thankful to God for His redemption of mankind by Christ Jesus ; he is one who seldom makes his addresses to God in the most powerful and prevailing manner, that is, by shewing forth Christ’s Death to God, as the most prevailing means to obtain His blessing. It is true, a man may by meditation | remember Christ’s Death, and may in his prayers give God | thanks for it, and plead the merits of it in behalf of himself _ and others ; but then he does not remember it in that solemn _manner that Christ requires, nor does he offer his praises to God, and allege the merits of Christ’s Blood in that way | which Christ enjoins: and, in things of so great moment, we 190 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY == Pp. are not to take the course which seems best to our own ———— fancies, but to follow that method to which Christ hath directed us. And it is certain, that He did never hint to us any desire of our remembering His Death but in the Eucharist only; and since the commemoration of His Death is so reasonable and so necessary, and that the doing of it in any other way is mere will-worship, and since we must often have just occasion to plead the merits of it with God, in © order to procure the good effects of it; more need not be said to prove that it 1s necessary to live in the frequent — use of the Eucharist, as it is the principal worship of the Christian Church and the commemoration of our Saviour’s Death. III. We may be convinced of the great necessity of the — frequent use of the Eucharist, if we consider it as a means of covenanting, and communicating with God and each | other. Ay aca By the Gospel-Covenant only, we are capable of salvation ; necessary, and therefore it greatly concerns us to be well assured, that asit isa we duly lay hold on this Covenant, and renew our claims, and means of covenant- yepair the breaches of it ; and this can be done in and by the ae Eucharist only. Herein we do in the most perfect manner communicate with God and His Church, as has been shewed in the two foregoing Sections. Now this Communion with — God and His Church does not consist in one transient action, but in the frequent and constant repeating this action. No man is reputed to be a member of a family, — because he does sometimes occasionally or accidentally sit down at the same table and feast withthem. Nothing but a continual taking his meals, or (to say the least) a very fre- quent eating with them, is sufficient to this purpose; and therefore none ought to think himself of “ the household of God,” but he who does on every opportunity eat the “ Bread — of God” together with his fellow-servants. The Communion of Christ with His Church, and of the members of this Church with each other, is in the Scripture compared to that of a branch with the stock or tree, and of a limb with the body. Now it is certain, that, if the branch cease to partake of the juice or sap, it forthwith dies and is fit for nothing but the fire; and the limb, that does not par- TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 191 take of the blood and spirits which circulate in the body, SECT. becomes perfectly useless and an encumbrance. And from ——~— this we are given to understand, that our Communion with God. and His Church is obstructed and annulled by any wilful neglect of the means appointed for maintenance of this communion; and of these means, I suppose, all will allow the Eucharist to be the principal. The union between Christ and His Church, and of Christians between each other, does not consist in now and then accidentally meeting together, but in a perpetual uninterrupted conjunction. It is true, some allowance must always be made for parables and similes ; it cannot be expected, that men should always, night and day (in the literal sense), be employed in this or any other duty ; but, certainly, for a man to pretend to be of Christ’s Body, and yet not to join in that action, by which the unity of this Body is to be preserved, once a week or even once a month, is such a Communion as may rather be called a ‘ separation.’ And if “ we are made One Body by being partakers of the One Loaf,” if “we are made to drink to the One Spirit” by partaking of the Cup in the Eucharist, as St. Paul plainly 1 cor. x. teaches us; then, certainly, those Christians have a very sad ‘7+ *¥ 18: account to give of themselves, who choose for the most part or very often to turn their backs upon this Divine ordinance, and so wilfully interrupt the Communion betwixt God and their own souls, betwixt the Church of Christ and themselves. And the case is very plain; for if “he, who feedeth on the John vi. 56. Flesh of Christ, dwelleth in Him,” then he, who seldom or never eats It, cannot have Christ dwelling in him, but must be alienated from the Life of God. There is a necessity of frequently joing in the Eucharist, in order to the preserving our Covenant and Communion with God, if we consider the particulars, in which this covenant and communion consist. And 1. On God’s part, it consists in pardon of sin, grace to amend our lives, and the assurances of a happy immortality. _ These are mercies, of which we always more or less stand in _ need, and which we have no stated method of obtaining but | 1n the Holy Eucharist. (1.) In many things we offend all; and when a Christian As the Eu- has sinned, he must not only confess it, but he must apply <2" ce ἃ on, CHAP. i. A means of grace. 192 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY to God through Jesus Christ for pardon ; and the most proper method of applying ourselves to God through Jesus is, to do it in and by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; and there alone we can have our pardon sealed, as has been sufficiently proved. And the best of men cannot but believe, that they are often guilty of sins of ignorance and surprise; that they commit many faults through want of circumspection, which wholly escape their notice; and that, through the treachery of their | memories, they often forget those sins which they knowingly commit; and that, therefore, they have perpetual occasion to apply themselves to God for pardon. Upon this consideration, all who believe that the Eucharist was ordained for the re- mission of sins, must see themselves under a necessity of — using it very frequently for the cure of their guilt. I have fully shewed‘, that the Eucharist was always esteemed in the primitive Church a perfect Absolution, and how the Church of Rome has obscured and perverted this doctrine, by pre- tending that men must be entirely absolved from their sins before they receive the Sacrament. And it is very evident, that by this doctrine they have very much lessened the value of the Eucharist, and rendered the receiving of it frequently less needful than it was thought by the primitive Christians, who used it as a certain cure for their daily sins and infir- mities. If, indeed, our sins be of the grosser sort, or if we allow ourselves in any evil habit, then it is evident, as will hereafter appear, that we ought to abstain until we have re- formed ourselves; but if our offences are such only as pro-— ceed from the infirmities of nature, then we are not to think that they do so separate betwixt God and us as to render us unfit for the Sacrament, but are a sufficient motive to make us more quick and constant in this duty, that we may obtain mercy for what is past, and strengthen ourselves for the time to come. 2. Grace, or inward strength for the doing our duty, is an- other benefit of duly offering and receiving it: and as human nature does perpetually want new supplies of spiritual vigour ; so all that are sensible of this want will make use of those means, which God has ordained for this end. We often meet with violent temptations ; we find just occasion frequently to f See Chap. III. Sect. i. ———————— TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 193 complain of great hardships and difficulties, both in relation SECT. to our spiritual and temporal condition. And whither should τὸ we go to recruit our strength and courage, to refresh our languishing souls and to renew our joys, but to the Altar of God, where the Holy Spirit is always ready to shed Its comforts upon the hearts of all devout communicants ? (3.) A happy resurrection to eternal life is a blessing, of And of a which we can never make too sure. All wise and good men Pee make it their daily study and endeavour to do every thing that may raise their hopes, and increase their modest assur- ances, of a blessed immortality. Too many honest well- meaning Christians are full of grievous jealousies and suspicions concerning their eternal state; and, certainly, if _ there be any cure on this side of heaven for these torment- ing fears, it is the constant attendance at God’s Altar, with the best preparation that they are able to make. Nothing can ever clear their doubts and give them a full tide of humble confidence, if the very frequent receiving of the Holy Sacra- ment do not. He that every week or every day has his | pardon sealed, his graces renewed, and the promises of eternal happiness repeated to him and applied to his soul in the most | proper and solemn manner that God Himself can do it (with- out a miracle), he certainly takes the most proper course to cheer and glad his soul, and to preserve himself from weari- /ness and fainting in the pilgrimage and holy war, in which he | is engaged. If a Christian be never so steady and forward in all other parts of his duty, yet “except he feed on the Flesh of Christ, and make Christ’s Blood his drink, he has no life in him:” and it is impossible, that any man can be sure that he does “feed on the Flesh of Christ,” if he does not often receive the Holy Sacrament; for I think I have effectually proved, that this text is meant of the Eucharist. But now, he, who is not only industrious and circumspect in all other duties but likewise very constant in his attendance at the Lord’s Table, may with the greatest degree of certainty ex- pect a happy immortality, and say, “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly ; he may, with the most perfect degree of holy hope, repose his confidence in Christ, Who hath promised, that “he that feedeth on His Flesh hath eternal life.” | 2. On our part, covenanting and communicating with God : ] JOHNSON, ray CH ΤΩ implies a sincere exercise of all Christian virtues and graces: As the Eu- charist is an obliga- tion to holiness. 194 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY at present, and a resolution of continuing in the practice of them for the future. No man is fit for the Eucharist but he, who has a sincere love and charity for all men, and such a love to God as prevails over all other affections of his soul ; none but he that is so humble, as not to assume any thing to himself that is above him; so content, as to use no unjust means in order to mend his condition; so patient, as not to murmur against God’s Providence; so chaste and temperate, as not to have (of late at least) committed any wilful unclean- ness or excess; so devout, as to be fully convinced that he owes all the spiritual and temporal blessings he enjoys to God’s goodness, and that from Him alone he must expect whatever he wants, and therefore comes to the Holy Sacra- ment with a heart full of thanks for what he has already re- ceived, and of zeal and pious desires of those graces of which he most of all stands in need; and especially he must be 80 penitent, as to be truly grieved for all his known sins, and — earnest in his petitions for pardon for all sins, whether known ~ or unknown. He, who wants any of these holy dispositions, can by no means be fit for the Eucharist ; because there can be no communion betwixt God and a vicious soul; for “ what fellowship hath light with darkness ?”” This is the fundamental article of the Christian Covenant, that “‘ Whoever names the Name of Christ must depart from all iniquity ;” and ‘ With- out peace and holiness no man can see the Lord :” therefore, since in the Eucharist we do profess to covenant and have communion with God, it does from thence plainly follow, that no man is a proper guest for the Lord’s Table but he, who has a sincere aversion to and hatred of all sin, and a real dis- position to all the virtues and graces, which the Gospel re- quires of us. And it was evidently the design of Christ in instituting the Eucharist, to bring all His disciples under the strictest obligation to the duties of religion; and all serious Christians are so sensible of this, that they do never pre- sume to receive the Sacrament, until they have wrought themselves for the present into a real sorrow for all their — past sins, and into a resolution of avoiding those sins, and “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord” for the time to come. TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 195 Now it needs no proof, that it is necessary we should often 7 T. and even constantly covenant and communicate with God in sa ee this manner, because they who do it seldom, once a year, Or most pro- once a quarter, are in great danger of losing all their labour. prevatie ou For, during those long intervals of time in which they do not lapses into receive at all, their good dispositions grow flat and cold, their virtuous resolutions slacken, and by degrees wholly vanish and are forgotten. It may perhaps prove otherwise with some particular men of more than common firmness and pious vigour; but it is too evident that with many it is far otherwise. They are very precise and devout for some days before and after their receiving, but for the remainder of the time they are loose and careless, and open to all temptations, lukewarm and indifferent to all duty. This should convince them of the necessity of being more frequent in this duty of receiving the Eucharist; for it is evident, that if they did daily or weekly revive their religious fervours, as they have formerly done once a year or once a quarter, this would make them such men through the whole course of their lives, as they now are only a little before and after their stated times of receiving; and it was by daily, or, at furthest, weekly Sacraments, that the primitive Christians kept their covenant with God undefiled, and their communion with _ Him uninterrupted. We have all an unhappy natural bias _ to vice; and if, when we have taken some pains to kindle the flame of Divine love and devotion in our breasts, we do not _ take care to keep it alive, and cherish and improve it by the same means which first raised it, it will soon go out and die. Therefore the only way to prevent the loss of our labour in religion is, to keep ourselves always up to our holy vows and | engagements, never to loosen the reins of our resolutions by abstaining willingly for weeks or months together from the Eucharist ; for, by being remiss for a few days, we shall find we shall om more ground than we can recover in a much longer time. eee There is a known vulgar objection against this; I mean, The objec- | that familiarity breeds contempt; and that when the Eucha- πεῖ τ | rist is so often received as to become a thing of course, it tee cons mpt, con- would in a few months or years make no impression upon ieee _ men’s minds; and therefore could not, in all probability, be | 02 CHAP. it 196 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY attended with such beneficial effects as I have hitherto sup- ———\ posed. I shall answer this objection in the words of the most pious and judicious Mr. Nelson®, of blessed memory, viz., “Familiarity and intimate converse with men and things in this world is apt to diminish our value and respect for them ; it is quite the contrary in spiritual things, the frequent use whereof is the likeliest means to increase our respect and veneration towards them. An uninterrupted enjoyment of the good things of this world may very well lessen our esteem of them, because it convinces us they do not admi- nister that happiness which they promise; but, the more we employ ourselves in our spiritual exercises, we find they pro- duce a satisfaction that rises above what we expected or worldly men can imagine. The better we know men, the more we discover their frailties and imperfections; and therefore our familiarity with the best of men may be apt to abate that respect we paid them at a distance, by reason of that mixture of frailty which accompanies their greatest vir- tues. But, the oftener we converse with God in His holy ordinances, the more we shall admire His Divine perfections ; for an object of infinite perfection in itself, and of infinite goodness to us, will always raise our admiration, and heighten our respect and esteem, the more we contemplate it; it being the discovery of some imperfection, of some flaw, where we thought there was none, that lessens our esteem and pro- vokes our contempt.” He further observes, that ‘This objec- tion will hold with as much force against frequent prayer, which the precepts of the Gospel make necessary.—If people reap no benefit from their frequent Communion, the fault — must be laid upon the negligence of their lives, and upon the slight care they take in the examination of their consciences : and, if upon a strict inquiry they find any secret sin unre- — pented of, any habitual neglect of their duty, this great bar to the influence of grace must be removed.—They that owe their ardours at the Altar to their seldom approaching the ~ Holy Table, have too much reason to conclude they are more affected from the rarity and unusualness of the action than from the Divine virtue that flows from it; like those that & Of Frequent Communion, p. 46—651. Edit. Ist. TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. 197 converse seldom with men of great quality and title, the awe SECT. they feel of their greatness proceeds more from their not being used to frequent their company than from the opinion of their true worth and dignity: so that these people seem rather to be under the power of nature than the influences of grace. I am sure, experience will inform us, that the devoutest ages of the Church were those wherein the prac- tice of frequent Communion most prevailed. And in the accounts we have of the greatest Samts, never any one ex- celled in the virtues of a Christian life but what distin- guished himself by frequently nourishing his soul with this Heavenly Bread. Nay, I dare appeal to those holy souls who live under a strict sense of their duty in this particular, _ whether their affections to the world do not lose ground, and their desires toward Heaven do not grow more intense and vigorous,” &c. In this and what follows, he did, no doubt, speak his own sense, which he had gained by a long expe- rience of many years. Upon which account, I look upon | what he says on this occasion to be of more weight than if /it had come from the most learned men in the world; and therefore, as he humbly appeals to others, so all constant _ retainers to the Altar will agree, that no person since the _ Apostolical age was a more competent judge in this point, _ because no man had a greater experimental knowledge of it _ than himself. I will only add, that there is just cause to apprehend, that Low no- one great occasion of the unfruitfulness of many who live in poe hee Eucharist, _ the frequent use of the Sacrament, is to be imputed to the ore “2use low and sorry notion which they have conceived of this most faness in e use of heavenly Ordinance. It is looked upon by very many to be it. ἃ bare remembrance, a mere type, figure, and shadow, desti- tute of all inward spiritual power or efficacy; an outward | and ceremony, to be performed as often or seldom as every man’s own discretion shall direct him; he, who consi- _ders the Sacrament as nothing more than what has hitherto been mentioned, can reap no great advantage by it, how often soever he receive it; he may, indeed, by thus often receiving, imprint the memory of his Saviour’s Death upon his own mind; and this is an effect of the Communion, how- ever or wheresoever administered, that is not to be despised. ——— HAP. 1. 198 THE EUCHARIST NECESSARY TO RENEW OUR COVENANT. He, that further esteems the Sacrament as a Covenant be- tween God and his own soul and the whole Church, may, by frequently receiving it, be the better assured of God’s mercy toward him, and be the more sensible of his own obligations to live in obedience to God and in brotherly love with his fellow-Christians ; yet still, if he believes that by any other act of faith, devotion, or obedience, he does as truly feed on the Flesh of Christ and drink His Blood as if he received the Eucharist, he can have no just reason to be so frequent in this duty of communicating in the Sacrament as he, who is thoroughly persuaded, as all men ought to be, that Chris- tians can ordinarily covenant and have communion with God in the Eucharist only. And I conceive it impossible in the | nature of things to prevail on the Christians of this age to be as frequent and constant communicants, as they of the Apostolic age were; until they have the same notions of the Eucharist, which they had. And when Christians are gene- rally convinced that this Holy Institution was designed by Christ to be the constant, proper, and peculiar worship of the Church; that in it alone we make our most effectual addresses to God for pardon, grace, and salvation; and that there alone we receive from God the full assurances of these mercies ; and that, therefore, by keeping at a distance from the Eucharist we “deprive ourselves of the Bread of God,” as Ignatius has it; that we “are separated from the Body of Christ, and remain far off from salvation,” as St. Cyprian expresses it: then, and not till then, we shall have reason to hope that they “ will continue stedfastly m breaking of Bread,” as well as in other duties of Religion. | CHAP. III. OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. Ir is certain, the Eucharist was ever esteemed but One by the primitive Christians and by all judicious Divines, though never so often administered and received by Priests and people, and in places vastly distant from each other; and no one will, I suppose, contradict me in this point, since St. Paul assures us, that “we” (Christians) “are all One Bread” or Loaf, “and One Body: for we are all partakers of that One Loaf.” Instead therefore of saying any more to prove that the Eucharist is but One, I shall rather make it my business to shew how or in what sense it is so. NowlI conceive the Eucharist is One, a 1. Considered as the same Sacrifice of Christ’s Sacramental Body and Blood ; | 2. As it is sanctified by One and the same Spirit ; 3. As the effects of It are the same in all worthy re- celvers ; 4. As the rites and manner of performing It were intended to be the same ; 5. As the offerers and communicants are One, that is, 1. The Priests, who are One by their Commission ; 2. As both Priests and people were intended to be One 1. In faith, 2. In charity, 3. In government and dis- cipline ; 6. As to the place, that is, the Catholic Church, as opposed to all heretical and schismatical assemblies. The Eucharist is One, considered as One Sacrifice of Christ’s Eucharist Sacramental Body and Blood. The Bread and Wine, used ὦ 881 represents in the several congregations of Christians, can no more be τὐλεφν said to be One and the same in their own substance or Christ. CHAP. Iil. 200 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. nature, than the lambs offered by the several families of the — Israelites were one and the same lamb; and yet St. Paul — assures us that we are all partakers of “ that One Loaf,” and that thereby we are made “One Body.” It is therefore “One — Loaf,” as It represents the One natural Body of Christ sacri- ficed for our sins; as It represents the One mystical Body of Christ, wheresoever dispersed throughout the world. There- fore, if you will suppose a million of loaves to be consecrated by as many Priests, at one and the same time, in an equal number of congregations, yet they are still, in the Mystery, but One Loaf; because they all represent but One Body οὗ Christ, and are that One Body in power and efficacy. In this sense it is that Chrysostom says», “ We offer but One Sacrifice ;”” and that Cyprian assertsi, “We ought to do or offer nothing in the Eucharist, but what our Lord did and offered :” and so say other of the ancients ; for they believed that He did, in the Eucharist, make the One Oblation of Him- self. And, in this sense, Ignatius speaks to the Philadelphians* of having “but One” Eucharist; “ because,” says he, “the Flesh of Jesus Christ is but One, the Cup but One in the Unity of His Blood :” and he charges the Ephesians! to “break but One Bread” or Loaf. Whether there were more than one con- gregation of sound Christians in either of thesé cities, is not certain: but if there were never so many, yet, by preserving the Unity of the Church, they preserved the Unity of the Eu- charist; and all the masses of Bread used in the several — assemblies were but One Body of Christ. The words, going — immediately before those just now cited from the Epistle to the Philadelphians, do well deserve our consideration. This — holy Martyr tells them, that “If any one follow him that — makes a schism, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; he that walks after any strange opinion, does not consent” — or accord “to the Passion™ ;” that is, by departing from the — Church, he disavows the Eucharist. For I have elsewhere® shewed, that the Sacrament is by the ancients called “the Passion of Christ.”? Schismatics withdraw from the Eu- — charist of the Church ; and what they offer, eat, and drink in bP. p. 43. Ap. 1b. p. 2. Ap. 1m. 9, 10. p, 18, 14..Ap. ™ ov συγκατατίθεται τῷ πάθει. * g. Ῥ. 2. Ap. 2 Sce Part I. p. [148,] &e. OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 201 their separate assemblies, is not the Passion of Christ, or the CHAP. True Sacrament of His Body and Blood. That this was the ———— meaning of this blessed Martyr appears from the next words, “Study therefore to enjoy the One Eucharist ; for the Flesh of Jesus Christ is but One.” 2. The Eucharist is One, as sanctified by the same Holy eset pe Spirit. I have formerly shewed at large®, that it was the One Spirit. settled judgment of the Primitive Church of the first ages, that the Holy Spirit did by Its secret power overshadow the elements of Bread and Wine, and by Its Divine influence render them the Body and Blood of Christ in efficacy and virtue, without changing their natural substance. And this is the doctrine of St. Paul, when he speaks of Christians’ being “made to drink into the One Spirit ;” and our Saviour Himself, after He had spoken of feeding His people with His Flesh and Blood, further adds, that the words which He spake were “Spirit and Life” ;” that He did not promise them mere bodily things, but His Sacramental Body and Blood, replenished with the Holy Spirit, and receiving by this means ἃ Life-giving power. There can therefore no more be two Eucharists, than two Bodies of Christ or two Holy Spirits ; _and Gaudentius4 has well expressed the primitive doctrine in the following words ; “ In the type of the Legal Passover, not only one lamb was killed, but many. There was a lamb killed for every family, for one was not sufficient for them all; for that was a figure, not the verity of the Lord’s Passion. In the verity, under which we are, One died for all ; and that same [One], being offered in every Church in the Sacrament of Bread and Wine, enlivens, if believed on; and sanctifies the consecrators ; that is, the Priests. Anda little after" he tells us, that “As Bread is brought to perfection by fire, so is the Sacramental Body of Christ perfectly con- secrated by the Holy Ghost.” | 8. The effects of the Eucharist are the same in all worthy The effects eceivers. These are, the pardon of sin, the influence of a grace, the assurance of a happy resurrection, as I have over and again shewed in the foregoing part of this work. Some good communicants may receive these effects in greater || ° See Part I. p. [266—296.] 4 a. p. 30. Ap. | P See Part I. p. [287.] rd. p. 31. Ap. 202 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. ΠΕ a degrees than others ; but all that come to the Lord’s Table —— with a pious and well-prepared mind have these benefits conferred on them in such measures, as they want, or are qualified to accept and use them. There is no occasion to enlarge in so plain a case; it is sufficient to say, that the same cause must produce the same effects in all cases, where the persons, upon whom the operation is to be made, are equally capable of receiving benefit by it. How the 4, The rites and manner of performing the Eucharist were © manner of . the Eucha- Intended to be the same, I do not mean as to every minute rist ought tobethe. circumstance or punctilio, but as to the main. The rites, aici ἐάν circumstances, or modes of administering and receiving the Eucharist may be divided into three ranks: first, some are perfectly indifferent, as the signing of the elements with the cross, the placing the Bread and Wine on the side-altar before they are brought to the proper Altar, the use of leavened or unleavened Bread, the vestment or habit used either by Priest or people, so it be decent and without any air of levity or immoderate gaudiness, any affectation either of splendour or sordidness, and agreeable to the custom or laws of the Church: the posture of receiving I reckon too among the indifferent rites; I mean, whether it be done kneeling or standing ; for sitting I think not to be endured. And it is a vulgar error to suppose that our Saviour and the Apostles did not either kneel or stand, while they were per forming this most sacred office. And among these ὃ especially to be understood all the foppish ceremonies intro- duced into the Latin and Greek Churches in the middle and dark ages, which are too many and too frivolous to be pa ticularly named with any tolerable degree of patience ; in ἃ word, I reckon all rites indifferent, which cannot be reduced to the two following heads. Kiss of A second sort of rites or modes are those which are Apo- ee cup, Stolical, and which greatly deserve to be restored, but whi and the ele- dg not seem necessary to the essence of the Eucharist ; such ments being ccna is the kiss of charity, mentioned both by St. Peter and St. mmu- : ; ρῶς = Paul, allowed, I think, by all learned men to have been used ee in the first ages of the Church’, just at the entrance on the - * See Const. Apost., lib. ii. cap. 57. lib. viii. c. 12. OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 203 holy action‘. This custom began to be laid aside in the CHAP. Western Churches in the ninth century. Whether it con- τ —— tinued so long or ceased sooner in the Greek Church, I know 14. not; but in the twelfth century" there was no such ceremony a pata practised, except between Bishops only. This rite was ne tended to express the mutual charity of the communicants ; ig ia e and since it is authorized by the Apostles themselves, I can- ~~ not but think that it ought to have been retained ; or, if the kiss be not now thought consistent with that gravity of mind, which best suits so solemn an institution, in an age so much disposed to turn every thing into jest and raillery, shaking of hands or embracing, (the men with the men, the women with the women only,) might have been used instead of it. This certainly had been much better than the kissing of a crucifix or some such instrument of superstition, which is now prac- tised in the room of the holy kiss in the Latin Church. Such is the rite of mingling of water with the Sacramental Wine; I have spoken very particularly of this before*, and now shall only add, that it seems to me to have been an Apostolical Use, and very probably practised by Christ Jesus Himself? ; therefore I cannot but wish that it might be restored. It is certain, that Martin Luther?’ retained the use of it for some time, after he had renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome; as also did our first Reformers in the reign of dward VI. A third rite of this sort is, the people’s first ffering that Bread and Wine to the Priest, which is after- ards to be consecrated for the Holy Eucharist. That this t See Amalarius de Eccles. Officiis, ib. ili. c. xxxii. [apud Hittorpium, Ed. aris. 1624. | ἃ See Zonaras in Can. Laodie. 19. nd Balsamon in eundem. * See Chap. I. Sect. iv. Y Yet Mons. Pfaffy produces some ords from Origen’s twelfth Homily ἢ Jeremiah xiii. 12. [tom. iii. p. 194. ἃ. Ben.} which expressly assert, that hrist administered the Eucharist in nmixed Wine. I will give the words somewhat more at large than Mons. 'Pfaffy has done, that my reader may ) he better be enabled to make a judg- -mentof them. “Ide δέ μοι τὸν Σωτῆρα | pos τὸ Πάσχα ἀναβαίνοντα eis ἀνώ- i αιον μέγα ἐστρωμενὸν καὶ κεκοσμη- κενὸν, καὶ ἑορτάζοντα μετὰ τῶν μαθη- τῶν, καὶ διδόντα αὐτοῖς τὸ ποτήριον, περὶ οὗ γέγραπται, οὐχ’ ὅτι ἐκέρασεν᾽" ὃ Ἰησοῦς γὰρ εὐφραίνων τοὺς μαθη- τὰς ἀκράτῳ εὐφραίνει, καὶ λέγει αὐ- tots’ Λάβετε, πίετε, καὶ τ. A. δρᾷς τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τὸ ποτήριον τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης οὖσαν" ὁρᾷς τὰς κολάσεις πο- τήριον οἴνου axpdrov. I suppose my judicious reader will easily discern that the place is corrupted ; for, as it stands, it makes ‘unmixed wine’ to denote a ‘punishment’ in Jeremiah, a ‘promise’ in the Eucharist. Origen probably wrote εὐκράτῳ εὐφραίνει, and γέγραπται ὅτι ἐκέρασεν, “Τῇ was written’’ in some memorials long since lost, that Christ used ‘ Wine well-mixed.’ * See Pfaffius, ubi supra, p. 176. CHAP. Matt. ν. 23. 204: OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. was the universal usage of the primitive Apostolical Church, — is, I think, agreed by all men of learning; and I have suffi- ciently proved upon another occasion®. It must be owned, — that this is not anywhere in the Western Church observed, as it was in the purest ages. Among the Papists, the Priests do generally provide the elements, at least so it was here ἴῃ England before the Reformation. By the First Liturgy of Edward VI. every house in the parish was by turns to offer the value of the Holy Loaf, but stillthe Priest was to furnish it, though at the parishioners’ cost. Now it is purchased by the Church-wardens out of the common stock, as the morning and evening sacrifices of the Jews were out of the public treasury levied on the people; and this comes nearest to the { primitive practice. Yet it must be owned that this practice — is liable to objection, because it cannot in strictness be said to be a free-will-offering, as I think the Eucharistical Bread and Wine ought to be; and if it were free, yet since the common stock of every parish is raised out of the estates of vicious and profligate men, of heretics and schismatics, nay, as it may happen, of Jews and Atheists, I cannot but wish that, in this respect, there were some better provision. It is certain, the primitive Church would never have accepted the offerings of such men, if they had been never so free and voluntary, especially as a fund for purchasing of the Bread and Wine. The offerings of those laymen who lived in malice, though they were in all other respects sound Christians, were not accepted; none but they who led unblemished lives were allowed to communicate, and none but communicants were permitted to make an Oblation at the Altar. It is evident that the primitive Christians “brought their gifts” of Bread and Wine “to the Altar,” in compliance with our Saviour’s precept in His Sermon on the Mount; and therefore thought themselves obliged to do it with such a disposition of mind as He there requires, that is, with such charity and integrity that no “ brother might have aught against them,” any wrong or injury to charge them withal; much more was it thought necessary, that the whole Church should have no reason to — resent the misbehaviour of those who came to make their — offerings. It ought in reason to be owned, that it is very a See Part I. p. [434,] &c. ; OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 205 ‘desirable, that these three Rites were now strictly observed in the Christian Church, and especially this last ; yet I dare not assert, that any or all of them are necessary to such a degree, as that the Eucharist being celebrated without them does thereby become unacceptable to God or unprofitable to men. The holy kiss could be intended for no other end, but to be an open declaration of the mutual charity of the communi- _cants ; and if we have this grace and exercise it upon all just occasions, this is a better proof of our brotherly love than all the outward professions of it, that men can make. The mingling water with the Wine is no more than complying with the primitive Church in an outward circumstance. It is probable indeed, that the primitive Church copied this prac- tice from the Apostles, and even from Christ Jesus Himself, ‘and it would therefore be a most unjustifiable practice to depart from any Church on account of using water with the Wine ; but since no Christians of tolerable judgment do think it blameable to administer or receive the Sacrament at an- other time, in another posture, in a different place, in other sort of bread, than what were used by Christ and His Apostles at the first Institution ; therefore no man, I think, ought to esteem it sinful to use unmixed Wine, though there is good reason to believe that our Saviour and His Apostles tempered their Wine with water. It is true, the water was thought by the ancients to signify the people, as the Wine did the Blood of Christ; but then the many grains of wheat ground and kneaded into one loaf, and the several grapes whose juice was pressed into one vessel, were likewise thought Ὁ denote the same thing; and there can be no necessity for aving the Church doubly represented in the Sacrament. d as to the people’s offering the Bread and Wine, which ere to be consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ, his was indeed absolutely necessary, while there was no ther provision made for furnishing God’s Altar; but it can- ot be deemed so necessary now, when all Churches have, y one means or other, a stated supply of Bread and Wine for this purpose; though it must be confessed, that the ancient method is most proper and agreeable to the nature of the Ordinance. But our Saviour does not absolutely re- quire men to bring their gifts to the Altar, but only gra- CHAP. Ill. 206 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. CHAP. ciously presumes, they will do it, whenever they see occa- : sion for it. ‘If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar,” are His words; this implies, that whatever is done of this sort must proceed from the free-will of the people. Necessary | But then there are a third sort of rites and modes so neces- ae sary, that, when they are omitted, the Eucharist must in justice be deemed defective and imperfect, and we can have no just foundation to believe that it is done according to the will and intention of Christ Jesus. These rites or modes are as follow, Placing (1.) The first necessary Rite of the Eucharist is, that the Bread an’, Priest place Bread and Wine on the Lord’s Table. The ce Eucharist cannot be without Bread and Wine; and I con- Trisagium, ceive it to be necessary, that It be presented to God by the “a Priest, not only from the general consent of the Church in all ages, which has ever directed the Priest to perform this office, as our Church does at this day; but from the general laws of Sacrifice, one of which always was, that the priest should lay on the altar all that was offered on it. All the old Liturgies do likewise agree in this, that as soon as the Bread and Wine have been reverently placed on the Altar, the Priest calls on the people to “lift up their hearts to God and to give thanks;” and, the people having declared their compliance with the Priest in these particulars, there imme- diately followed a large recital and acknowledgment of God’s dominion, providence, goodness, and special mercies to His Church, especially in redeeming mankind by Christ Jesus ; in token of our homage and gratitude for which mercies, the Bread and Wine were presented at the Altar. This acknow- ledgment always began with those words which are still in our Liturgy, viz., “It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, Holy Father,” &c. It were to be wished, that there had been a particular rehearsal of God’s most signal favours and providences to His Church here in- serted in our Liturgy, as in those of old; instead whereof only Christ’s Birth, Resurrection, &c., are expressly mentioned at their proper Festivals; however, this is closed by ourChurch, as it was in the most primitive times, with that Angelical hymn, “Holy, Holy, Holy,” &c. There is greater reason than Ὰ “5 ee ee ee αὶ κω, — ee ee ὉὍὔοι. σπωδιν. “ ~? o> OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 207 that of universal practice, to prove this recital and acknow- CHAP. ledgment of God’s dominion, power, and goodness to be ἘΠΕ _ necessary; I mean, that Christ, having just before eaten the _ Passover, did, in performing that ordinance, bless God for _ having created Bread and the fruit of the vine; for all Jewish _ Rabbies and Christian Divines agree in this, that the master of the feast always did this. And there is the same reason for doing this in the Eucharist; and the Christian Church : has therefore always followed this pattern, and done it ina more solemn ample manner than was used by the Jews of old. There was no occasion for our Saviour to do this over again, when He took some of the Bread and Wine that re- mained after the Passover-feast was concluded, to represent His own Body and Blood, because He had done it but just before ; there was no occasion for Christ to place Bread and Wine on the Table, because there was Bread and Wine suffi- cient still remaining over and above, after the Passover was ended. Im all the later Liturgies there is some form of words used by the Priest at his presenting the Bread and Wine on the Altar, as there is now in ours, begging of God to “accept the Oblation ;” but there is no such form in the most ancient of all. ! I shall only further observe, that though it be not now ex- pected, that communicants should offer Bread and Wine; yet it now is and ever was the duty of all that come to the Altar, not to appear empty before God. Christ has declared, that when any one approaches the Altar, he should “bring his gift with him.” He has not indeed so absolutely enjoined it, as that he who brings nothing is therefore to be driven from the Lord’s Table; for all offerings under the Gospel are to be free: but men must take heed, that they do not use this free- dom as a cloak for covetousness or uncharitableness. If the Priest be otherwise provided of a proper maintenance, yet the poor are not to be neglected. (2.) Rehearsing the Words of Institution is the second Rehearsing necessary Rite. This is so ancient, as that no man knows ‘fy ars the beginning of it ; so universal, that I suppose there is no [ἷ9 8: Church or pretended Church in the world, but what ever did and still does use it: there is no reason to doubt but that it ever was used and everywhere. I know Mr. Hales and others 208 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. CHAP. have argued against the necessity of using these words; but, ΞῈ certainly, no modest Christian will argue against a practice so venerable as to its antiquity, established by so great an authority as that of all Churches of the past and present age. These Words are indeed the commission, by which the Priest acts, and by virtue whereof the Bread and Cup are consigned to be representatives of the Body and Blood of Christ. tesee δ (3.) The breaking of the Bread and pouring out of the pouring out Wine are necessary rites; for the whole solemnity is some- iene 42, times distinguished by the title of “breaking Bread ;” and xx. 7. “the Bread which we break”’ is the distinguishing character mong * of the Sacramental Body of Christ in the Eucharist. And it is certain, that our Saviour brake the Bread with His own hands, and then distributed it to the disciples; and no man that is not in love with contention will dispute, whether it be not necessary for every Minister, in celebrating this Sacra- ment, to do what our Saviour did in performing this solemnity; and I suppose the pouring out of the Wine is necessary in the same degree that the breaking of the Bread is so. The offer- (4.) The Priest’s offering of the Bread and Cup, after the τ τε μὰ Words of Institution, in commemoration οἵ Christ’s Death, pal Resurrection, and Ascension, is what seems to be a necessary Christ’s rite. I cannot but express my wonder, that some men of Death. considerable reputation in the learned world should imagine, that Christ, when He instituted the Eucharist, did only use some Jewish forms of benediction, such as every master of a family pronounced at a common entertainment. It is cer- tain, that our Saviour, in causing His disciples to eat and drink after the Passover as He did, acted directly contrary to the practice of the Jews, who thought it unlawful to taste either meat or drink, after they had once concluded their solemn supper on the lamb; and the Jews at this day ob- serve the same rule of abstinence, after they have eaten their unleavened bread, as the learned Pfaffius”, after Buxtorf, has shewed from the writings of the Rabbies. Now it is certain, Luke xxii, Our Saviour took the Cup “after supper;” and, as many ΠΡ learned men have observed, the words of St. Matthew and St. Mark, when they begin to relate the Institution, ought to > See Pfaff. De Oblatione, p. 166, &c. OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 209 be rendered‘, “ when they had eaten,” that is, after they had CHAP. ended the Paschal supper. Our Saviour had already per- formed the office of a master at the Paschal feast, in blessing both the Bread and Cup after the manner of the Jews, and now He blesses the Bread and Cup, as the pledges of the New Covenant ; and to imagine, that He did and said nothing upon this occasion, but what a grave Jew would have said or done at a common meal or banquet, or what He had done just before at the Passover-feast, is to sink the Eucharist into as low a degree of contempt as the very enemies of Chris- tianity can desire. He does Himself assure us, that “the Bread was His Body given,” or offered to God, ‘that the Cup was His Blood shed for the remission of sins.” We are not therefore to doubt but that He did then under the sym- bol of Bread offer His Body, under the symbol of Wine pour out His Blood. Whether He did this in words audibly pro- nounced, I do not undertake to determine; it is sufficient, if He did it by the words of His mind only, and by the Eternal Spirit; and I have abundantly shewed, that the primitive Church was taught by the Apostles to do the same that Christ had done, that is, to give or offer the Bread and Wine to God, in memory of what He now did; and whether Christ did openly speak the words of Oblation or not, it is certain that the Bishops and Priests of the primitive Church were always required to perform this solemn part of their office in such a manner, that they might be heard by the people; and if the Eucharist be a Sacrifice, then it seems to me, that the offering it to God must be one part of the blessing to be passed upon it. (5.) The Invocation of the Holy Ghost on the symbols was The Invoca- certainly thought necessary by the primitive Church; and if Holy Ghest. this were necessary in the primitive ages, it cannot be unne- cessary now. I have fully proved‘, that this was the universal sentiment of all for some hundred years after Christ, and have shewed what foundation this doctrine has in Scripture’; and I have already in this chapter observed, that the Eucha- rist was designed to be One, as sanctified by the One Spirit. + © Matt. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22. ἃ See Part I. p. [273.] ἐσθιόντων here is the second indefinite. © See Part I. p. [286.] See the Critics in loc. JOHNSON, P CHAP. Ill. Interces- sion for all Christians. 210 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. I think the generality of Protestants are agreed, that the Consecration is performed chiefly by prayer. In this the Lutherans and Calvinists seem united; and they do lhke- wise generally esteem the rehearsal of the Words of Institu- tion to be necessary to this purpose. The Lutherans do also speak very favourably of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit’, though it does not appear that they use it. The Church of Rome? first laid aside this Invocation at the latter end of the sixth century, but it was still retained in the Gallican Liturgy, which was also used in the English Church till toward the middle of the eighth century; and from that time forward the Roman Liturgy prevailed in the whole Western Church, and the Holy Ghost was no longer invoked at the consecra- tion of the Eucharist. The Greek and Eastern Churches do constantly and universally practise it to this day. Our first Reformers here in England restored this most pious and Apostolical Prayer (though they placed it before the Words of Institution, contrary to the ancient method); but in the review of our Liturgy, two or three years after, it was wholly omitted. It is clear, that the Church of Rome was the mother of this corruption ; and I wish I could say that the Reformation had reduced our Liturgy to the primitive state in this particular. St. Ignatius” wishes to the Churches of the Magnesians, ‘‘an union of the Flesh and Spirit of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist ;” and to this end charges them, “‘when they meet together, to have the One Prayer'.”” This the holy Martyr thought a most important blessing ; and certainly it becomes and highly concerns all the Bishops and Pastors in Christendom not only to express the same wish, but most earnestly to labour for the accomplishing of it. (6.) The intercessions for the Church and for all orders and degrees of men in it, is another necessary part of the Eucharistic Office ; for this is but an express declaration of that charity, which is absolutely necessary for all that desire to receive the Sacrament to the benefit of their own souls. _ To pray for all Christians in and by the Eucharist, is only to Γ See Pfaff. De consecratione, p- 485, was omitted in the Sacramentary of &e. Gregory the First, who flourished A.D. g It seems evident, that the Holy 6590. Ghost was invocated in the Gelasian h See Part I. p. [281]. ] Liturgy, see Part I. p. (276; ] but it i Ad Magnes., c. 7. OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 211 speak our intention in offering the Sacrifice ; and this is what has always been done, not only by Christians, but by Jews and heathen in all the oblations which they made. And by all Churches’ and every private Christian’s praying for all other Churches and for every member of them, the Unity of the whole Church and of the Eucharist was of old preserved entire: not only a universal charity was thereby exercised, but the Sacrifice was declared to be offered in behalf of the Same persons, in every single congregation of Christians throughout the world. I believe it to be very evident in itself, that we have the example of Christ for doing this: for I have shewed*, that the long prayer contained in the seventeenth chapter of St. John was put up to God by our Saviour, upon His instituting the Eucharist ; and there He intercedes with His Father in the first six verses for His own glorification, that is, His Resurrection, Ascension, sending the Holy Ghost, and the success of His Gospel; in the fourteen next verses, He most earnestly addresses Himself to God in behalf of the Apostles; and, in the following words, for “ all that should believe in His Name,” that is, for all Christians of all ages to the world’s end. There is little doubt but the Apostles followed the example of their Master in this as well as other respects; and the primitive Church learned this practice from them. It must be owned, that we cannot certainly say at what precise point of time our Saviour used this prayer; but the best or rather the only guide in this particular is the Use of the primitive Church; and it is evi- dent, that the most ancient Liturgies now in being direct these intercessions to be made after the Consecration is ended, and before the distribution begins, though the latter Liturgies have these intercessions dispersed in the several parts of them. And therefore no more need be said to shew, how we may render our Eucharist one and the same with that of the Christian Church in the purest ages, and, by con- sequence, with that of Christ Himself. It is impossible, at this great distance of time, to determine, whether the Apostles did in all Churches use exactly the same form of words, or whether every one of them used his own discretion in drawing a Liturgy for the use of himself and k Tntroduction. P2 CHAP. Il. ee Lord’s Prayer not necessary to Conse- cration. Matt. vi. 6. 212 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. the Churches settled by him. I find the most learned and judicious writers on this subject are rather inclined to think, that their harmony in this particular did not consist in using the same words and phrases, but that every Apostle chose his own way of expression; but I see no shadow of reason to believe, that any of them or of the primitive Bishops did not always keep strictly close to their own forms, aud always use the same words. I look on extempore Prayer to be a mere modern invention, unheard-of in the Church until now of very late. And though I presume not to assert, that every Bishop thought himself obliged precisely to confine himself to follow his predecessor in every single expression; yet I am persuaded, that the variations they used consisted rather in words than sense; and that they all tied themselves to the same method in performing this most solemn Ordinance; and this was that which they called the ‘ Order” or ‘Method’ of their Liturgy. Some might have expected, that I should speak of the Lord’s Prayer as necessary to the Consecration of the Eucha- rist, because several of the Fathers about four hundred years after Christ do mention it as constantly used in the Conse- cration-Service ; and I cannot but readily confess, that it may very properly be used on that or any other weighty occasion; nay, I dare not say that the ancients were mis- taken, when by the ‘super-substantial Bread’ they under- stood the Eucharist. Yet I can by no means believe that the use of it is necessary to Consecration ; not only because it is not inserted into the Consecration-Service of the most ancient Liturgy now in the world, nor mentioned by the Fathers of the three first centuries, as a part of the Commu- nion Office; but because it is very evident that our Saviour did first and chiefly design it for a private prayer to be used in the closet. And it is one thing for a private Christian or for a congregation of Christians to beg of God, that they may never want the Eucharist, or food necessary both for their bodies and souls; and it is another thing to invoke the Divine Spirit, in order to render the present Bread and Wine the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. Gregory™ Bishop of Rome, in the sixth or seventh century, did imagine ' Gr. ᾿Ακολουθία. Lat. Consequentia. ™ See Part I. p. [551.] OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 213 that the Apostles consecrated the elements with this prayer, CHAP. and so have several others since him; but this seems to have pi been a very late and ill-grounded tradition. I have taken no notice of the Creed, as it is a part of the Nor the Communion-Service. I deny not but the use of it in the ed Eucharist is very seasonable and edifying; but there is no “>selution. reason to believe, that the primitive Church had the Creed in their Communion-Service. The first authority for it is, I think, in the third Council of Toledo, above five hundred years after Christ. It was not received into the Roman Church till above five hundred years after this, in the eleventh century. Our very joining in the administration or participation of the Eucharist does imply our profession. of the Christian Faith; and though it is proper to explain ourselves in this particular, yet the primitive Church did not think it necessary. The Confession of sins and Absolution is very far from being improper ; but yet, if I mistake not, they are new, and peculiar to our Communion-Service. If the Absolution were in the downright positive way, “I absolve you,” it would be more new still, The ancient Church, I conceive, gave no direct absolution in words; admission to the Eucharist was believed to imply a full and perfect re- mission to all sincere communicants. I do not mention the portions of Scripture, the Psalms, Nor the Hymns, and other such like devotions before the Consecra- Tae tion, or after it, or during the time of administration, as necessary to this ordinance, though very proper and com- mendable. The Lutherans" seem to attribute a sanctifying power to these Hymns or Lauds; but I am not sensible that they have any evidence either in Scripture or antiquity for this opinion. St. Matthew, according to our English Trans- lation, says of our Saviour and His Apostles, that “they sung an hymn.” Our Divines commonly suppose that they sung six of the Psalms, beginning at the 113th, ending with the 118th ; the only foundation for this is, that the Jews used to do this at the Passover: if, therefore, the Hymn consisted " Pfaff. De consecr., p. 486. In Ecclesia Roterodamensi Augustane quens Psalmo exi. consecraretur. He cites Chrysostom to the same purpose, Confessioni addicta ante aliquot annos receptum fuit, ut, primo quidem Vino Verbis Institutionis consecrato, inse- p- 409, but I do not see that Chry- sostom’s words carry any proof with them, CHAP. Il. Distribu- tion, a ne- cessary rite. 214 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. of those Psalms, it is certain that they sang it rather in regard to the Passover than the Eucharist. The Greek word, used here by St. Matthew®, is of a very wide and uncertain signification, and does not necessarily imply sing- ing. Grotius believes that the Evangelist’s meaning was, that the Apostles jomed with our Saviour in that most solemn and devout address, which He made to God the Father, contained in the seventeenth chapter of St. John’s Gospel: and this I think as probable as any other of the conjectures, which men of learning have made on this obscure passage ; but nothing can with any certainty be concluded from it. Another necessary Rite of the Eucharist is that of distri- buting the symbols or the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. Nobody will expect that I should spend many words to prove, that the Eucharist was intended by Christ to be eaten and drunk ; it is what I have in the foregoing Part of this work frequently insisted on; it is what is necessarily imported in the very notion of the Eucharist; for it is not only a Sacrifice, but a feast. The Church of Rome, in per- mitting the Oblation without the Communion, has notoriously violated the Institution of Christ and the Unity of the Eu- charist. The private Masses, used in that Church, are with- out any example of the best and most primitive times. This is an Eucharist peculiar to the Papists; not the ‘One Eu- charist’ which Christ Jesus founded. (8.) The last necessary Rite is the Priest’s benediction : for I have elsewhere fully shewed that all sacrifices of God’s people ought to be concluded in this manner, for that all Divine blessings are procured chiefly by means of Sacrifice. Accordingly, in the most ancient Liturgy now in being?, there is a very large and solemn form of blessing to be pronounced by the Bishop or Priest: and this blessing, given at the close of the Communion-Service, I suppose to be that “ greater benediction,” mentioned once and again in the Constitutions ; the “lesser” being that which was given in private, or on lesser occasions. ‘Tertullian4 expresses the horror of excommunica- ° Vid. Stephani Thesaurum Gr. eam sequebatur, que diabolo projicie- Ling. [sub voce Ὑμνέω. batur, ut sacramento benedictionis ex- p Ap. Const., lib. viii. ο, 15. auctoraretur, 2 De Pudicitia, c. 14. Maledici enim OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 215 tion by the phrase of “ being cashiered from the Sacrament of CHAP. Blessing,” the consequence whereof he therefore thought a = curse ; (for he speaks of a final, irrevocable excommunication.) In truth, the distributing of the Eucharist implies a bless- ing to all worthy communicants, whether it be expressed in words at length, or not; but since it appears, that it has always been the practice of the Church to conclude the Eu- charist by pronouncing a solemn form of benediction, I con- ceive it would be very unwarrantable in any Church to omit it. Eusebius’ tells us that “ Melchisedec blessed Abraham in bread and wine;” yet we are at the same time assured, that he did also in words explain the meaning of this implicit benediction ; for he said, “ Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God,” &c. I proceed, 5thly, to consider the Unity of the Eucharist in relation to them who are the communicants. These are, first and principally, the Priests; and then, in the second place, the people. (1.) The Eucharist is One, as offered by Priests, who are How the One by their Commission. It is very evident, that it was not pian a only our Saviour’s intention but His most passionate desire, °° 0? that, as all His Apostles received their Commission from Him, so they might execute it with such a harmony and consent of mind, that there might not be the least jarring between them: for thus He prays in their behalf, “ Keep through John xvii. Thine own Name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be One, as We are.” And the foundation of our Saviour’s wishes and expectations for so perfect an union between His Apostles was this, as is expressed by Himself, “‘I have given ἧς xvii. them the words which Thou gavest Me,” that is, He had ἢ committed to them the same treasure of Divine Truth, which the Father had before committed to Him; and therefore He had reason to hope and pray, that as He was perfectly One with the Father, so they would endeavour by all possible means to be One with Him and with each other, by teaching and practising those holy truths and ordinances in the same manner that they had seen and heard Him do. After His Resurrection, He does with great solemnity tell them, “ As John xx, My Father sent Me, even so send I you.” From which τ rh. p. 16. Ap. CHAP. “it 1 Cor. iii. 8. 2 Cor. xii. 18, 216 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. words ‘it is evident, that the Commission of all the Apostles was one and the same; that it was such a commission as Christ Himself in His Human Nature had received from His Father. And even they, who were not of the same order with the Apostles but only inferior Presbyters under them, yet, by deriving their authority from the same fountain-head, and exercising it in conformity to the instructions which they received from them, they still kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; therefore “ He that planted the Gospel” among the Corinthians, that is, St. Paul, and Apollos “ that watered it,” are both said to be “ One ;” and the same Apostle says of himself and Titus, at another place, “ Walked we not in the same Spirit, walked we not in the same steps?” Apollos was but a Priest, Titus was scarce yet ordained Bishop, when St. Paul thus speaks of their Union with him. It was upon this account, that Ignatius’, Cyprian *, and others, represent the whole College of Bishops throughout the whole world as one person, sitting in one Chair, attending one Altar: and that, therefore, is the “One Eucharist,” which is celebrated by this One Priesthood; and St. Clement of Rome" allows nothing to be offered without the inspection of the High-Priest: and therefore, when a new Altar is erected, a new Bishop ordained in opposition to the former, then there is just occasion to ask that question, as St. Paul did, “15 Christ divided??? When two several Pastors assume to themselves the privilege of offering and consecrating the Sacrament, not only in two distinct places, but in contradic- tion to each other, and by two several inconsistent claims, then it is evident, that one of them acts by no Commission ; for if the true Eucharist can be had in two opposite assem- blies, then Christ’s Flesh ceases to be One. It is altogether as absurd to suppose that two separate and contrary autho- rities can give or consecrate the Eucharist, as it is to affirm that the same Prince can have two Chancellors and Broad- Seals in the same principality, two subordinate magistrates in the same city or district, acting against each other. And * Ad Philad. [c.iy.] ἐν θυσιαστήριον, _fieri preter unum Altare et unum Sa- . ὡς εἷς Emiokomos. cerdotium non potest.—Cypr. Ep. 40. * Deus unusest, et Christus unus,et [ρ. 53. Ed. Bened.] una Ecclesia, et Cathedra una—aliud ub. p. ΓΆΡ. 1 15. altare constitui aut sacerdotium noyum OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 217 if Christ designed His Church to be but One, and yet has CHAP. commissioned two several sets of officers to act in His Name, -—— — He has evidently defeated His own design. Certainly, Christ’s Church was by Him intended to be more perfectly One than any temporal kingdom ever was; and especially, that His officers should be One, even as He and His Father are One. But now if two distinct and directly opposite bodies of men assume to themselves His authority, and under this pretence divide His flock ; in this case, he who shall affirm that both of these bodies of men are commissioned by our Saviour, and that it is safe and lawful to communicate with both, must suppose that Christ’s Church was no more intended to be One, than two several neighbouring nations that are in per- petual war with each other. But if never so great a number of men claim this privilege of celebrating and consecrating the Eucharist within the same city or country, and all of them act in concurrence with each other and in subordina- tion to One Bishop, and use the same necessary rites or modes, then the Eucharist is still One. If Cornelius’s forty-six Priests, in the third century, did administer and consecrate the Sa- crament every Lord’s-day in as many several congregations within the city of Rome or in the neighbouring country; yet still it was but the same Eucharist that Bishop Cornelius himself celebrated in his own Church ; for they all acted by the same Commission and walked by the same Spirit, as St. Paul, Apollos, and Titus, are said to have done. But Novatian, setting himself up in opposition to Cornelius, and acting by a contrary spirit, was universally condemned as an intruder, usurper, invader; his altar and sacrifice were deemed mere profanations, his bread and wine to be no true Eucharist but a mere counterfeit and a scandalous forgery ; as any man may see by what Cyprian says on this occasion*. A world of time and pains have been misspent, not only by Presbyte- our Dissenters but by some that go to Church, to prove that Paar. Presbyters have power to ordain ; it is certain, that no one has [e"*? | yet been able to give one single instance of the Presbyters’ pewer to being allowed to exercise this power in the primitive Church. Even the ‘Impartial Hand*’ has upon this head nothing *e,d.p. il. Ap. n, o. p. 15. Ap. into the Constitution, &c., of the Primi- Σ See a book entitled, “‘An Enquiry ἔνα Church that flourished within the CHAP. lil, 218 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. but fallacy to put upon the reader. But let it be granted, that Presbyters have a secret power of ordination reserved to be used upon very extraordinary occasions ; yet even this will not justify our Dissenters in their schism, except they could prove too, that Bishops have no power to ordain; for it is certain, that the Bishops with their Clergy had long been in possession of all the Churches in England before any of their adversaries made any pretence of claim against them, and were therefore the true and sole Pastors of the Church. When, therefore, the Puritans or Presbyterians set them- selves up for guides and ‘ Ruling Elders’ in direct opposition to these Bishops and their Clergy, and endeavoured to gather Churches out of their Churches, then was the Unity of the Spirit broken, many members were torn off from the Body: a new claim of administering the One Eucharist was made in opposition to the Bishops and their Clergy, who had ever before been in quiet possession of this privilege. Some of both sides believed, that the Sacraments of Christ were truly administered by both parties, though acting by a contrary spirit; and they, who did this last, were the greatest schis- ΠΟ positi in unum conveniamus.” first 800 Years after Christ, &c. By an Impartial Hand.’’ The book was effectually answered, before it was writ- ten, by Dr. Maurice’s Treatises of Diocesan Episcopacy against Clark- son. This writer would prove the Pres- byterians’ power of Ordination from the known words of Firmilian, who says, *“Majores natu ordinandi possident potestatem ;’’ and proves that ‘ Majores natu’ signifies ‘ Presbyters,’ because ‘ Seniores’ has this sense in Tertullian’s Apology. (See p. 61. Part i. of the book before mentioned.) Now it is certain that ‘Senes’ and ‘ Seniores’ was the most honourable title given by the Africans to their Bishops ; see Can.100 Lor 104, ] and 127 [or 128] of the Afri- can Code, and the Acts of the African Synods: and this ‘Impartial Hand,’ when it had no turn to serve, translates ‘ Seniores’ ‘ Bishops,’ and understands by it the chief Pastors of the Church, as distinguished from the Presbyters ; and this too ina passage from the same Firmilian. The Latin words are, “ Ut per singulos annos Seniores et Pre- From these words he infers, that ‘ Bishops and Presbyters met together every year (in Councils),’’ ubi supra, p 148, though in truth it is most probable, that by ‘‘ Seniores’”’ is meant the ‘ Pri- mates,’ by ‘‘ Przepositi’” the other ‘ Bi- shops.’ This writer proves, that Ter- tullian by “‘ Seniores’’ must mean ‘ Pres- byters,’ because he speaks here of the discipline exercised in one particular Church, where there was but one Bi- shop. Now, on the other side, it is cer- tain to a demonstration, that Tertullian speaks of the discipline of the whole Christian Church, though he had the Churches of Africa more particularly in his eye. The writer had even as well have said, that Tertullian drew his Apology for one particular Church only; but then the fallacy would have been more apparent. He pretends to produce no example but that of Timo- thy’s being ordained “ by the hands of the Presbytery,’”’ as we translate 1 Tim. iv. 14, and yet he himself argues upon this supposition, that Bishops were often called ‘ Presbyters’ by the Holy Writers, and therefore could not be in- sensible that ‘ Presbytery’ may signify a ‘synod of Bishops;’ and he cannot but very well know how Calvin under- stood this text, and how many other answers have been made to this cavil. OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 219 matics of all, because they not only favoured the schism, but CHAP. did, in effect, declare that they thought schism to be no sin: and, certainly, they are to the greatest degree guilty of break- ing a Divine commandment, who not only transgress it, but deny it to be a commandment, and so make the laws of God of none effect. When Novatian assumed to himself the title of Bishop of Rome, and pretended to act as such, in opposi- tion to Cornelius who had been regularly advanced to that see, he and all who adhered to him were justly branded as schismatics, though he was really ordained by three Bishops of the Catholic Church; much more were they guilty of the same crime here in England, who not only usurped the authority of their lawful Pastors, but did it without any pre- tence of being ordained Bishops, as Novatian was. Both Priests and people must be One, in order to render The ortho- the Eucharist truly One. For I have elsewhere shewed?, that 2o*P°c?!° the people are to join with the Priest in the offering of bier the Eucharist and in all devotions at the Altar. And so long as the whole body of the people do conform themselves and perform their parts in the public Liturgy of the Church, so long Christ’s Body is One and the Eucharist One. But there are several cases that too frequently happen, by which this Union is broken; as, § 1. When the people permit themselves to be seduced by But not false teachers into heretical opinions, contrary to that Faith Says which was once delivered to the Saints, and therefore can no longer join in the public profession of the belief of the Catholic doctrine of the Church, and upon that account separate themselves from her assemblies, or are cut off from the Body by just censures. Now, if such men as these are so numerous, and full of zeal in their errors, as to form themselves into distinct congregations under their new guides, and to maintain a separate worship, and to dis- tinguish themselves by new creeds; then it is evident the Communion of the Church is broken, the Faith is no longer One in that sense which Christ intended, their Eucharist is not the One Eucharist of the Christian Church. § 2. And even they, whose faith is pure, may yet violate Nor schis- the Unity of the Church and Eucharist by associating them- ἘΠ 5. Part I. p. [438,] ὅτό. 220 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. ean selves to schismatical pastors or pretended pastors, or by — making head against their own Bishops and Priests, and heaping up to themselves new teachers without a competent authority: for the Commission of Pastors is but One, and when any man or body of men pretend to a new commission, not derived to them in the ordinary way of succession, then it is certain, the very bond of peace is broken, and the Eu- charist of two opposite bodies cannot be One. The Holy Spirit cannot so far countenance division, as by Its gracious Presence to give life and powér to the Bread and Wine of schismatical assemblies. The Eucha- There are other crimes beside heresy and schism, which do Reg make men unfit for the Eucharist, while they remain under them; so that, though they do receive the true Christian Eucharist, yet they do it to their own damnation: but so long as both the Priest and people keep the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, so long the Eucharist is One and _ True, though they render it unprofitable to themselves by _ their wilful sins and impenitence, and have a sad account to give of themselves for this presumption. But when the very assemblies, in which the Bread is broken, are only a combina- tion in schism and heresy, when their very devotions proceed from strife and debate and a spirit of contradiction, and are performed in defiance to peace and order and the Unity of Christ’s Body, then it is no longer a Christian assembly or a Church, but a riot and conspiracy. They may have a re- semblance or imitation of the Eucharist, as rebels may counterfeit the Broad Seal; but they cannot have the thing itself. Many well-meaning people may not discover the imposture, and God is a most gracious Prince, and our High-Priest is merciful, and can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way ; yet woe be to them by whom the offence cometh; I mean, to them that are leaders and contrivers of such divisions. Such men are never wanting to set a fair gloss on their proceedings, and do commonly by some artful frauds persuade their followers, _ that their administrations are with greater power and purity than those of the Church. So Marcus, an ancient heretic mentioned by Irenzeus*, had a secret art, by which he made ee ey ee ae aa.p. 3. Ap. EE a re ee ee ee OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 221 the Wine in his mock-Eucharist appear to be of a purple or cHaAp. red colour, which his deluded followers believed to proceed — ~~ ety from a Divine power. Satan, in all ages, takes care that his agents may be thought angels of light; but all, that will carefully use their own judgments, may without any great difficulty discern the One True Church and Eucharist from false shows and appearances. This leads me 6. To speak of the unity of the place, in which the True In what Eucharist is celebrated. It is true, the place for offering this δ πο re Sacrifice is not One in the plain literal sense, but in mystery the Eucha- only; just as the Bread is One. The sacrifices of the Jews, from the time of David, were confined to one place, in the strict and most obvious sense. The woman of Samaria ob- Johniv. 20. serves that, according to the judgment of all the Jews, “ Jeru- salem was the place where men ought to worship ;” and, indeed, “ He, who by Moses’ Law offered a burnt-offering or Lev. xvii. 9. sacrifice, and brought it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, was to be cut off from among his people.” But the Christian Religion was intended for a universal reli- gion; and, under the Gospel, “the pure offering” is to be Mal.i. 11. “ offered in every place.” Our Saviour has decreed, that men shall no longer worship at Jerusalem or mount Geri- Jonniv.21. zim only; yet all places, in which the Pure Offering is pre- sented to God, are mystically One. There can be no doubt but that, in great cities, the Christians of the first ages had several places for holding their public assemblies. It is certain that, soon after our Saviour’s Ascension, three Acts ii. 41. thousand were converted at Jerusalem by one sermon preached by St. Peter; and, in a short time after this, five thousand more. Now let us suppose that one half of Acts iv. 4. these eight thousand were such as came thither to worship at Jerusalem, and that the other four thousand only were inhabitants of that city; yet, it is utterly incredible, that such a number could have a place of assembly sufficient to receive them all at once; and we are to consider that this Church was in a growing state; for, a while after, we read of “great numbers added to the Lord, multitudes both of Actsy. 14. men and women.” It is reasonable to believe, that in twenty or thirty years’ time their number must still be trebled or at least doubled; and the same may be said of all the great CHAP. lil. ΦΕΡΕ OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. cities, in which Christianity was preached. And, before Con- stantine’s time, there could not probably be fewer than twenty thousand Christian communicants in every one of the most noted cities, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Carthage. ‘Tertullian tells us, that the Christians were a tenth part of Carthage in his time; for he asks Scapula the persecuting governor, whether he intended to decimate that city, that is, kill every tenth man, for being a Christian. Now let us suppose that the whole number of inhabitants was but two hundred thousand, yet, if the Christians were a tenth part, they could not be less than twenty thousand. There is just reason to believe that there was more than double the number of inhabitants; and if so, then the number of Christians must be doubled too. But let us make some allowance for the warmth of Tertullian’s temper ; and, granting that there were but ten thousand grown com- ἢ municants, yet, how can it seem credible that, during the times of persecution, it was possible for the Christians to have a Church large enough for ten thousand men and women at once to meet in? And, if this could be done, yet where is there a voice strong enough to reach the ears of such an audience? And if there were ten thousand at Carthage, there must probably be much greater numbers at Rome and Alexandria, to mention no other cities at present. And what possible occasion could they have at Rome for forty-six Presbyters, upon supposition that they had but one congregation? And this was above fifty years before Con- stantine’s conversion ; and, during this tract of time, there can be no doubt but that the number of Christians was much enlarged. Mr. Bingham? has observed from Optatus, that there were above forty Churches at Rome in the time of Dioclesian’s persecution. And we are certain, that, about the year 250, Dionysius of Alexandria‘ mentions several places of assembly in the suburbs of this city; and he speaks likewise of the Cemeteries or places where the Martyrs died or lay buried, and where it is well known the Christians used to hold their assemblies. Yet, during all this time, Cyprian and * See Mr. Bingham’s Antiquities, ς Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. book ix. chap. v. sect. 1, [vol. iii. p. vii. cap. il. 127. Ed. Lond, 1840. ] OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. 223 Ignatius allow but One Altar in one city or diocese. It is not worth disputing, whether there was no other Altar but that in the Bishop’s Church ; or whether every lesser assembly had an Altar fixed in it, and the Eucharist celebrated upon it ; for whether the one or the other practice prevailed, it is certain the Altar was One, the Eucharist One. Christ’s Body was more divided by the Eucharist’s being consecrated in the several lesser assemblies by Presbyters, acting under the same Bishop, and using the same Liturgy that he did, than if it had at first been consecrated at the Bishop’s Altar, and portions from thence sent to the other congregations ; which some suppose to have been the real practice. St. Clement of Rome? admonishes the Christians at Corinth, that “ Sacrifices are not offered everywhere but at Jerusalem only, nor at every place there neither, but before the sanctuary and at the altar ;’ from whence it seems plain, that this holy man thought the place for the Christian Sacrifice to be One in some sense, though not in the literal. And Cyril of Alexan- dria® explains it very well, when he tells us, “ It is not lawful to celebrate the Christian mystery in every place, at discre- tion; for the only agreeable and proper place is, in truth, the Holy City, that is, the Church, in which there is a law- ful Priest, where sacred offices are performed by sanctified hands.” And Cyprian, long before him, had said the same thing in other words‘; ‘‘ The Flesh of Christ and the Holy of the Lord cannot be carried out of doors, nor is there any other house for believers besides that One, the Church.” Not that the primitive Christians thought the Christian worship confined to one natural place, as the Jewish sacrifices were. No, it is certain, that when heathens or heretics drove them away from their former place of worship, they did by the first opportunity settle themselves in another; and, from that time forward, that was the One Eucharist within this district, which was celebrated at the new place of worship. And, if we will speak strictly, the Israelites themselves, during the time of their pilgrimage in the wilderness, had not one fixed and certain place for performing their public devotions ; for, in every encampment which they made, a new spot of ground was laid out for the tabernacle of the congregation ; and, fb ps). Ap. 1. 15. ed. p. 43. Ap. Phe peti ap CHAE: 11. 224 OF THE UNITY OF THE EUCHARIST. CHAP. from their departing from Mount Sinai until they came to Numb. Jordan, they had not less than thirty several encampments, xxxiii 15 and therefore had as many several places of religious worship; 50 ——OWs though still but one, at one time or in one encampment. It is true, their altar during all this time was one and the same, and so was the tabernacle, and the high-priest, who officiated in it until he died at Mount Hor ; and the very plot of ground was, in some sense, one; I mean, it was that, on which the cloud of glory rested. The Unity of the Christian Eucharist is not of such a nature as to confine it to any one spot of ground or to one material Altar, but only to forbid two places or Altars in opposition to each other. If the Priests and people are banished from one place and Altar, they are with all convenient speed to provide another; and if the heat of persecution will not permit them to do this, they are to assemble where they can with the greatest safety ; and any board or stone will supply the place of an Altar, so it be the most decent that can at present be procured. And if they are forced to shift the place of their assembly every month or every week in the year, and to have as many Altars as places of worship, yet still, all these places and Altars are mystically One; and the several Eucharists, administered in them and offered on them, are but the One Eucharist, the same that was first offered by Christ, and has in all following ages been offered by His Church ; for the Flesh of Christ is One, the Spirit, Which sanctifies It, is One. CHAP. IV. OF EXCOMMUNICATION. AxtuoucH the Eucharist, administered by vicious Priests and received by wicked people, be indeed the one true Eu- charist, so long as these Priests and people are in communion with the Catholic Church; and though the pious Christian. by receiving the Sacrament in a congregation, which consists for the most part of men greatly corrupted both in doctrine and manners, does certainly reap all the benefit that can be expected from this holy ordinance; yet all such Priests and people must pay dear in another world for their profanation of these Divme mysteries. And lest men should go on securely in eating and drinking their own condemnation, Christ has left an authority in His Church to expel them from the Lord’s Table, who live as men unworthy of so great blessings. I shall dispatch what I have to say on this subject under the following heads; viz., The nature of this spiritual censure of excommunication ; . The effects and consequences of it ; . The method of loosing men from it; . The ends and reasonableness of this censure ; . The corruptions under which it has fallen. OT οὐ 2D κα 1. As to the nature of excommunication, I shall thus Excommu- describe it; Excommunication in the primitive Church was pen a sentence passed by the authority of Christ upon a commu- nicant by the Bishop or his substitutes, for some obstinate error in faith or practice, whereby the offender was deprived of the benefit of the Eucharist and of all familiar society with Christian people. 1. It was a sentence passed by the authority of Christ ; Instituted for He Himself declared, that what was bound by His iS ace Church on earth should be bound in heaven, and gave an 18: assurance to His Apostles, that ‘ whose sins they did retain, John xx. JOHNSON, Q 23. CHAP. ΤΥΣ 1 (οἵ. ν. 8. Adminis- tered by Bishops. 226 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. should be retained.”? Therefore, when St. Paul had decreed an excommunication against the incestuous Corinthian, he intimates, that he did this “in the Name and with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ :” and Tertullian, therefore, calls excommunication a “ Divine censures.” It is certain that all the ancients believed that Christ had armed His Church with this power, and that therefore it was from God. And it is on good grounds believed, that this discipline was exercised in all Churches whose history is in any measure come down to us; yet there is a passage in Clement of Alexandria}, which some learned men do take to mean, that “some [Bishops or Priests], after they have divided the Eucharist, permit every one of the people to take shares.” But I am persuaded that he, who impartially examines the words, will find, that what Clement says is this; that “some, after they have distributed the Eucharist, suffer every one of the people to carry away a piece.” It was the practice of the Churches of Africa and Egypt, to which Clement belonged, to let the people carry home some part of the consecrated Bread to be eaten at discretion. Clement is very far from saying, that every one of the people that desired it had the Communion administered to him ; but [he says], that all that were allowed to receive might also take some of the remainder of the con- secrated Bread.. 2. It was a sentence never passed in the primitive Church but by a Bishop or by some substituted by him. And for this I appeal to all that are versed in Church-history, and especially in the ancient Canons. Priests! indeed might 5. Tert. Apol.,¢.39. [Ibidem etiam It seems to me, that διανείμαντες sig- exhortationes, castigationes, et censura Divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei con- spectu; summumque futuri judicii prejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis et con- ventus et omnis sancti commercii re- legetur. | h Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 1. [tom. i. p. 818. Ed. Potter, Oxon. 1715.] ’Av- ἄγκη τοίνυν ἄμφω τούτω δοκιμάζειν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς" τὸν μὲν, εἰ ἄξιος λέγειν τε καὶ ὑπομνήματα καταλιμπάνειν᾽ τὸν “΄ \ > “ δὲ, εἰ ἀκροᾶσθαι τε καὶ ἐντυγχάνειν δί- \ Kaos. ἢ Kal τὴν Εὐχαριστίαν τινὲς δια- νείμαντες, ὡς ἔθος, αὐτὸν δὴ ἕκαστον τοῦ λαοῦ λαβεῖν τὴν μοῖραν ἐπιτρέπουσιν. nifies ‘having distributed’ or ‘ad- ministered,’ rather than ‘having di- vided.’ His meaning is, that all who had received the Sacrament were by some Bishops or Priests suffered to carry a piece home with them. What was done by some in Egypt in Cle- ment’s days was grown into a common custom in that Church in St. Basil’s days, as you may see in Part I. of Unbloody Sacrifice, pp.[3843,]&c. This was practised in Africa in Tertullian’s time, as you may there also see. i See the last Canon of Theophilus Alex. in Beveridge’s Pandect., vol. ii. p. 175. OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 227 repel obstinate offenders from the Sacrament in places re- CHAP. mote from the Bishop’s Seat; but this was not an excommu- —lY: nication, but only a forbearing to give the Sacrament to the offender, until the Bishop’s pleasure was known. It is true the Priests of old sat on the same bench with the Bishops, and their advice was taken in this and all other matters; but they could only advise, not contro]. Ifthe Bishop was dead, and none yet chosen to succeed him; yet the Priests, in want of a Bishop of their own, invited some neighbouring Bishops to direct them in matters of this nature, as we learn by that remarkable example of the Roman Clergy upon the death of Fabian their Bishop*. Priests did sometimes sit as judges in such matters, but then it was by virtue of a special commission from the Bishop; and, even in this case, it was not unusual to join one’ or more Bishops to be commis- sioners together with them. I have, in the First Part™ of this work, proved that Bishops and Priests under them have the only power of consecrating and administering the Eucharist intrusted with them by Christ and by the constant universal practice of the Church; and from thence it must unavoidably follow, that they alone have the power of withholding it. 3. This sentence was never passed on any but commu- Passed on nicants, I mean, such as had been baptized and admitted to sssedher 7 the Eucharist; as all were in the ancient Church, as soon at ©" least as they came to years of discretion. Catechumens® were liable to be censured, but not to be excommunicated ; for they were not yet admitted to the Eucharist, and there- fore could not be deprived of a privilege, which they did not yet enjoy. 4. Excommunication was never passed in the primitive Inficted for Church but for some gross errors either in faith or practice, oe or both. If there were no sin, no gross sin, there was nothing ae to be retained. In many cases, it was necessary that the offender should be admonished once and again, before the last remedy (I mean excommunication) was used. Our Matt. xviii. Saviour directs that, before we publicly arraign any one ΕΠ before the Church, we go and tell him his fault between him k Cyprian, Ep. 30. Ed. Oxon. [31. m p. 315. Ben. } n See Can. Nicen. 14. Neoces. 5. ! Cyprian, Ep. 41, 42. Cyril. Alex, 2. Q2 CHAP. ΤΥ: The error must be attended with obsti- nacy. 228 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. and ourselves alone; and if he will not hear us, that we take with us one or two more, and in their presence repeat our admonition; and this rule was exceeding proper, in case of heresy or lesser sins committed by such as were yet in actual communion with the Church. It does not appear, that any man was ever excommunicated in the primitive Church for one or some few acts of intemperance or lesser injustice. If by admonition he was restrained from running into scandalous habits of these sins, he was safe from this spiri- tual censure. And the same may be said in case of heresy : if one that was in communion with the Catholic Church did publish any false doctrine, he was not expelled out of the Church, unless he was so obstinate as to withstand the admo- nition and arguments which were used for his conviction. Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, never appears to have been laid under any censure, though his heresy was very gross; because he was open to conviction, and reclaimed by the reproofs of his neighbourmg Bishops and by the reasoning of Origen. If the crime consisted in one single fact, as murder, idolatry, or perjury, then it was not sufficient to forbear these sins for the future, as in the former instances: therefore, in this case, it was to little purpose to admonish the offender to leave his sin; for what he had already done made him hable to ex- communication. Yet no man in the primitive Church was laid under the sentence of excommunication, unless he were obstinate in his error. If, in case of heresy or lesser crimes, he hearkened to the admonition of his Pastors, he was, as has been said, still continued in communion ; and if his crime were that of murder or idolatry, yet he might escape the sentence of ex- communication by a free voluntary confession and putting himself into the state of public repentance. He was indeed in this case obliged to abstain from the Communion, until the time of his repentance was ended; but he was not cast out of the Church, or delivered to Satan, except he appeared to be hardened in his crime. And this was the case of the incestuous Corinthian; he sinned with a high hand, he had ‘raised a party in the Church, and hoped by this means to out-dare the Apostle. If he had of himself become a penitent, he had by this means prevented the censure of excommunica- OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 229 tion; but St. Paul knew that he was a sturdy offender, and ὦ - therefore decreed this censure against him. It is very pro- bable, that this incestuous person had been admonished to dis- card his lewd companion and to repent of his uncleanness, but had withstood those gentle remedies ; nay, it should seem that some attempt had been made to exercise discipline upon him. For otherwise, how could it have appeared that he and his party were puffed up, and that too many of the Church of Corinth were tardy in neglecting to do their part, in order to have him “ that had done this deed taken away from among 1 Cor. v. 2. them?’ When Andronicus, the governor of Ptolemais, in the beginning of the fifth century, had been guilty of great outrages upon the people, and, in the opinion of Synesius the Bishop of that city, deserved to be excommunicated ; yet a synod of neighbouring Bishops, upon Andronicus’s promise of reformation, advised and prevailed with him to delay the passing of that sentence against him. 5. The censure of excommunication deprived men of two privileges : (1.) The first of these privileges was the Eucharist, and all What men that solemn part of Divine worship, which was peculiar to ere the Faithful, that is, the Communicants. cation. (2.) Excommunication did likewise deprive men of the benefit of all familiar conversation with Christian people. It was not lawful “even to eat” with such a man, by the direction 1 Cor. ν. 11. of St. Paul himself. These particulars are so well known, that I need not further insist on the proof of them. But it does particularly deserve our reflection, that ex- Excommu- communication was never passed, in the Apostolical times, ae but in the face of that Church to which the offender belonged; as oe cen and, indeed, the sentence itself was at first only an order from eet for wor- the Bishop to cast the offender out of the congregation. The » primitive Fathers followed the example of St. Paul; and there- fore, when any communicant had been guilty of gross crimes, and would not otherwise be reformed, they charged the Clergy and people to “ cast the offender out from among them, when they were met together.” The most ancient Form of Excom- munication, that is now anywhere extant, is only this; that ° Ap. Const., lib. ii. c. 16. ᾿Ιδὼν δὲ σὺ (Ἐπίσκοπε) τὸν ἡμαρτηκότα, κέλευσον αὐτὸν ἔξω βληθῆναι. CHAP. IV. What share the people had in this censure. 2 Cor. xii. “ult. ΤΟΥ, 5, 2: The Bishop and Clergy, with the people, sufficient 230 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. “when the Bishop sees the offender, having expressed his concern and anguish of mind, he should command him to be turned out of doors.” And in the places more remote, or in the Bishop’s absence, the Priests, commissioned by him, pro- nounced this sentence. ‘Tertullian’, speaking of the Chris- tian assemblies for worship, tells us that in them the Divine sentence, meaning excommunication, is executed. Nor are we to consider the people as bare witnesses or spectators in this solemn affair. It was expected of them that they should make their complaints, produce their evi- dence, if the case were not notorious, and draw.up their plea against the offender; and that they should join with the Bishop and Clergy in expressing their grief for the scandal done to the Church, and the mischief which he had pulled upon his own head by his open crimes. All this St. Paul intimates to be the duty of the people; when he rebukes the Christians at Corinth, because they had not mourned, that the incestuous person might be taken away from among them. Nay, further, the people were to shew their approbation of the sentence passed upon the offender by joining to cast or thrust him out of the congregation, and by avoiding his company while he remained obstinate; and therefore excommunication might justly be styled ‘a punishment inflicted of’ or by ‘many,’ even as many as belonged to that Diocese; nay, by all Chris- tians throughout the world. For as the Eucharist was One all the world over, and as Christians coming from the most remote parts were admitted to the Lord’s Table, if they brought letters from the Bishop of the Church, to which they had formerly belonged; so excommunication was universal ; for no Christian could be admitted to Communion in a strange Church without such letters from his former Bishop, which were never granted to a person under this sentence; so that, by being excommunicated by his own Bishop, he was shut out from Communion in all other Churches under heaven, except he could find a Bishop false to his trust. And even in the fifth century, when the primitive sim- plicity began to decline, and when the sentence of excom- ‘munication was drawn and passed with more state and cir- ® Apolog., c. 39. Coimus ad litera- ibidem etiam exhortationes, castiga- rum Divinarum commemorationem— _ tiones, et censura Diyina—. 231 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. cumstance, yet it still ran in the name of the Church to which the offender belonged, and not of the Bishop only. And though the neighbouring Bishops met in Synod to give their judgment in the case, yet still the sentence was not formed in such a. manner, as to imply that the authority of the Synod was necessary to this purpose. Of this we have an instance in Andronicus. If indeed the offender had been a Bishop, then he could not have had this or any other censure passed on him but by a considerable number of his own brethren; but Andronicus and his complices were lay- men; therefore the Bishop, with his clergy and people, were sufficient to execute this sentence. But because he was a person of great quality and power, therefore Synesius was willing to take the advice of the neighbouring Bishops in so great a case. I will here insert the translation of this sentence of excommunication, because I take it to be the most ancient form of this sort, that is now to be found. “The Church of Ptolemais® gives this charge to all her sister Churches throughout the world. Let no temple of God be open to Andronicus and Thoas, and their complices. Let every holy place and its verge be shut against them. The devil has no part in Paradise, and if he comes in clandes- tinely is driven out. I charge, therefore, every private man -and Governor not to dwell in the same house, nor eat at the same table with them; especially [I charge] Priests, that they neither converse with them while living, nor attend their funerals when dead. Church as being small, and shall receive those who are ex- communicated by her, as if it were needless to regard her, 4 [[Ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἣ Πτολεμάιδος ἐκκλη- σία τάδε πρὸς τὰς ἁπανταχοῦ γῆς éav- τῆς ἀδελφὰς διατάττεται" ᾿Ανδρονίκῳ καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῦ, Θόαντι καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῦ, μηδὲν ἀνοιγνύσθω τέμενος τοῦ Θεοῦ" ἅπας αὐτοῖς ἱερὸς ἀποκεκλείσθω, καὶ σηκὸς, καὶ περίβολος. Οὐκ ἔστι τῷ διαβόλῳ μέρος ἐν παραδείσῳ, ὃς κἂν λάθῃ διαδὺς ἐξελαύνεται. Παραινῷ μεν οὖν καὶ ἰδιώτῃ παντὶ καὶ ἄρχοντι, μήτε ὁμορόφιον αὐτῷ μήτε ὁμοτράπεζον γί- νεσθαὶ" ἱερεῦσι δὲ διαφερόντως, οἱ μήτε ζῶντας αὐτοὺς προσεροῦσι, μήτε τελ- εὐυτήσαντας συμπροπέμψουσιν. Ei δέ Tis ὡς μικροπολῖτιν ἀποσκυβαλίσει τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ δέξεται τοὺς ἀποκηρύκ- TOUS αὐτῆς, ὡς οὐκ ἀνάγκη τῇ πένητι πείθεσθαι" ἴστω σχίσας τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἣν μίαν ὃ Χριστὸς εἶναι βούλεται. Ὁ δὲ τοιοῦτος, εἴτε Λευίτης ἐστὶν εἴτε πρεσ- βύτερος εἴτε ἐπίσκοπος, παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐν ᾿Ανδρονίκου μοίρᾳ τετάξεται, καὶ οὔτε ἐμβαλοῦμεν αὐτῷ δεξιὰν, οὔτε ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς ποτε σιτησόμεθα᾽ πολλοῦ δὴ δε- ἤσομεν κοινωνῆσαι τῆς ἀποῤῥήτου τε- λετῆς, τοῖς ἐθελήσασιν ἔχειν μερίδα μετ᾽ ᾿Ανδρονίκου καὶ @davros.—Synesii Epist. ὅ8. Ed. Paris. 1612. Vid. Gib- bon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol, ii. p. 484. Ed. Lond. 1838. ] CHAP. IV: without other help to inflict excommu- nication. If any one shall despise this | CHAP. IV 232 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. because she is poor; let him be esteemed as a man that —______ divides the Church, which Christ would have to be One. But Pastors chiefly con- cerned to see it in- flicted. 2 Cor. xii. ult. 2 Cor. xii. 210: 2 Cor. xiii. a" The mean- ing οἵ“ de- livering to > Satan. such a man, whether he be Levite, Priest, or Bishop, shall by us be placed in the same rank with Andronicus; we will neither salute him, nor eat with him; much less will we communicate the ineffable Sacrifice to them that choose to have their portion with Andronicus and Thoas.” This sentence, though for some time delayed, was afterwards put in execution. But if the people were backward in giving information and evidence against offenders, yet it was the Pastors’ part to remind them of their duty, and not to permit public crimes to pass without censure. Therefore St. Paul takes notice to the Corinthians of several amongst them “that had not repented of the fornication, uncleanness, and lasciviousness, which they had committed ;” and in relation to these he declares, that “‘ when he came again, he would not spare, but use sharpness, according to the power which God had given him.” And because the generality of the Christians at Corinth did not seem disposed to prosecute these offenders, he declares, that ‘in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word should be established:” by which he means that, as he would not proceed to sentence without full evi- dence, so he should esteem two or three witnesses sufficient to convict any offender. II. I proceed to shew the effects and consequences of excommunication. And, as to the immediate outward effects of it, we have seen that they were a separation from com- munion with the Church both in sacred matters and in conversation. What was further meant by turning the of- fender out of the doors of the Church, is expressed by St. Paul by “delivering him to Satan.” Now the most plain and obvious sense of this phrase is, that the offender by being cast out from the Church was thereby publicly and solemnly given up to his proper lord and master. It was thereby declared, that he belonged not to Christ or to the kingdom of light, but to the prince and kingdom of dark- ness. The whole Church thereby disowned and discarded the excommunicated person, as one who by his sins had evidently rendered himself a son of perdition, an enemy to OF EXCOMMUNICATION, 233 truth, peace, and holiness; and therefore they resigned him CHAP. up to his true owner. a Some both of the ancients of the fourth century and of Not inflict- our modern Divines do suppose that St. Paul, by delivering 3“ the offender to Satan, did mean to say, that by virtue of this sentence the devil had such power over him, as to be thereby enabled to inflict pains and diseases on him. Now I have no great reason to contradict these great men in this parti- cular; soit be allowed, that these pains and diseases were an additional punishment over and above the excommunication, which was most certainly passed upon him, and clearly ex- pressed by the phrase of ‘being taken’ or put ‘away from Cor. v. 2. among them;’ but I must confess, I do not see sufficient * reason to believe that St. Paul intended any such thing ; nor does it appear from any other text of Scripture, that either the incestuous person, or Hymenzus and Alexander, 1 Tim. i. the only men who are elsewhere said to have fallen under oe this censure, were ever treated by Satan in this manner. When St. Paul smote Elymas with blindness, he found no occasion to make the devil the instrument of executing this sentence on him; for he expressly says, “The hand of the Acts xiii. Lord is upon thee.” Much more might be said, if there were occasion for me to labour in this point; but I look on this as a mere conjecture of some great men, and as such dis- miss it. Certainly, he, who considers what it was to be delivered to The se- Satan in the sense I first mentioned, will easily perceive that Yoyo one sentence of it was a sentence sufficient to raise the greatest horror and ¢xcommu- agonies in the mind of any man, who believed the Gospel to baat be true. For a Christian to hear himself pronounced un- worthy to continue in communion with the Church, to see himself driven away from God’s people, from the assembly of the saints, and debarred from the use of the greatest privi- lege on earth, which is the public worship of God, and yielded up to Satan as his own slave and property, and declared, as Andronicus was in the form of excommunication above recited, to be in the same state (while he remained im- penitent) with the fallen angels, and to have no part in Para- dise, by a sentence passed by a commissioned officer of Christ Jesus, backed and seconded by the unanimous consent of the 234 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. CHAP. people; the judge and the whole assembly expressing at the 1 __ same time their greatest sorrow and most affectionate concern for his soul: for the offender to consider, that he had so severe a sentence passed on him by the most merciful and tender court that ever was upon earth; that the only good and valuable body of men in this world would for the future discard and abandon him, and avoid him, as they would one infected with the plague; this, besides the reproof of his own conscience, must be more than enough to awaken him into a sense of his former folly. 1 mean this, upon supposi- tion that he did in earnest believe the Christian Religion ; and if he did not, then, as his condition was desperate before, so now his hypocrisy was made manifest to others. Ter- tullian justly says of the primitive excommunication, that it was as it were ‘the doomsday of a sinner in this present life’,’” by which he was banished from the presence of the Lord and from the society of true Israelites, and before- hand delivered up tothe tormentor ; who, when we have done evil, is always lying at the door, as ready to seize and devour us. And the sinner, who believed that what was thus bound on earth should be bound in heaven too, must therefore look on the Divine sentence as too heavy to be borne with any degree of ease or patience. And, indeed, nothing could make it tolerable but a fatal stupidness of mind, proceeding from want of faith, in the man who was excommunicated, and to whom therefore the excommunication passed by the Church was’a most certain presage of eternal condemnation ; and so much the rather, because the offender was altogether insensible of it; if any thing could lighten the weight of this sentence to a sincere believer, when he knew he had deserved it, it must be the hopes, which God and the Church had given him, of being delivered from it. But there were many men under the effects of an excom- munication, who could not be formally excommunicated. They could not be turned out of the Church, because they never came within the doors of it; and yet were in all other respects treated as men under this grievous sentence. Such were * Summumque futuri judicii pre- tis et omnis sancti commercii rele- judicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut getur.—Apolog., ο. 39. a communicatione orationis et conven- ἐφ ~ OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 235 1. They, who had formerly been of the Church, but after- CHAP. wards deserted it, either out of downright looseness and infi- —_—— delity, and so became apostates to the Jewish or the heathen ae religion ; or, as Porphyry did, lived in neglect and contempt of SHectot ex- all public worship whatsoever. These are said to ‘ fall away,” ae ae to “sin” or err “wilfully,” by St. Paul; and this is called x26." °° “the sin unto death” by St. John. To feast’ with the Jews 1 Johny. or Gentiles, or to have but once eat with heathens of things - sacrificed to idols, or to have performed any act of idolatrous worship to false gods, was a crime that made a Christian liable to excommunication; but if he not only once or twice worshipped an idol, but persisted in that folly, and absented himself from the Christian Church, he was worse than a per- son excommunicated, as we shall presently see. If a man were one of those who “ made divisions,” that called himself a Christian, but separated himself from the true Apostolical Church, as the author or abettor of some new dangerous opinion, he could not be formally expelled out of the Church; but such a one was to be “marked” or ‘noted,’ and sound Rom. xvi. Christians were warned not to keep company with him ; they Ags iss were not, properly speaking, excommunicated by the Church, but “self-condemned.” Sometimes a Bishop, duly ordained, Tit. iii. 11. and who had formerly been sound in his faith and practice, broached or espoused some heretical doctrine, and misled his own flock. This was the case of Eustathius, Bishop of Se- bastia, and of many others, who followed the pestilent doc- trine of Arius. Now they and their people could not be excommunicated, that is, turned out of the Church in the primitive Apostolical form: but yet they were looked on as persons under that censure; and Eustathius was with his ad- herents struck with an anathema by the Synod of Gangra, and the Arians by the first of Nice. And I suppose that by ‘anathema’ they only meant a full and perfect sentence of condemnation pronounced against a great body of men at once, whereby it was declared to be in the same condition as if they had been excommunicated, or rather worse. 2. Such were they, who had never been of the Apostolical And such Church, but [were] bred in heresy or schism. They could jreqin not therefore be cast out of the Church; and yet were by the ΒΟΟΣ °F schism. * Can. Ap. 69. CHAP. ΤΥ. Who were finally cut off, or ex- communi- cated. 236 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. primitive Christians avoided, as if they had been under a formal excommunication, and were oftentimes by the Bishops in their synods pronounced to be ‘anathema.’ They were, while they continued in their errors, treated, as the heathen and publicans were by the Jews; and yet many of them were upon their conversion received into the Church without re- baptization. And this brings me to consider, III. The method of loosing men from the sentence of ex- communication in the primitive Church. And here, before I proceed, I shall observe that some were so wholly and finally cut off from the Church, that they never had any hopes of being restored: such were they, who having formerly been excommunicated for some scandalous offence, were upon their repentance received to communion, but yet afterwards re- lapsed into the same or some other grievous crime. For no one in the primitive Church could be loosed from a second sentence of excommunication ; for they allowed but one re- pentance' for gross heinous sins after Baptism; therefore such a man was left to the mercy of God. Thus a false accuser of his brethren, having been excommunicated and then reconciled, but who yet afterwards fell into the same crime, was finally cut off. The Church did not think herself empowered to receive such an one into communion; but he was in the same condition with the apostate; it was im- possible", by the laws of Christianity as then understood, to renew such an one to repentance, or to admit him a second time to penance, and by that means to pardon. Others, who were not absolutely denied reconciliation, yet had by their conduct in the main course of their lives, before they had drawn upon themselves the sentence of excommunication, shewed that they were but cold indifferent Christians; and therefore, when they were fallen under this sentence by reason of some flagrant crime, they were not easily admitted again to communion, for fear they should return to their t [“ Alia poenitentia non est, nisi illa, cum in aquam descendimus et accipimus remissionem peccatorum nostrorum, ulterius non peccare, sed in castitate permanere—post vocatio- nem illam magnam et sanctam, si quis tentatus fuerit a diabolo et peccaverit, unam pcenitentiam habet. Si autem subinde peccet, et poenitentiam agit, non proderit homini talia agenti; difh- cile enim vivet Deo.’’ |—Herm. Pastor, lib. ii. Mand. iv. sect. 3. [Ed. Hefele, Tubinge, 1842.] Apost. Constitutt., lib. 11. c. 43. [Ed. Labbe and Cossart. ] u Heb. vi. 6. See Grot. and Ham. in loc. OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 237 vomit. Nay, sometimes, when men of unblemished lives CHAP. were excommunicated for any crying enormous sin, the Church, out of a pious resentment of the scandal given by the fall of such a person, kept him for a long while under the sentence of excommunication, without allowing him the privilege of standing among the Penitents, or coming within the doors of the Church. Serapion was a person of a fair character, if we may believe Eusebius; but when, by sacrific- ing to idols in time of persecution, he had given very great offence to the Christian Church, Dionysius of Alexandria, his Bishop, with the Clergy and people of that Diocese, out of a holy indignation against the base perfidiousness of such a man, were deaf to all his entreaties and intercessions; none either of the Clergy or laity would speak to the Bishop on his behalf; nor would Dionysius regard the offender’s peti- tions, when seconded by no one else. It often happened%, that men remained in this condition, as Serapion did, until they were in extreme danger of dying. It was a general rule’ of discipline never to deny them the Communion, when they were thought to be passing into the other world. And, by giving singular proof of their real repentance and conversion, they were often admitted to it before. However, none but apostates and relapsers were wholly and everywhere excluded from it. For though some grand offenders’, beside these, were said to be “ entirely cast out” and “ cut off” from the Church ; yet there is reason to believe, that this general rule of giving the Eucharist to all, excepting those now mentioned, at the point of death, did for the most part at least prevail, unless they were such as never shewed their desire of it before. But in ordinary cases, when the crime was not exceedingly Common enormous, or the offender not perfectly profligate and ex- pence travagantly wicked or hardened, the Church was so far from “et being backward in admitting men to the state of Penitents and then into perfect communion, that she took all possible care that no man should continue long under the sentence of excommunication. In the most ancient description of ex- x These were called ἄδεκτοι, that is, * Such as those mentioned, Can. Ap. ‘men not received’ into the station of 30, viz., Clergymen, who made bold to Penitents.—Can. Ap. 12, Bas. 81. officiate, when regularly deposed ; or Y Can. Nic. 13. who had purchased holy orders. 238 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. . communication before-mentioned, “The Deacons follow him ee is cast out of the Church, and take hold of him, and Deferring repentance increased the weight of the cen- sure. some of them go in to the Bishop and intercede in his behalf; the Bishop orders him to be brought in again, and judges whether he is fit to be received; and if he think him so to be, then enjoins him a certain time of fasting and humilia- tion, at the end of which he is again admitted to full com- munion*.” And there is no reason to doubt but this was the common method of proceeding in this case, and that the generality of offenders did not long continue under this heavy censure. If they did indeed for years together rest easy and patient under it, by this means they increased their burden, and rendered their reconciliation more difficult. If they deferred their endeavours for obtaining the peace of the Church, un- til? they found themselves to be in a dying condition, this was the greatest aggravation of their obstinacy, and in this case they were rarely, if at all, restored to communion: but ordinary offenders were probably soon melted into repent- ance, and convinced of the necessity of submitting to dis- cipline, and thereby regaining the privilege of perfect com- munion; and this was to be done, not presently and by one sight confession of their faults, but by several steps and degrees. 1. The excommunicate person must apply himself to the Deacon, that he would speak in his behalf to the Bishop, or the Priest who acted in his stead, and put up his request to him, that he might be admitted into the state of a Peni- tent. And this request was not presently granted to heinous offenders, but they were obliged to stand without the doors of the Church, craving of the Clergy and people, as they entered in, to mtercede with God and the Bishop in their behalf, that they might be permitted to stand among the Penitents and give proof of their sincere conversion. For ® Ap. Const., lib. ii. c. 16. ᾿Εξελθόντι οὕτως ἀπόλυσον. αὐτῷ πικραινέσθωσαν οἱ Διάκονοι, καὶ b Cypr., Ep. 55. Ed. Oxon. [52. Ed. ἐπιζητοῦντες κατεσχέτωσαν αὐτὸν ἔξω Ben.) Poenitentiam non agentes— τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ εἰσελθόντες ὑπὲρ prohibendos omnino censuimus a spe - αὐτοῦ σὲ (Ἐπίσκοπον) ἐρωτάτωσαν--- communicationis et pacis, si in infir- τότε σὺ κελεύσεις εἰσελθεῖν αὐτὸν, καὶ mitate atque in periculo coeperint de- 5 n . ἀνακρίνας εἰ μετανυεῖ---στιβώσας αὐτὸν precari. ε / ~ ἡμέρας νηστειῶν κατὰ τὸ ἁμάρτημα --- ile OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 239 as the primitive Church believed that a special repentance CHAP. was necessary for them, who had been guilty_of such crimes - as deserved excommunication ; so they judged no repentance to be available in this case, but a long, solemn, public humi- liation in the sight of men as well as of God. Therefore no man could hope (except in some special cases) to have this censure wholly taken off in the primitive Church, until he had first performed the penance enjoined him by the Bishop. The allowing men in this condition a place among the Peni- tents was esteemed a favour and indulgence; and it was expected that the offender should ask it, and shew himself worthy of it by a modest*, humble importunity, and a dili- gence that yet would bear with delay; for it is not to be supposed, that the Bishop would in things of this nature proceed without due deliberation ; the exercise of discipline was the greatest trial of his prudence; therefore his proceed- ings must not be hasty. As soon as the offender was admitted to penance, one part Penitents of his sentence was immediately revoked; I mean, he was ον O"" from that time forward permitted to converse familiarly with pany ot the Christian people*. No man was forbid to have society with the Penitents, but only with them that were excommunicated, that is, who remained hardened in that condition, or whose case was so bad that they were not yet allowed the privilege of penance; and they who had gained this ground were no longer said to be excommunicated*, but suspended from com- munion‘, or separated from the Eucharist for a set time. During the time of penance they were permitted to enter into the lower part of the Church, and to hear the Scriptures, Sermons, Hymns, and Psalms; and there was a particular prayer used by the Bishop in behalf of those that were in a state of penance; but they were not suffered to be present at the morning® and evening prayers of the Faithful in the more ancient times; yet in the sixth century this was allowed". © Cypriano Clerus Rom., Ep. 30. Ed. Oxon. [8]. Ed. Ben. Multum illis proficiet petitio modesta, postulatio verecunda, humilitas necessaria, pa- tientia non otiosa, &c. d Ap. Const., lib. ii. ο. 40, οὐδὲ κώ- λυσεις αὐτὸν τοῦ Κυριακοῦ λόγου, οὐδὲ κοινῆς διαίτης αὐτὸν ἐξώσεις-- τοῖς οὖν δ ἀμαρτίας ἀφορισθεῖσι παρ᾽ ὑμῶν (Ἐπι- σκόπων) καὶ συναναστρέφεσθε, καὶ συ- ναλίζεσθε, Kk. τ. λ. 6 ᾿Ακοινώνητοι, ἐκβαλλόμενοι. f "Adopifduevar. s Const. Apost., lib. vill. ο. 34. h See Binius, {[tom. vi. p. 618. Ed. Par. 1589,} a fragment of Joannes 240 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. CHAP. 2. The next was the longest and the hardest task which = the offender was obliged to perform, I mean the penance metas itself, which was indeed very severe. It consisted in frequent what. fastings', in wearing coarse and sordid clothes, m appearing in the face of the congregation in sack-cloth and ashes, avoiding the innocent pleasures of life, feasting, gay apparel, ointments, bathings, and the like; but especially, in the frequent confession of their sins before the Church, and throwing themselves at the feet of the Clergy and people, as they entered into the Church, in order to obtain their prayers. This course they were commonly obliged to take for several years together, though sometimes) the prefixed term of their penance was shortened by the Bishop, when he saw some extraordinary proofs of their zeal and earnestness ; and, especially, if the Penitents* were dangerously sick, and the people became intercessors with the Bishop to admit the Penitent to the Communion. And as it wasin the Bishop’s power to shorten the time of penance; so he could, when he saw occasion, increase or lengthen it’. And for the mdul- gences granted to them who, when they had been guilty of great crimes, were excused by the letters of dying Martyrs, they were certainly a horrible breach and violation of Church discipline ; and as such I pass them over. I shall there- fore only add, that the Penitent™, when the term of his hu- miliation was now expiring, was permitted to stay out the whole Communion-Service, and therefore to be present at the prayers, though not to partake of the Eucharist ; and the least™ penance that I can anywhere observe inflicted on the slightest offenders was, to be immediately admitted to this chief station of the Penitents, without beimg obliged to stand at all at the lower end of the Church. Jejunator, and in that the following words in Latin only: In rei autem sacre celebratione omnes qui pceniten- tiam-agunt, et non communicant, dixi- mus Catechumenorum edicto debere ex templo egredi, et stare in ferula; in matutino autem, vesperis, et reliquis, templi aditum non eis esse prohibitum, quo minus possint ingredi et in eo stare, si velint. ' See Cyprian, De Lapsis. / Can. Nie, 12. κ΄ Cypr., Ep. 64. [Ed. Oxon. 59. Ed. Ben.| Ut ante legitimum et plenum tempus satisfactionis, et sine petitu et conscientia plebis, nulla infirmitate ur- gente ac necessitate cogente, pax ei concederetur. ι See Can. Ane. 5. ΟΠ Niew 11. ”" Can. Gregor. Thaumaturg. 9. It was the penance laid by this holy man on those who found the goods of others in their own houses, left there by rap- parees; and, after they had for some time concealed them, did freely dis- cover them, OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 241 There were one sort of offenders, and they none of the CHAP. least, who yet were admitted to communion without under- a ‘ . . See : - Heretics going this painful discipline ; I mean, heretics and schisma- and schis- tics. For it does not appear to me, that they were generally ev %5 ik condemned to do penance, but presently upon their conversion ae they were placed among the Catechumens®, not the Penitents ; and so they were in a few days admitted to Baptism, if they were thought not to be sufficiently baptized before ; if they were, the Bishop laid his hands on them and anointed them, and then they were forthwith received to communion in the Eucharist, after they had first condemned all errors, and recanted that of which themselves had been guilty. It is certain that, before their conversion, they were in all respects looked on as excommunicated; it was unlawful to converse with them, or give them a friendly salute, much more was it 2 John 10, forbid to permit them to receive the Eucharist ; they were ἐὲ believed to be under an anathema, which some would have to import somewhat more than an excommunication ; but it is certain that they were received to communion upon much easier terms than they who were laid under the sentence of excommunication for common immoralities. 3. Before Penitents were allowed to receive the Eucharist, The Abso- the Bishop laid his hands on them, and used a prayer to God eae for the pardon of their sins. Nay, in some places at least, ¥h4 they were first received into the number of Penitents by this solemn rite, and had it frequently repeated? during the time of penance; andthe sin of excommunicated persons is some- times said to be loosed or forgiven by means of these prayers, and therefore they are called ‘the Absolution’ of the Priest‘. But it is very clear, that the pardon of the Penitent was not thought to be perfectly sealed and confirmed by this rite of laying on of hands or the prayers used on this occasion ; for then it had been absurd and inconsistent to do this over and again. The prayers used on this occasion‘ were always the ° See Can. Laod. 7,8. Constant. 7. nitentibus a sacerdotibus imponantur. Yet in France penance was enjoined to Cone. Carthag. 4. c. 80. [ Labbe, tom. the Novatians and other heretics on ii. p. 1444.] their conversion; if the Canons of the 4 Constt. Ap., lib. ii. 6. 18, τοὺς δὲ second Synod of Arles, and those of ἡμαρτηκότας νουθέτει, καὶ στιβῶν ἐν τῇ Agde, are of any authority. See Can. νηστείᾳ, ἐν τῇ ἀφέσει ἐλάφρυνον, κ. τ. A. Arel. 9. Bin., tom. i. p. 698. Can. © You have the Forms provided for Agath. 60. [ tom. iii. p. 716. ] this occasion, Apost. Constt., lib. viil. P Omni tempore jejunii manus pe- ὁ. 8, 9. and it is evident, that these | JOHNSON. R CHAP. IV. 242 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. same, and they were an Absolution the first time they were - θ΄ yehearsed. And if, by calling them by this name, they had How they were per- fectly and finally ab- solved. Giving the Sacrament once upon a death- bed, not a perfect Ab- solution. intended to persuade men that the Penitent was fully pardoned, there can be no reason why they should be so very often repeated over the same person; therefore they were called ‘an Absolution,’ because the prayers of the Priest were always believed to be most prevalent with God in behalf of repenting sinners, and because by this laying on of hands they were received into the station of Penitents, and continued in it; by which means they were by degrees loosed and discharged from the bond of excommunication, and at last received into a state of perfect grace and pardon. 4, Their reconciliation was completed, and they were de- clared to be in perfect favour with God and all Christian men, by being restored to the most eminent privilege of re- ceiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. This the ancient Church expressed by saying, that the Peni- tent was returned to his ‘old pasture’ and his ‘former dig- nity’.’ They, that have with the greatest diligence searched into antiquity, can discover no other rite or solemnity used upon this occasion, but barely the admitting the Penitents to communion ; by this they were entirely acquitted and ab- solved from the censure under which their crimes had laid them; by this their sins were remitted unto them, and so they became once more fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God, but were for ever forbid to be received into Holy Orders. It is true,in one case, the Holy Sacrament was administered to Penitents, not as a certain seal of their pardon, but as a signification of the tenderness of the Pastor and Church to- ward their souls, and as an expression of their best and most earnest wishes of their eternal peace and salvation; I mean, when they gave it to them upon presumption, that they were now a-dying, before the term of their penance was expired, and sometimes before they had been admitted into the state ‘prayers were used. before every Com- xotas Cl. Cotelerii in eundem. munion-Service, and that hands were ® Ap. Constt., lib. ii. 6. 41, [eis τὴν laid on all the Penitents as oft as these ἀρχαίαν αὐτοῦ νομήν ---καὶ εἰς τὴν προ - prayers were repeated ; wide locum, et τέραν aklay—. } OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 243 of Penitents, which was Serapion’s case. That they did not CHAP. intend the Eucharist as an assurance of pardon to such ry: persons is evident, I think, from this, that he who had the Sacrament indulged to him im this case, if he recovered be- yond expectation from his present sickness, was not per- mitted for the future to receive the Eucharist until the time of his penance was completed‘. Just with the same view, toward the latter end of the fourth century, they did in the Western Church allow the Communion to him on his death- bed, who had relapsed into his sins a second time, after he had once been excommunicated and reconciled, contrary to the known ancient rule. In both these cases it is most rational to believe, that they designed not, by thus for once granting them the Sacrament, to express their assurance, but only their charitable hopes, of the Penitent’s pardon and sal- vation. And this only proves what I have before at large as- serted", that it is not the receiving the Eucharist once or now and then, but the constant use of it, that keeps men in a state of Communion with God and Christ Jesus, and gives them a well-grounded confidence of their pardon and eternal happi- ness; for our Saviour hath declared, that “ Except we feed on the Flesh of the Son of Man, we have no life in us.” And it seems plain, that the primitive Church, by giving the Sacrament once to a dying Penitent, did thereby declare her hope that the man’s condition was not absolutely desperate ; and, by allowing it to be done but once, took care that she might not be understood to own him as a settled communi- cant*, or as one that could plead a right to the constant par- ticipation of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ and the grand blessings thereunto belonging. IV. I am next to shew the ends and reasonableness of excommunication ; and that, 1. In regard me Christ and His Church. As our Saviour To the was a preacher of righteousness, as His Church was designed ee to be a peculiar people, zealous of good works; so it was “atone cessary for necessary, that He should not only lay strong obligations ¢ be dis- urage~ upon men to practise the laws which He taught, but take ment κε vice an τ Siricii Decret. 5. of those, Qui Corpus attingunt, et Eu- &Tor. u Chap. IT. Sect. iii. charistiam jure communicationis acci- * This seems to me to be St.Cyprian’s __ piunt, &c. meaning, when he speaks (g. p. 12. Ap.) R 2 244. OF EXCOMMUNICATION. CHAP. the most proper course to discountenance vice in His follow- Mi: ers, and to “purge His floor” from all gross filth and im- purity. To think otherwise is to suppose that He intended His Church to be a den of thieves, a sanctuary for villainy and lewdness: and since He lays no temporal restraints or punishments on men, no fines or imprisonments, no bodily stripes or tortures; it is therefore necessary, that He should by some other means humble the arrogance of bold offenders, or at least wipe off that scandal and reproach, which they by their words and actions would otherwise bring on His Re- ligion and those who profess it. He never gave a com- mission to His Apostles or other Ministers to make use of the temporal sword for the punishment of evil doers, or for the cutting off vicious members with present death; yet He thought it not reasonable, that notorious sinners, hardened malefactors, filthy debauchees, should enjoy the outward privileges of His Church, and cause His Name to be blas- phemed by their profaneness and impiety. Therefore He gave authority to the chief officers of His spiritual kingdom to expel out of their society all such as should give just offence to others by théir gross errors in principle or prac- tice ; that so they who, under pretence of being Christians, do the greatest dishonour to Him and His Gospel, might either be ashamed into a reformation of their doctrine and manners ; or, however, that others might be made sensible, that the Church of Christ disowns and abhors all such workers of iniquity. Civil pun- Some would persuade us, that,in nations where Christianity ishments of - Christian 185 espoused and protected by the Civil Power, there can be magistrat*s no further occasion for the exercise of discipline or excom- " mare munication. And if murderers and robbers did always meet with that punishment which they deserve from the civil magistrates, I mean, if they were put to death, there could indeed be no occasion for the Bishop to use the spiritual sword of excommunication against those who had been guilty of it. But there never was, I suppose, any Prince or state, that did not sometimes pardon these crimes. And shall a Christian, who has committed wilful murder, or wronged others by open violence, be continued in the Communion of the Church and be allowed all the privileges of it, because OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 245 the Prince hath thought fit to give him his hfe? If the CHAP. magistrate grant a toleration to idolaters, must therefore the Church be obliged to own them as her members, who have polluted themselves by joining with those idolaters in their worship? Few Princes or states, who have professed Chris- tianity, did ever think fit to inflict any punishment on adultery, incest, or fornication, except in some singular cases; must therefore the Church cherish such as indulge themselves in such foul practices? But, above all, if a Con- stantius climb the throne, and become a patron to Arians or other heretics, shall the Bishops of the Church be silent, and not dare to denounce their anathemas against those, who are the leaders or followers of such pernicious sects and conspi- racies against truth and peace? And if it be necessary that the Church should disavow and abandon all such vicious members, then it is plain that she should do it in such a manner as Christ has directed. And I make bold to add, that no supposed league or alliance between the Church and State can deprive the Church of this power. If any body of Bishops and Pastors should expressly covenant with the Prince under whom they live, that they would abdicate and renounce this authority of excommunication, upon condition that they might have his protection in exercising the other parts of their function, it is evident that all such covenants would be null and void; for a Bishop is under a prior obliga- tion to a greater Prince than any here on earth, to make use of the power that God has given him to the edification of His Church. And a Bishop, without the power of excommunica- tion, is as great an absurdity as a supreme magistrate, with- out a sword for the punishment of evil doers. 2. The ends and reasonableness of excommunication are Excommu- very apparent, in regard to the Eucharist: for this, being feat ta tended to the most excellent and noble institution that God ever gave be 2 guard to His Church, it being the Bread of Heaven which endureth to Τὰ to everlasting life, the true Manna, the mysterious Body and cap Blood of Christ, is not to be profaned with the hands or mouths of impious men; this is the highest indignity that can be offered to that most Divine Mystery. Even the heathen took care to drive all notorious offenders from their altars. And when the Jews had filled their hands with CHAP. IV. Isa. 1. 12. 1 (0 ε: Xi. 97: 246 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. blood, and defiled themselves to such a degree, that their guilt appeared red as crimson, God, by His Prophet, asks them, “ Who hath required this at your hands, to tread My courts ?”? When the Christians at Cormth came to take the Sacrament with divided unpeaceable minds and with heads full of intemperance, and were so thoughtless as to commit disorders at the very time of receiving it, St. Paul charges them for having “eaten that Bread and drunk that Cup un- worthily :᾽ and thereupon, to represent their crime fully and to the life, he tells them, they were “ guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ.” For he justly supposed, that nothing could look more odious in the eye of a sincere Christian than to see a contempt and indignity put upon the Body and Blood of His ever-blessed Redeemer; and he at the same time gives a very strong and clear hint, that the Bread is that Body, the Wine is that Blood, though not in substance, yet in life and spirit. Since therefore the Eucharist is so venerable and Divine a thing, it must be allowed to be fit and reasonable, that it should be fenced and guarded from the touch and approach of scandalous and notorious sinners : and this could not be done but by lodging a power in the Pastors of the Church to keep all gross offenders at a due distance from it; and it was to this end and purpose, that excommunication was made the punishment of all unworthy receivers. Therefore Justin Martyr assures us, that in his timeY “it was unlawful for any one to partake of it, that did not believe the Christian doctrine, that had not been bap- tized, and did not live as Christ had instructed him.” St. Cyprian aggravates the crime of some Christians, who had done sacrifice to idols, and yet presumed to go to the Lord’s Table, hoping to escape censure ; by saying’, “ They go from the altars of devils to the Holy of the Lord with polluted hands; they invade the Body of our Lord, and so sin more against Him both with mouth and hands than when they denied Him.” And, to mention no more at present, Chrysostom? declares, ‘he would rather shed his own blood than profusely to lavish the tremendous Blood of Christ, by giving it even to a general or emperor, contrary to right and reason.” Y a. p. 2. Ap. δ δι p. 1h, ip, a w. p. 40. Ap. — er ow, OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 24.7 And it is to be observed that the whole process of excom- CHAP. munication and reconciliation turned upon this principle, The reall that the Eucharist was too sacred and valuable a mystery paid of old τες 3 : . to the Eu- to be administered to notorious wilful sinners; and yet 50 charist best necessary, that he, who rightly understood it, would submit Ps to any hardship in order to obtain it. The offender was cast nication. out from among the communicants, when they were met together to celebrate this holy ordinance, to shew that such a pearl was not to be thrown to swine. St. Paul bids the Corinthians “ purge out the old leaven,” that is, cast out 1 Cor. v. 7, the incestuous person ; ‘“ because even Christ our Passover is ᾿ς sacrificed for us ; therefore,” says he, “let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” The feast, of which the Apostle speaks, is clearly that of the Eucharist, the memorial of Christ our Passover sacrificed for us; it was from this feast, therefore, that the unclean Corinthian was expelled. And this was the grand privilege, from which loose Christians were excluded in the following ages. They were indeed deprived of all conversation with communicants as well as of the Sacra- ment itself; for it was just, that there should be a visible distinction betwixt those that were thought worthy of this heavenly feast and those that were not. And yet, for some time after they were re-admitted to the company of the communicants, and even to join with them in the most solemn prayers, and to be present at the administration of the Eucharist, they were not permitted to receive it them- selves: so that, in a word, the loss of the Eucharist for a time was the main penalty that the Church inflicted on the most scandalous sinners; and the restoring of themselves to the Eu- charist was the end which they had in view, and for the sake of which they submitted to such long and severe penances. 3. The ends and reasonableness of excommunication will easily appear in relation to the person on whom it was in- flicted. St. Paul tells us what these were, when he ordered the incestuous person to be delivered to Satan, “for the 1 Cor. ν. 5. destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.” Here are two ends mentioned in respect to the offender. 248 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. CHARS Saas) The first immediate end was “ the destruction of the The beneit eSh.” . It is evident, that by ‘ flesh’ the Apostle means the intended to corruptions of nature; for these only we are industriously to regen destroy in ourselves and in other men. The prevailing cor- munication. runtions in this Corinthian were, his abominable lust in using his father’s wife as if she had been his own, and his pride and insolence. For it is evident, that the incestuous person, being wealthy, had raised a party in the Church of Corinth ; and by the strength thereof hoped to protect himself from the censure of the Apostle. It is plain from St. Paul’s words, es iv. that some of the Christians at Corimth were “ puffed up” ’ or ‘swollen’ with a spirit of faction; and it is as evident what this party aimed at, namely, that this incestuous wretch should be continued in communion in spite of the Apostle 1Cor.v. and his authority ; which he expresses in these words, “ Ye 2—6, are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.” And he further tells them on this occasion, “ their glorying is not good.” It is plain, that the Apostle was under some apprehensions, lest the offender and his party should make a head against discipline, and that many of them would not abstain from the company of the incestuous person, when he was delivered to Satan; and this is fairly intimated to us in ee vii. those words, “ When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side. Neverthe- less God comforted us by the coming of Titus; when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind towards me; so that I rejoiced the more.”’? In which words the Apostle lets us know his fear and concern, lest the sentence, which he had ordered to be passed, should rather provoke than reclaim the incestuous person and his party; and his great pleasure and satisfaction to hear, that the discipline exercised against this offender had produced its desired effects. If the Apostle had sat tamely down under those discouragements, and concluded that, by undertaking to excommunicate this offender, he should only expose his own authority, he had by this means cherished and inflamed the lust and pride of this great man; therefore he takes heart, and uses the rod of his authority ; he commands him to be delivered to Satan “ for the destruction of the flesh,” OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 249 that is, to be turned out of the Church-doors, and so aban- CHAP. doned to his proper master, who had kindled the fire of lust = and pride in his heart: for he well knew, that, if any thing could mortify and humble him, it must be the use of that discipline which our Saviour in such cases had directed to be exercised ; that, if the consideration of his being discarded by the Apostle and the Church, and declared in so solemn a manner to be a son and slave of Satan and unworthy of the communion of Christian people, would not cool his lust and vain-glory, he might justly be esteemed to be desperately bad and incurably wicked. This was the last means that Christ had prescribed to be used for the reclaiming hardened sinners; and it is evident that it had its effect on this impure Corin- thian: for we are assured that he who had so numerous and formidable a party combined together, as it should seem, on purpose to screen him from the severe sentence, which the Apostle had decreed against him; yet, when he saw the Apostle firm in his resolution, and the Church of Corinth dutifully complying with St. Paul and forsaking his company, he was melted down to such a degree of humility and so deep a sense of his sin, that St. Paul saw occasion, in the next Kpistle that he wrote, to desire his Christian brethren to “comfort him, lest he should be swallowed up of grief.” 2 Cor. ii. 7. Thus were the lust and pride of this offender reduced, and the corruptions of his flesh destroyed, by this wholesome dis- cipline. And I must here add, that when men by excom- munication had attained to a true insight of their own misery, and submitted to such penance as the judge thought proper or necessary, those fastings and outward humiliations were very effectual means to abate the swellings of pride and lust, to destroy or mortify the flesh: and an excellent writer” has shewed, that the ancients did take this to be the meaning of the Apostle in this place. (2.) The other and final end of this discipline was, that “ the Especially spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord:” and this clearly the een” follows from the former, for the destruction of the flesh is °°™® the salvation of the soul; the consequence from this is very plain, that excommunication was never intended for the de- δ [i. e. Dr. Nathaniel Marshall.] Primitive Church. Printed 1714 [p. See The Penitential Discipline of the 48. Ed. Oxford, 1844. ] CHAP. IV. 250 OF EXCOMMUNICATION, struction of the soul nor of the body, but only of the vicious corrupt lusts and inclinations, which are the greatest obstruc- tion to our future happiness. Excommunication is by the vul- gar called a ‘ curse ;’ and the Forms of Excommunication, used in later ages, gave much occasion for this false notion®. Christ was so far from intending it as a curse, that He designed it to be only a correction, whereby to reduce offending Christians to their duty, and by this means to save their souls. It was in- deed a curse, if men continued obstinate under it; but then they made it so to themselves. It was indeed meant for the destruction of the flesh, that is, of all evil habits and desires ; and when St. Paul wishes “ anathema to them that love not our Lord Jesus Christ*,” it is very rational to believe, that He means no more than what He here expresses by “the de- struction of the flesh ;” and when primitive Bishops in Coun- cil pronounced anathema against heretics, they may very fairly be taken in the same sense. © It is sufficient to give one instance of those damnatory Forms from the Textus Roffensis, apud Spelman. in Glossario, voce Excommunicatio. Ex auctoritate Dei Omnipotentis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, et sancto- rum Canonum, Sancteque et inteme- rate Virginis Dei Genitricis Marie, atque omnium ccelestium Virtutum, Angelorum — Patriarcharum, — atque omnium simul Sanctorum et Electo- rum Dei, Excommunicamus et ana- thematizamus hunc—N. et a liminibus Sancte Dei Ecclesiz sequestramus, ut zternis suppliciis cruciandus mancipe- tur cum Dathan et Abiron—et sicut aqua ignis extinguitur, sic extinguatur lucerna ejus in secula seculorum, nisi resipuerit et ad sanctificationem vene- rit, Amen. Maledicat illum Deus Pater—Filius—Spiritus Sanctus. Ma- ledicat illum Sancta Crux—Maledicat illum Sancta Dei Genitrix—omnes Angeli—Maledicat illum Patriarcha- rum et Prophetarum laudabilis nume- rus,—Joannes precursor et Baptista Christi—Sanctus Petrus et Sanctus Paulus, Andreas — omnes Sancti.— Maledicant illum cceli et terra—Male- dictus sit ubicunque fuerit, sive in domo, sive in agro, sive in via, sive in semita, sive in silva, sive in aqua, sive in ecclesia. Maledictus sit vivendo, moriendo, manducando, bibendo, esuri- endo, sitiendo, jejunando, dormitando, dormiendo, vigilando, ambulando, stan- do, sedenco, jacendo, operando, quies- cendo, mingendo, cacando, fleboto- mando. Maledictus sit in totis viribus corporis,—intus et exterius,—in capil- lis, in cerebro, in vertice, in temporibus, in fronte, in auriculis, in superciliis, in oculis, in genis, in maxillis, in naribus, in dentibus mordacibus, in labris, sive molibus, in labiis, in gutture, in hume- ris, in harmis, in brachiis, in manibus, in digitis, in pectore, in corde, et omni- bus interioribus stomacho tenus, in renibus, in inguinibus, in femore, in genitalibus, in coxis, in genibus, in cruribus, in pedibus, in articulis, et in unguibus—in totis compagibus mem- brorum, a vertice capitis usque ad plantam pedis, non sit in eo sanitas. Maledicat illum Christus Filius Dei vivi toto Suz majestatis imperio, et insurgat adversus eum Cclum cum omnibus Virtutibus, que in eo moven- tur, ad damnandum eum, nisi peni- tuerit et ad satisfactionem venerit, Amen, Fiat, Fiat, Amen. [Spelman adds, “‘Hz excommunicationum for- mule sequuntur emendationes legum, quas Gulielmus Conquestor edidit, in lib. vocato Textus Roffensis, MS. et videntur sub eo ipso evo condite ; quia in superioribus nusquam, quod 5010, reperitur beate Virginis Marie invocatio.” Ed. Lond. 1664. ] 4 Heb. D4m the same with ‘destruc- tion,’ or ‘anathema,’ 1 Cor. xvi. 22. ee OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 251 By denying to excommunicated persons the Sacrament, Caer which is the Bread of Life, and the Cup of the New Covenant, eee the primitive Church might seem at first to deny them one no benefit principal means of salvation: but it is to be remembered, pr χόνον. that though the Eucharist be an earnest of eternal life to honest and regular Christians, yet that “they, who eat and drink it unworthily, eat and drink damnation to themselves.” It was therefore an act of mercy as well as justice to with- hold the Sacrament from them, who by their notorious wicked works were enemies to the Cross of Christ; it was a just punishment to deprive them of a privilege, which they had so greatly abused; it was a mercy to refuse them that, which if they continued to receive, they would thereby increase their guilt, and render themselves three times more the children of the devil than they were before. The Eucha- rist is a benefit to them only, who keep themselves free from the great offence, from gross wilful sin; to them who are guilty of scandalous damnable sins it is certainly poison, and hastens and seals their destruction; therefore the Priest, who drives the profane communicant from the Altar, performs the part of a faithful physician in forbidding that to his patient, which he believes would prove certain death to him. Even the long and tedious penances, which were of old The long enjoined to excommunicated persons, were only proofs of the a 5 faithful tenderness of the primitive Pastors toward the souls ἢ 18. of their people. Divines of late years have laboured to prove that repentance imports nothing but an act of the mind; and it is true, that that repentance, which fits grown men for Baptism, does imply no more than a mere change of our resolution; though this too must be openly professed before the Church, and this is that repentance, which our Saviour and His Apostles and St.John Baptist spake of in the Gospel. But that repentance, which is required of Christians, who have fallen from grace and run into habits of vice or acts of very grievous sin, is of another sort ; and was believed by the guides and Fathers of the Apostolic age to import outward austerities, frequent fastings, and a long course of humiliation in public as well as private, as they sufficiently shewed by their constant practice. And it is to no purpose to argue, that the word in the original Greek carries no such CHAP. IV. 2 Cor. xii. ult. Rev. i. 10; Jude xii. 252 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. signification ; for it is certain there is not any great body of men in the world, but that they take some particular word in a sense quite different from what it commonly bears. And since the most primitive Church took the word to denote what we commonly call ‘penance,’ therefore we have rea- son to believe, that, when St.Paul speaks of some at Corinth “that had not repented of the uncleanness which they had committed’ his meaning was, that they had not openly and solemnly humbled themselves in the face of the congregation for their crimes. For Tradition is the only certain method we have of understanding such words, as are not expressly unfolded in the Scripture, as ‘ Lord’s-day,’ ‘love-feast,’ or ‘feast of charity,” ‘enlightening °*,’ and several others; and if we will not in this case be content to accept of such light as Tradition affords, we must for ever wander in the dark. And I fear they are guilty of the greatest cruelty to the souls of men, who endeavour to represent this outward part of repentance needless and superfluous. It is clear to every observing eye, that Christians of this age, that are well- meaning and in some measure religiously-disposed, are per- petually running round in a circle of sinning and ‘ repenting,’ as they call it. They often run into great excesses, and sin grievously against God and man; they confess their sins to God, and for some hours or days perhaps they are serious and retired, and then come to the Sacrament, and think all is well, till they run into the same or other vices; and then they repeat their confessions and short humiliations, and so are perpetually wheeling about, without ever coming one point nearer to the centre, that is, a constant steady obedi- ence. Nay, many conclude all this to be more than is necessary, they reserve their repentance for the last work of their lives. For they have been taught to believe that it consists only in a change of the mind; and they are willing to suppose, that it is therefore a thing to be dispatched in a few moments and by virtue of one single effort of their will: and if they happen to recover from that sickness, which brought them into a necessity of resolving to amend their lives, they soon find that they are the same men they were before, and that they continue to wallow in the same mire; and by this * Heb. vi. 4, where to be “ enlightened” signifies to be ‘ baptized.’ OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 253 CHAP. means it comes to pass, that we very seldom in this age see ΤΑ an example of sincere repentance. There are, God be thanked, good numbers of men that do tolerably well preserve their innocence ; but they who are once engaged in habits of sin do very seldom, if at all, get free from that thraldom. And the true reason of it I take to be this, that Christians have lost the true notion of perfect repentance for sins after Baptism, which the primitive Church did justly believe to consist in a long course of fasting, praying, confessing openly in the Church, deploring and bewailing former sins and trans- gressions, in avoiding that company and other temptations which were the occasions of those sins, and in the frequent practice of the contrary virtues and duties, until the Penitent was grown as ready and expert in every good word and work, as he had formerly been in his vices and follies. This was the “repentance to salvation, never to be repented of,” which the Apostles and primitive Fathers required of those Christians who had sinned with a high hand. Weare sure this was the notion of repentance, which prevailed among the best and earliest Christians, from those words of the angel to Hermas ‘ in the book called Pastor; which is allowed by the most learned men to have been written before the Apostles were all dead: ‘‘ Do you think,’ says the angel, ‘that the sins of those who repent are forthwith blotted out? No; but he that is a penitent ought to afflict his own soul, and to humble himself in every respect, and full oft to undergo many and various hardships; and when he has endured all things that are enjoined him, then perchance He that made him and all things may be moved by His own compassion toward him.’” It was indeed difficult to perform; but, when accomplished, the Penitent himself had reason to acknowledge the wisdom and goodness of the Bishop, who had laid this injunction upon him ; for such severity is the truest mercy. And if we consider what hath succeeded instead of this true primitive repentance in the Church of Rome, we shall see nothing but Γ Numquid ergo, ait [Angelus], protinus putas aboleri delicta eorum, qui agunt peenitentiam? Non proinde continuo; sed oportet eum, qui agit peenitentiam, affligere animam suam, et humilem animo se prestare in omni negotio, et vexationes multas variasque perferre ; quumque perpessus fuerit omnia, que illi instituta fuerint, tunc forsitan, Qui eum creavit et Qui for- mavit universa, commovebitur erga eum clementia Sua. [ Lib. iii, Similit. Vii. | 254 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. CHAP. some sorry remains of it, mixed with modern superstitions ; —— in others, nothing but inward sorrow and compunction, of which the man’s own conscience is the only judge under God. Excommu- (4.) The end and reasonableness of excommunication is paren to. Very apparent in regard to other Christians. For certainly ee fam it Was enough to damp the lusts and passions of moderate a pam sinners, to see what shame they must take to themselves, what sharp penances they must undergo, in order to recon- cile themselves to God and the Church, if they were guilty of such crimes as deserved excommunication; and therefore by sometimes passing this sentence on notorious offenders, others were taught to hear and fear and not to act presump- tuously. And it is certain, that it was chiefly by the prudent use of this discipline the primitive Church became the best school of virtue, and raised men to higher degrees of holiness and purity than any society of men that ever yet appeared in the world. And the great decay of Christian piety in later ages must be imputed chiefly to the neglect or abuse of it. And this brings me to the last and melancholic head | of discourse, viz. iow eg V. The corruptions, under which excommunication has cessary for fallen. The primitive discipline, as above described, could Ne not in the eye of reason be very lasting, without a constant as miracle or somewhat very like it. The persons, who had the administration of it, when it was in its perfection, 1 mean, the Bishops of the Apostolic age, must have been in a great measure free from the common infirmities of human nature. Our Saviour calls seven of them, “the angels of His seven Churches in Asia;” and it seems plain, that they and their brethren must have been somewhat more than common men ; otherwise they could never have managed so great a trust to the honour of their Master and themselves. There were two things necessary to this end; the first was, never to pass this sentence on any but such as did highly deserve it, either by their own confession, or according to the vogue of the main body of the people among whom they lived, and who were concerned to avoid their company when they were excom- municated; the other was, to pass this sentence with an equal hand, without any respect of persons or consideration of any quality in him that was arraigned, without regard to OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 255 any other point but only this, whether he be guilty or not On LAP. guilty. It was scarce to be expected, that so many thousand Bishops as were necessary for the government-of the Chris- tian Church should for many ages keep strictly to these rules ; and alas! it is but too evident they did not. 1. The first corruption of excommunication was the making Excommu- the Ecclesiastical Court distinct from the assembly for wor- coma ship. While the whole affairs were transacted in the face of te the Church, and the people were satisfied of the equity of @! Cots. the proceedings by being present at them, there was no room for any partiality or indirect practices; but when the Bishop held his assembly for worship at one time or place and his court for discipline at another, this gave opportunity for all manner of corruption. This therefore I reckon the first abuse, if not in time, of which I am not very sure, yet in the importance of it. 2. A second corruption was, that penances were carried to By extra- a most excessive height, so that it was not credible that the nasees > generality of offenders, especially they of estates and quality, should ever submit to them. The Penitent was forbid to commence a suit in the Temporal Court, or to follow any trade or worldly business; nay, he must be shorn® and go into a monastery, or else never expect absolution. 3. The grossest abuse of all was, commutation of penance, By commu- or giving money or land for pious uses, thereby to purchase as redemption from the severities mentioned under the last head ; there are some instances of this in the sixth century. 4. To this end Absolution was given, before penance was By absoly- enjomed. To pay for absolution had been simony; but to ache redeem penance with a sum of money was not. Therefore the Penitent, on his first appearance, commonly gave security, that he would submit to the judge; upon this he was forth- with received to communion, and afterwards did penance or paid for not doing it. e Decrett. Pap. Leonis, 22, 23, 24, apud Justellum. » Concil. Agathense, c. 15. Binius, tom. 111. p. 714. Concil. Barcinon., ce. 6. tom. iv. p. 192. Concil. Tolet. iii. c. 12. ibid., p. 504. Concil. Aurel. ibid., p. 190. ' Concilia Landay. in Spelman. [ Concil. Mag. Brit.] vol. i. p. 62. [Ed. Lond. 1639. The instance given is this; ‘‘Rex Mouricus, accepto jugo peenitentiz, dedit quatuor villas pro redemptione animz suz et pro anima Cynetu, Ecclesie Landavie, et in manu Oudocei Episcopi et omnibus suis successoribus, &c.’’ | 256 OF EXCOMMUNICATION. CHAP. 5. By this means a Penitent might be in actual com- = munion, and receive the Sacrament, while he was doing his municating penance or compounding for it; all which was a direct con- ee tradiction to the primitive method. By repeti- 6. Excommunication, penance, and reconciliation, were tion of Pe” repeated as oft as the offender gave occasion; whereas but excommu- one repentance was allowed in the primitive Church. The Church of Spain* opposed this in the sixth century, but to no purpose. By Bishops 7. Bishops did in effect wholly leave the administration isdn of excommunication and discipline to their Archdeacons or others. —_ officials, who were to raise their fortunes by it. Advocates and Proctors made the Ecclesiastical Courts so lke the Temporal, that they were distinguished only in name; and it is evident, they laboured hard to draw to themselves the cognizance of temporal causes; and the officials themselves, at last, were laymen. By tuming 8. Yet to make their excommunications more terrible, nication they stuffed them full of curses contrary to the primitive intoacurse- manner, of which I have before given an account. Apo- stolical excommunication was designed for the destruction of the flesh, this for the damnation of the soul. Ancient penance was intended for the real amendment of the man and for his soul’s health; very little regard was had to this in the new scheme of discipline. Upon the whole, I am persuaded that the Church of Rome has not perverted any one institution of Jesus Christ more than this of excommunication; and, in doing this, hath in effect taken away the most powerful remedy against vice that God ever prescribed to men. For who can wonder, if the authority given by Christ to His Church, being so grossly abused, is now sunk into contempt? I shall close this chapter by observing, that our doctrine is defective as well as our discipline, and that until the former be rectified the latter cannot be restored. It is plain that the foundation of all the primitive discipline was a firm belief, that the Eucharist was the most valuable blessing, the most saving and necessary Ordinance; and that to be deprived of it by a just sentence was the greatest punishment, to which a * Concil. Tolet. iii. c. 11. Bin., tom. iv. p. 505. ~ OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 257 Christian was liable in this world; and that in order to re- cover the benefit of it, the harshest penances and humilia- tions which the Church enjoined were patiently to be under- gone. But now in this age, while we complain of the loss of discipline, we do not seem to employ our care sufficiently toward the re-establishing the foundation of it, that is, the doctrine of the necessity of frequently and constantly receiv- ing the Sacrament; by which means it comes to pass, that excommunication, which was formerly thought the greatest hardship, is now chosen by most Christians as the most safe and easy state. And I cannot see how it is possible to awake men to a sense of this truth, that by neglecting the Sacra- ment they neglect their own salvation, but by endeavouring to convince them that our Saviour in John vi. discourses of the Eucharist, and that we can nowhere eat the Flesh of the Son of Man but at the Lord’s Table. It is evident, that the primitive Church grounded their doctrine of the necessity of the Sacrament on this place of Scripture; and until we believe as the ancients did, our practice and discipline can never be like theirs. JOHNSON, CHAP. IW, CHAP... V. OF PREPARATION FOR THE COMMUNION. ΤῊ fuel, with which the ancient sacrifices were consumed, Neh. x. 34; is in Scripture called a “ wood-offering ;” and for the same “i $1. yeason the pious affections of the mind, that are required to make us good communicants, may justly be called an offering and sacrifice to God ; and, indeed, “a broken heart and con- trite spirit” was by David called a “sacrifice of God,” and it certainly remains so under the Gospel. The ancients do often speak of devotion, self-resignation, love, purity, and other virtues, as necessary ingredients of the Christian Sacrifice ; as things which make our external oblations come up with greater acceptance in the presence of God. The Jews of old hoped, as well as other people, by their sweet-scented cane? and wood to render their sacrifice a more agreeable service. And we shall be wanting to our Sacrifice and ourselves, if we do not endeavour to present it with such inward qualities of mind as we know to be well-pleasing to our God and Saviour. There are six things necessary to render us worthy com- municants : I. Baptism ; : II. The keeping our Baptism undefiled, or cleansing our- selves by repentance ; III. The resolving, with God’s grace, to keep ourselves pure and undefiled for the future ; IV. Acompetent knowledge of the nature of the Eucharist ; V. The receiving it with inward and outward reverence ; VI. Self-examination. Baptism I. None ought to presume to come to the Lord’s Table, in orderto Until he have been first baptized : for no man is a member of ae 4 Isa, xliii, 28; Jer. vi. 20; Rev. its sweet scent to give a perfume to the xviii, 12. ‘*Thyine wood,’ mentioned _ sacrifice. in the last text, is wood qualified by OF PREPARATION FOR THE COMMUNION. 259 the Church of Christ, that has not been washed with water cHap. in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and the Eucharist is an ordinance, to which none can have a right but they who belong to this Body. Under the Jewish Law, no man was permitted to eat the Passover, until he had first been circumcised; and as the Passover was the type of the Eucharist, so was Circumcision of Baptism. Therefore our Saviour first bids the Apostles to “disciple all nations, bap- Matt. tizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;” ee = and then afterwards, to “teach them to do all things what- soever He had commanded them ;” and of those things, which Christ commanded, the Eucharist 15 a great and principal one. It is therefore evident, that our Saviour intended men to be baptized, before they receive the other Sacrament ; and St. Paul seems to teach us this doctrine, when he calls upon us to “ draw near to God, having our bodies washed with clean water.” In the Communion we make our nearest approaches to God; and therefore we must not dare to do this, until we have first been washed and cleansed by Baptism. II. To render us worthy communicants, it is necessary, 1. Either that we should have preserved our Baptism undefiled ; 2. Or that we should by repentance cleanse ourselves from such defilements as we have contracted. 1. The most perfect preparation for the Communion is, to Baptism have kept our Baptism pure and undefiled ; that is, not to have oi εἴσηκος been guilty of any gross error in faith or practice, since we Pest Preps- were washed from our sins in Baptism. For the garment? iF Eucha- preserved clean and pure, of which there is frequent mention in the New Testament and in ancient writers, was a figurative expression, by which they meant Baptism kept clear from the stains and pollutions of all grievous and presumptuous sin; such as are in this condition are said to have kept Christ’s commandments‘, and therefore to have a right to the Tree of & Rev. iii. 4; xvi. 15; Jude 23. Exod xii. 48. Heb. x. 22. the ancient Translators, instead of Ποι- ouvTes Tas ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, read πλύνον- Ignat. ad Polycarp., c. 6. Constt., lib. viii. c. 6. Vide Clem. Recognitt., lib. iv. c. 35. [— gratia Baptismi; quam qui fuerit consecutus, tamquam vesti- mentum mundum, cum quo ei ingre- diendum est ad ceenam Regis. ] © Rev. xxii. 14, It is observable, that several good MSS. and some of Ss τες τὰς στόλας αὐτῶν. See Mill in loc. the sense of both readings is the same; for they only who have “done the commandments,” can be said to ‘have washed their robes,” or to “have kept them white and clean.” 2 CHAP. Rey. xxii. 9 . 2 Esdras ii. 40. 38. As to faith, 260 OF PREPARATION FOR Life. For as “rivers of pure water” clearly signifies Baptism ; ~— so the Tree of Life on each side of this river seems to represent the Eucharist, which our Saviour calls the Bread of Life. Such Christians as these are thus described by an ancient writer, “They are clothed in white, they have kept the commandment of the Lord ;” and such as these are said to be “sealed in the feast of the Lord,” that is, in the Holy Communion ; the feast, which is to be kept “ with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” Now our Baptism may be preserved pure in two respects ; (1.) As to faith: for it is the commandment of God, that we should believe on the Name of His Son Jesus Christ ; and it ought to be the spiritual care of Christians, that they be sound in the Faith. ‘‘ This is the work of God,” says Christ, “that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent.” And He says this with a particular regard to the Holy Eucharist; for this was the Bread, of which He was speaking just before, and “which endures,” as to its effects, “unto everlasting life ;? and “which the Son of Man,” the Saviour of the world, “ gives unto us.” ‘This is the Bread, for which Christ exhorts the people to labour; and when the people desired to know what that work or labour was, whereby they might gain this Bread, He plainly enough informs them that it chiefly consisted in sincerely believing Him to be the Mes- 5185, And this was indeed the greatest hardship, which these carnal Jews had to overcome. If they had been once fully con- vinced that He was indeed the Son of God, they would more easily have been prevailed upon to comply with Him in other particulars. The greatest labour of the men of that age was to shake off the prejudices which they conceived against. Christ and His Gospel; and this was indeed a labour. But we, God be praised, have been bred up in the knowledge of the Christian Religion, and therefore faith is not so hard a work to us as it was to them; and therefore we are the more inexcusable, if in any point we depart from that Faith which was once delivered to the saints; and he, who does so, defiles his Baptism, and is therefore, while he remains in that state, unfit for the Holy Sacrament. All Churches have the best - of Creeds, 1 mean that which we call the Nicene, inserted into their Communion-Service; and he who cannot join in THE COMMUNION. 261 rehearsing this Creed, or saying a hearty Amen to it, he has CHAP. defiled his garment, and is not therefore fit to appear at the Lord’s Table. (2.) But though our faith be very sincere and steady, yet And prac- we cannot be said to have kept our Baptism undefiled, if we ne have been guilty of any great offence, any presumptuous sin, by wilfully breaking any known commandment of God. As Christ’s Church or people is “cleansed by the washing of Eph 9.26 water by the Word,” so it must continue “a glorious Church, ἡ not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish,” and as such be “ presented to Him” at the last day; for it is certainly required of Christians, that they should “ serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days of their 116 ;᾽ and they who do this, they alone are the most perfectly prepared for constantly receiving the Sacrament. But then it is not any lesser sin that defiles our Baptism Sins of ne- as [sic] makes us unfit to draw near to God. There are sins firmity Be of ignorance, which Christians commit for want of know- eo ledge; and if the ignorance be such as we cannot help, then God will, through Christ Jesus, have compassion on us and forgive us, and continue us in His favour, if we do daily con- fess our sins, and in general beg His pardon for our secret unknown faults. The best of Christians do often in thought, word, or deed, transgress the strict rules of duty through the heat and hastiness of their nature, while perhaps they them- selves do not perceive it, or do afterwards perfectly forget it. And whatever sins Christians do commit through such igno- rance and surprise do not put them out of a state of salva- tion. These are sins of infirmity which cannot be avoided, and if the greatest saint on earth say that he hath no such sin he deceiveth himself; and if no man could keep his Bap- tism undefiled or be fit for the Communion, who lives in such sin, then it is certain that all have defiled their Bap- tism, and no man in the world could safely receive the Sacra- ment; for “in many things” of this sort “we offend all.” Nay, there are sins, which do not proceed wholly from Nor all ignorance, surprise, or infirmity, but are committed with a known si ain lesser degree of wilfulness and knowledge ; which yet do not * ae defile us to such a degree as to make us ἡμὰς commu- nicants. It is certain, that several of the Apostles were guilty CHAP, Vi Matt. xxvi. 8. 262 OF PREPARATION FOR of such a sin, just before our Saviour administered the Sa- crament to them, I mean, of causeless anger; “they had indignation” against the pious woman, who poured a box of precious ointment on our Lord’s head; yet He presently after gave them the Sacrament. They could not but see that what the woman did was well meant, and they were sensible that their Master was now going to die and had well deserved this honour to be done to Him; yet there was a mixture of infirmity in it; they were in a poor condition, and thought that the price of that ointment would have been better applied, if given in charity and alms-deeds. If our Saviour had judged such a sin as this to be a defilement of their Baptism, He would not forthwith have bid them eat that Bread and drink that Cup. The same may be said of a Christian, who hath been unawares overtaken with intem- perance, or hath for want of thought or caution said some- what which he knew to be false; I mean, if he be in the main a sober honest man. For it would have been a rash judg- ment in any one to say, that if such a man should, in a few ' days after having committed such a fault, receive the Holy Nor lesser injuries, which did not proceed from ma- lice. Sacrament, that he hath eat and drank his own damnation. It is true that every man ought to confess and humble himself under the hand of God for such lesser sins ; and so he must, if a sin committed through ignorance or surprise or any other infirmity do afterwards come to his knowledge; but then, upon such confession and humiliation, the Christian still continues in a state of Baptismal] purity, and is not to shut himself out from the Lord’s Table. If, indeed, by any untruth which we have unadvisedly spoken, or any sudden fit of anger we have been so far transported as that we have done any real wrong to our neighbour either in word or deed, we must not only confess it to God and beg His pardon, but we must by all means make satisfaction to the man whom we have wronged, and use all proper means to be reconciled to him: but if the injury we did him did not proceed from rooted malice and ill-will, this is no defilement of our Baptism; nor does it render us unfit for the Sacrament, after we have once made ‘our peace with the party whom we had wronged, or done what was reasonable on our parts in order tothat end. This THE COMMUNION. 263 we may learn from the directions which our Saviour gives us one P. in this case ; “ If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there τς τ τ rememberest that thy brother hath aught” of just complaint “against thee; leave there thy gift before the Altar,and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come, and offer thy gift.’ Though the injury we have done were so far from being designed, that we neither intended to do it, when we actually did it, nor did ever since call it to our mind, until we are just offering our alms at the Altar in order to receive the Sacrament ; yet, if even then, upon a re-examination of our own hearts, we believe we have done hurt to another, we must not proceed to perform this holy duty, until we have done our part toward a reconcilement. But such offences as these should not make us absent ourselves from the Lord’s Table longer than is necessary for us in order to make satisfaction to our wronged neighbour. If we can that minute find him out and make friends with him, we may that same minute offer our gift and proceed to partake of the Holy Eucharist. But there are four sorts of crimes, by which men do de- file their Baptism, and render themselyes unworthy of the Sacrament. The first is apostasy, or a falling off from the Christian Apostates Religion to idolatry, Judaism, or infidelity. Men in this condi- ἐταν δε tion are said to have “ denied the Faith,” to have committed 224. never fit “the sin unto death,” to “sin wilfully after they have re- themselves ceived the knowledge of the truth.” This sin does not consist τῆς τ in denying Christ, as Peter did, with the mouth only, not with the heart, for fear of present punishment; but in a wilful departure from the Church to heathenish or Jewish superstition, a turning from the Holy Commandment to wallow in the mire of unbelief: and the Apostle tells us that such as these “ cannot be renewed to repentance, there remains no more Sacrifice for such sin: it had been better for such men, if they had never known the way of Truth.” Such as these were, in the primitive times, once for all cut off from the Church ; and though they pretended to repent, yet they were never again received to Communion. They were guilty of this sin in a lesser degree, who brought in “damnable heresies,” or left the Church to follow heretical or schismatical leaders: for as heresy and schism shuts men out 264. OF PREPARATION FOR CHAP. of the kingdom of heaven, so it likewise cuts them off from —— God’s Church; but then these latter upon their repentance were always received to Communion. ibs Sa hac They were looked upon, in the primitive Apostolical of sin defile ages, to have defiled their Baptism and to be unworthy of iam seq the Communion, who were guilty of blasphemy, perjury, ree as idolatry, murder, robbery, adultery, incest, fornication, bear- Eucharist; ing false witness, and the like. He, for instance, who had been guilty of one act of idolatry in sacrificing to false gods, was judged thereby to have defiled his Baptism, and there- fore was forbid the use of the Sacrament for a long time together, according to the degree of his crime: so the inces- tuous person was cast out from among the Christians at Corinth, as unfit to join in keeping the feast. The sins above-mentioned are of so deep a dye, so full of guilt and horror, that it is not to be believed that any man can commit — them, who has not hardened himself by looseness of principle or by training himself up in lesser sins. They, who offended in such great points as these, were always esteemed to sin with a high hand, and therefore to be utterly unfit for the Communion. Andsodo 8, And so were they, who allowed themselves in any habit nee of known wilful sin ; though drunkenness, lying, or lesser acts of injustice, very rarely committed by some sudden acci- dent, do not presently stain our Baptism to that degree, as to deprive us of the benefit of the Sacrament; yet these or any other sins, however small they are or may seem to be in themselves, if they grow into a settled habit or custom, do render us unworthy guests at the Lord’s Table; and that sin is grown into a custom, which a man commits as often as he has an opportunity or temptation to it. No man is a drunkard or liar, because he has, now and then, at the distance of several years or many months, committed some few acts con- trary to strict sobriety and integrity; but he only who is often, if not for the most part, guilty of transgressing his duty in these particulars, when he may do it without running any hazard to his worldly interests. He that embraces any sin so often as he can conveniently, he shews himself to be under ~ the dominion of that sin, and therefore cannot be a servant to God. All habitual sins must be exceeding offensive in the THE COMMUNION. 265 sight of God, not only because they are frequently repeated, but because the sinner shews that he offends with the full consent and approbation of his own will. An honest Chris- tian may sometimes be betrayed into a foolish or even a wicked action through want of courage or through the great strength of some temptation ; but he, who weekly, daily, or hourly, breaks a law of God, must certainly allow himself in that sin; for a very indifferent degree of care and watchful- ness would be sufficient to restrain him from running per- petually into the same error and excess. He therefore, who goes on constantly in the same road of vice, gives a full proof that he is under no check of conscience but has sold himself to do evil; and for this reason ought to look on himself as one that has perfectly broken the yoke and burst the bond of God’s laws, as one that has polluted his Baptismal garment and is therefore altogether unfit to appear at the Lord’s Table. And though he be not arrived at a perfect habit, so as upon every opportunity to swallow the bait, yet if he does it commonly or frequently, and especially if he does it with ease and greediness, without any remorse or reluctance, his state is very dangerous; he is come to a habit, though not to a perfect habit, and therefore ought in justice to his own soul to keep at a distance from that Heavenly Bread, which be- longs not to those who wailow in the mire of vice. All that were guilty of such presumptuous acts of sin, as The danger were mentioned under the last head but one, and all that were come to a habit of lesser sins were obliged by the dis- cipline of the primitive Church to abstain from the holy Sacrament, unless they could hide and conceal their vices from the eyes of their Pastors and fellow-Christians. And though this discipline be now grown too much out of use, yet unless men in this condition do so judge and condemn themselves as to forbear the Communion, they will one day find that the receiving of the Eucharist, while they are in a state of thraldom to their sins, will greatly inflame their accounts and expose them to the just judgment of God. of receiving the Sacra- ment in these cases. 4. Nay, the Christian that has knowingly and wilfully All wilful sin does for committed an act of sin that is not in itself of the most a while heinous sort, as suppose a studied contrived lie, or beastly render men unfit tor the drunkenness, or of furious anger without cause, especially if Eucharist. 266 OF PREPARATION FOR CHAP. it carried him so far as to do some notable very grievous hurt —:_— to his neighbour either in body, reputation, or estate, ought to look on his Baptism as so far stained or blemished by it, as that he ought not in a few days or weeks to come to make his appearance before God at this heavenly feast; for all wilful sin leaves a blot upon the soul, and renders it unfit for so holy an ordinance, until it be wiped off by a hearty contrition and humiliation toward God, and satisfaction to them whom he hath wronged. And he who thinks light of any one sinful action, when it is done with the whole consent of the will, is m great danger of running into a habit, and plunging himself into the sink of vice. And this is especially true of those sinful actions, which have a mixture of several evil ingredients: as, for instance, if the lie were forged with a design to slander or abuse our neighbour, and make him look more odious in the eye of the world than ourselves, or if he did by the lie intend any real damage or mischief to another; then, it is not only a contrived falsehood, but it is _ likewise compounded of malice and pride, which are most grievous sins, and render the action very hateful in the sight of God. So, likewise, that drunkenness, which is committed on the Lord’s day, and which not only for the time deprives a man of his reason, but keeps him from the public worship of God and is a profanation of the times set apart for His service, this drunkenness is not only a bare sin of intempe- rance, but a robbing God of what is due to Him; and these sins do come up to these high crimes and misdemeanours, mentioned under the second head, at least, to some of them ; however, they are great defilements of Baptismal purity, and put us into a condition very unfit to make our nearest ap- proaches to God in the Holy Eucharist. Ifwehave 2. If we have defiled our Baptism by any of these sins, we defiled Bap- must cleanse ourselves by repentance, before we presume to tism, re- pentance yeceive the Holy Sacrament. Now it is allowed by all, that only can ed sc repentance cannot be true and acceptable, unless it proceed ofthe Eu- from a contrite or bruised heart and wounded spirit, that 15, charist. from a mind filled with grief for our having offended a good and just God and provoked His displeasure against ourselves. ‘It is agreed on all hands, that repentance must be accom- panied with a confession of our sins to God and a most THE COMMUNION. 267 : hearty humiliation of ourselves in His sight and earnest 08} 5 β prayers for pardon; but, above all, it is to be observed, that _ repentance chiefly consists in a sincere resolution against all sin for the time to come, in a change of mind; a turning from vice to virtue, from Satan to God. But there are three circumstances, in which the repentance of Christians now-a- days comes short of that, which was practised in the primitive Church, and which probably the Apostles themselves taught the first Christians. (1.) The first of these particulars was, frequent fasting, and Repent- abstinence from all the most innocent pleasures of life. This (4, ee was the ancient method, by which they who were touched δὰ P with a sense of their sins expressed their inward grief; not alms-deeds; by forbearing flesh and eating fish and using other agree- able meats and drinks, as the Papists do, but living often for several days together on bread and water and always using a very spare and coarse diet. All the most pious ancient Christians did indeed frequently exercise themselves in fast- ing and prayer; but it was required of those who were in a state of repentance for any vicious habit or scandalous sin, that they should afflict their souls in this manner more than other Christians. This they looked upon as part of that “ re- 2 Cor. x. 6. venge, which the Apostle threatens to the offenders at Corinth, and commends them at another place for having used, to 2 Cor. vii. testify their indignation against themselves for their own sins ἢ" and follies. As Fasting is a duty, which our Saviour and His Apostles have taught us both by their examples and doctrine; so, certainly, the most proper season for using it is, when we are humbling ourselves under the hand of God for our sins and working ourselves into a hatred and abhorrence of them. And the truth is, men scarce seem to be in earnest, when they pretend to be sorry for their sins and to resolve against them, but do not bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, give no proof of their real displeasure against their own wicked lusts and desires by mortifying and chastising of them. The primitive Christians had greater reason to hate and abhor sin than the men of this age; for they considered it as a thing that must cost them not only much anguish and grief of mind in order to wipe off the guilt and eternal punishment due to it, but for which their bodies too must CHAP. Υ. With pub- lic confes- sion in the face of the Church. James v. 16. 268 OF PREPARATION FOR suffer, before they could hope for pardon and forgiveness. But the repentance now in fashion is so very easy, that it is no wonder, if men are under no dread of it and do with little or no concern run on in a course of sin, when they have hopes of making their peace with God at last by a few good thoughts and pious expressions. ‘True primitive repentance directed men to lay fines upon their estates as well as punish- ments on their bodies. They did especially take care, that what they saved by fasting should be laid out in works of piety and charity’; and a repentance, which cost them so dear, was one proper means to make them out of love with those sins which occasioned so much expense. But such cheap notions of repentance, as now prevail among Chris- tians, can do very little toward the amending of our lives; when to bewail our sins and fetch some sighs over them is thought as effectual as all the fastings and alms of the primitive Apostolical Penitents. And, indeed, Christians are now permitted without control to spend all their bodily strength and estates. in the service of sin; and scarce ever think of repenting, until their bodies are so weak as to be disabled for fasting, and their worldly condition so low, that there is nothing left for the poor and needy. (2.) In the primitive Church, they, who had committed such sins as rendered them unfit for the Sacrament, were obliged to confess those sins, not only in private to God, but publicly in the face of the congregation, before they could be again admitted to Communion. Thus they did in the most perfect manner comply with the advice of the Apostle in “confessing their sins one to another.” This most pious practice of the ancient Church was, in following ages, greatly corrupted and turned into a private confession to the Priest alone ; but while the primitive discipline prevailed, and men were obliged to confess and bewail their crimes in the public assemblies, this was a mighty restraint to vice. And though the restoring of this excellent discipline be a thing rather to 4 Thy περισσείαν ὑμῶν THs νηστείας / > “ Ν πὶ πένησιν ἐπιχορηγεῖν. Ap. Constt., lib. v. c. xix. Illo die, quo jejunabis—com- putata quantitate cibi, quem ceteris diebus comesturus eras, repones, et da- bis viduz, pupillo, aut inopi, &e.— Herm. Past., Jib. iii, Sim. v. § iii. [Kal ἐν ἡμέρᾳ. vnorevers, ἀρκέσθητι ἄρτῳ καὶ λαχάνοις καὶ ὕδατι, εὐχαριστῶν τῷ OcG* συμψηφίσας δὲ τὴν ποσότητα τῆς δαπάνης τοῦ ἄἂρίστου, οὗ ἴμελλες ἐσθίειν Kar ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν, δὸς χήρᾳ ἢ ὀρφάνῳ ἢ στερομένῳφ---.] ᾿ THE COMMUNION. 269 be wished than expected, and it cannot in reason be desired, CHAP. that any particular offender should submit to a practice that = ~ is now wholly laid aside (except in some special cases, where the laws require it); yet certainly all Christians, who are really affected with a sense of their sins and do in earnest desire to amend them, cannot take a more proper course than to confess all their wilful presumptuous sins, how secretly soever they were committed, to all their serious Christian friends in their conversation with them. The shame, with which such a confession is attended, will be a great check to a man in the whole course of his life. I am persuaded, that every man is in conscience bound to comply with that exhortation of the Apostle; and he, that is of the same judgment, and therefore resolves to confess all his great offences to others, will be under a fear and awe, how he commits such sins as will oblige him to take shame to him- self in the eyes of men. (3.) The repentance of the primitive Christians was long; And this it continued for several years together. No man, who had PV" been guilty of grievous sins, was received into communion, !"¢ _ after he had fasted and confessed his sin and humbled him- self twice or thrice in the public assembly; but he was obliged constantly to attend the religious worship of the Church, and that too in the most humble manner, standing at the Church-doors, begging the prayers of the Clergy and people, and this for several years together, according as the Penitent was more or less careful to give real proof of his conversion. And, in a word, no man was restored to com- munion, until he had by his behaviour given all possible demonstration of his sincerity; and until it appeared by a long trial, that he did indeed “keep himself from his ini- Psalmxviii. quity,” and refrain those lusts and passions, which had for- τ merly got the dominion over him. And it was this long continued state of humiliation, which then went under the name of ‘repentance;’ this they esteemed to be that “ re- 2 Cor. vii. - pentance to salvation, not to be repented of,” as St. Paul ce expresses it. And there is just cause to fear, that one great cause why repentance now-a-days so seldom ends in a real amendment, is, that it is so short and hasty. In the Church of Rome, repentance is thought to consist in having a sorrow CHAP. 3 This was then the only long prepara- tion. 270 OF PREPARATION FOR for sin and not resolving to commit it again®, in confessing it to God and the Priest, and performing some such trifling penance as he enjoins; and all this may be done in a few days, or perhaps in four-and-twenty hours, nay, in a few minutes upon a death-bed. And though the Church of Rome threatens the sinner that does not do his penance here on earth with a terrible penance indeed to be done in Purga- tory, except he buy it off by purchasing an indulgence or by some other very expensive means; yet there is just cause to believe, that few even among the Papists are afraid of this imaginary fire. With us, sorrow, confession to God alone, (except in some special cases,) and a change of mind, are justly said to be true repentance, with satisfaction to men, if we have wronged them. But I conceive in this we are de- fective, that we do not consider fasting, alms-deeds, outward humiliation, and public confession, as very requisite, if not necessary, to produce and give an evidence of this real change of mind; and, above all, we are short in this, that we do not insist on the necessity of the Penitent’s giving a sufficient proof of his inward conversion by his outward carriage and demeanour for a considerable length of time, before he be admitted to the Lord’s Table: in a word, because we make the whole of repentance to consist in one or few actions of the mind, which may be performed in a few days or hours ; whereas the primitive Church looked on it as a long state or course of sorrow, humiliation, confession, not to be ended, until it did by experience appear that the offender was indeed re- formed and fit for the Holy Sacrament. It is upon the whole evident, that the festival or wedding-garment, in which we are to come to this marriage-feast, is either our Baptismal purity or a sincere repentance that has approved itself by actual amendment. This was the only long and laborious preparation for the Eucharist that was practised in the primitive Church. As for all others, who were not in a state of repentance, they did constantly attend at the Lord’s Table every Lord’s day at the furthest, and not a few of them every day; therefore a ‘ week’s preparation,’ for the Holy Communion would have © Conc. Trident., Sess, xiv. cap. iv. tritio dicitur—si voluntatem peccandi Contritionem imperfectam, que At- excludat—donum Dei esse, &c. THE COMMUNION. ova sounded very oddlyin the primitive times. It is certaina year’s Ὁ BAF. preparation was not thought sufficient for heinous offenders ; ---—— and as for those, who needed not this repentance, but had only sins of common infirmity or a single act of lesser sin to confess to God and beg pardon for, these were (if not always fit to receive) yet without any long or painful exercises, by their daily devotions and humiliations, sufficiently prepared for these holy mysteries. And lest any one should think that I am too rigorous in This re- those rules of repentance, which I have taken from the pri- Petcssary. mitive Church; and does imagine that a man may be a worthy communicant, though he have committed gross sins, upon much easier terms than those above-mentioned, I desire it may be considered, 1, That, by receiving the Sacrament, men do make the Because in most solemn profession of their being Christians. He, who ca ae pretends to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ, must ἴδ emg at the same time profess to dwell im Christ and that Christ dwells in Him: but now the practice of any wilful sin is utterly inconsistent with this profession ; for “ he who names 2 Tim. ii. the Name of Christ must depart from all miquity,” and, who- ever would “ draw near to God, must have his heart sprinkled Heb. x. 22. from an evil conscience.” 2. It is evident, that the Eucharist was intended to be a And to be means of our continuing in covenant and communion with ingen God and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit; but now it is renycen the highest presumption for any man that allows himself in any known sin, to pretend to communicate with those most pure Divine Persons; for what communion hath light with darkness ? 3. Whoever receives the Eucharist ought at the same time And pre- to present himself, together with the whole Church, a living See sacrifice to God; but the offering of a sinful soul or body to cok God cannot be a sacrifice acceptable to Him, it can never be a reasonable service. 4, The very nature of a sacrifice requires, that all, who The nature assist at the offering it or the feasting on it, should cleanse rar themselves from all wilful defilements and pollutions, so far PYty. as it is in their own power; both priests and people, under Lev. x. 1— the Law of Moses, were forbid under severe penalties to offer eo CHAP. / . Lev. xv 2fe OF PREPARATION FOR or feed on any sacrifice, before they had freed themselves — from all outward impurity. Now the sacrifices of the Law 31; vii. 20. were types and figures of the spiritual Sacrifice of the Gospel; Primitive Christians publicly confessed their pri- vate sins. and the washings and other purgations used by the Jews were shadows of that inward purity, which Christ requires of them who worship God in spirit and truth. St. Paul charges them who had been unworthy partakers of the Sacrament, as “ suilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord ;” so that if we receive the Sacrament with hands defiled with blood and violence or unlawful lust, with mouths polluted with pro- fane unchristian discourse, with hearts tainted with mali- cious wicked intentions, we are guilty of a real affront to Christ Jesus Himself by offermg an indignity to His Sacra- mental Body and Blood ; and, as Chrysostom says‘, “ If they who rend the robes of a king are deservedly punished, they who receive the Body of Christ with a defiled soul are to expect the same punishment with them who tore It with nails.” And Basil the Great argues for a necessity of much greater purity in order to receive the Body of Christ, than for them who did eat the flesh of bulls and rams offered in sacrifice under the Law. The primitive Christians were so fully convinced of the great necessity of being thus prepared for the Sacrament, that it was usual for them to confess such sins", as they might have concealed from the knowledge of others; and so to put themselves into the state of Penitents rather than continue in communion with the Faithful, when they suspected them- selves to be unworthy of it. It was in those ages the custom for the Deacon’, just at the beginning of the Communion- Service, to warn all to depart the congregation, that were but Catechumens or Hearers only, not Orthodox or Faithful ; every one that had a grudge against another, or that was guilty of dissimulation, or that was any ways unworthy of the Lively Sacrifice, that was not fully instructed or not fit to touch the Mysteries with defiled lips. And many sincere Christians, being convicted with the admonition of the Deacon and their own consciences, did of their own accord go out with the f B. p. 41. Ap. Oxon. | a, b. p. 23. Ap. ic, p. 53. Ap. Chrysost., (00.) p: h See the Penitential Dise pline of 39, Ap. the Primitive Church, p. [38. Ed. THE COMMUNION. 273 Penitents, and so were put into their rank, confessed their CHAP. sins, and submitted to discipline ; for they believed that no be man, who was in a state of sin, ought to approach the Lord’s Table. And it ought to be the prayer and endeavour of every one, who has the honour of Christianity at heart, that these admonitions of the Deacon may again be heard in the Church; and that the Christians of this age may be as sensible of the danger of unworthy receiving of the Eu- charist, as they of the primitive Church shewed themselves to be. But it ought to be particularly observed that the danger Danger of of unworthy receiving the Sacrament had not that effect on ἐειωίέκντο ὍΝ Christians of old, that it has now amongst us; for they did for wilfully not from hence conclude, that it was more easy to live in the @bstaining. neglect of this Holy Ordinance, but only that they ought to use the greater zeal and diligence in preparing themselves for it. It is certain, that they, who had been guilty of any gross sin in the first ages and were for that reason obliged to stand in the rank of Penitents, did very much lament and bewail their own condition, and thought their separation from the Holy Communion to be a very sore punishment, though a very just one; they did, with prayers and tears and all the outward signs of inward grief and anguish, desire and request to be again admitted to the Holy Eucharist. This was the only end they proposed to themselves in this world by their fastings, confessions, and humiliations ; they were not of the opinion of the Christians of this age and country, who seem to think, that to live and even die without the Sacrament is more desirable than to give themselves the trouble of a diligent preparation for it, and to run the risk of being un- worthy communicants. I am persuaded, if the Church had stuck close to its first and most primitive constitution, that is, if all baptized Christians must have been either Communi- cants or Penitents, as they were of old, then men would easily have perceived the necessity of being constant communicants; except it can be supposed, that any should be so very singular as to choose to live all their life-time in a state of such severe repentance as I before described. But the truth is, the Chris- tians of the Apostolical times were under a full and just persuasion of the necessity of their being in a state of com- JOHNSON, T 274 OF PREPARATION FOR CHAP. munion with the Church, and of receiving the Sacrament ; and were therefore willing to undergo any hardships for the obtaining of this privilege. But, now of late, men think the Kucharist no privilege at all; or, if it be any, they expect to enjoy it, though they live and die in their sins ; and so a very great, and perhaps in some places the greater, part of those who go under the name of Christians, are either unworthy communicants, or else never communicate at all for fear of eating and drinking their own damnation. St. Paul is the only holy writer, who lays before us the danger of unworthy receiving; now I wish they who are so terrified with his words would but consider the conclusion, which he himself makes from this doctrine; he does not from thence argue, that it is best to abstain from this Sacrament, but on the contrary he says, “ Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup.” And that Christian, who argues in a manner directly contrary to the Apostle, has just reason to suspect his own judgment. Resolving III. To make ourselves worthy communicants, we must “aya resolve with God’s grace to keep ourselves undefiled for the ture, neces- time to come; for it is evident, he that does not is not pure sary to fit us forthe jn heart, is not a firm and resolute servant and soldier of aes Christ Jesus. And the very same reasons, which I used to rere prove that he who receives the Sacrament ought not to allow himself in any sin, are easily to be applied by the reader to this head of discourse ; but it was necessary to mention this particular, that so every communicant might have an eye to the time to come as well as to the time past. Christ has de- clared the Cup in the Communion to be “ the New Covenant in His Blood ;” our English Translation indeed calls it “the New Testament,” but all truly learned men will tell you, that the meaning of our Saviour is “the New Covenant.” Now it is evident, that God in and by the New Covenant promises pardon, grace, and eternal life, on His part; but then it is on condition that we perform the terms of the Covenant on our part; and these terms are faith, repentance, and obedience for the fime to come. He, therefore, who comes to the Communion without a full and sincere resolu- tion of leading a holy life for the time to come, does not re- ceive it as a Covenant, or does not stand to his part of the THE COMMUNION. 275 Covenant; and therefore cannot in reason expect that God CHAP. should perform His part. And nothing is more evident than this, that God can never be reconciled to any man that lives in wilful sin ; and “ If we say that we have communion with 1 Johni. 6. God, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” Yet we must take heed of a common error, which is, that Sins, after sins committed after receiving the Eucharist are hardly, if ama at all, to be pardoned. We may be infallibly sure that this °°?! is a mistake, if we consider that St. Peter was guilty of the great sin of denying his Master with his tongue, though not in his heart, within a few hours after he had received the Sacrament from the hands of Christ Jesus Himself. Yet there is no reason to doubt but he was forgiven, and at last died in a state of grace and salvation, and, as he himself ex- presses it, “a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed.” 1 Pet. v. 1. And what is more, Christ Himself, Who knew and foretold Mat t. xvi. his fall, yet administered the Eucharist to him. Christ Jesus ™ saw his heart, and knew him to be sincere, when he declared that he would die with Him rather than deny Him; he was indeed overcome soon afterwards with the fear of suffermg with his Master through the infirmity of his nature. And this may serve as a certain evidence that we are fit for the Communion, if our resolutions are hearty, though they after- wards be broken: if it were otherwise, no man could ever judge himself fit for the Sacrament ; for it is impossible for us to know what we shall do hereafter, or whether our honest purposes shall ever be brought to perfection. But from the fall of this Apostle we should learn to use a double diligence in guarding ourselves against temptations after we have re- ceived the Eucharist. We should endeavour to out-do the Apostle in taking heed to our ways afterward, rather than to imitate him in that confidence of his own strength, which does so evidently appear in the words he used on this oc- casion. IV. To make ourselves worthy communicants we ought to receive the Eucharist with inward and outward reverence. 1. With inward reverence, which consists in having our Inward re- minds filled with awful thoughts of That God, before Whom cn, in we appear, and with Whom we desire to continue in cove- 'eving nant and communion ; with just conceptions of Jesus Christ, T2 CHAE. Me Cor: ΧΙ, 18. 1 Cori: zie 1 Cor. xi. 22, 84, Jude 12; 2 Pet. ii. 3. 276 OF PREPARATION FOR as the only true Son of God by nature, Very God of Very God, our only Mediator and Advocate; with a due esteem of the salvation and redemption wrought by His Death, Resur- rection, and Ascension, the memory whereof we solemnize in this Ordinance. And particularly we ought to entertain our minds with a reverential consideration of the Eucharist itself, as the most valuable and beneficial institution that God ever vouchsafed to men, as being what our Saviour intended it, that is, His Body, given or offered to God for us, His Blood shed for the remission of our sins; for though the substance of Bread and Wine remain, yet they are in mystery and power the sacrificed Body and Blood of Christ, and they that do not discern the Body of our Lord in the Eucharist are in St. Paul’s judgment unworthy receivers. 2. We must perform this service and receive this Sacra- ment with an outward reverence. The Christians at Corinth are blamed by St. Paul chiefly for want of this. For “ first of all they had divisions among them, when they came to- gether” to administer and receive the Eucharist; some came with a ravening hunger, and others came “ drunken,” that is, their spirits were too much elevated with what they had drunk at the supper, which the Corinthians had in the Church just before the Eucharist, in imitation of our Lord and Saviour, Who first administered the Sacrament just after He had eaten the Passover. This supper was one great occasion of all these disorders, and therefore St. Paul clearly intimates, that he would have them eat it at home or in some private house; for, says he, “Have ye not houses to eat and drink in, or despise ye the Church of God?” And, “If any man hunger, let him eat at home or in some private house.” It was at this supper, that the poor were neglected, and the rich eat and drank more than enough. This supper was called a feast of love and charity; but the rich here took their “own supper*,” which they had brought with them, and “shamed them that had not”? wherewithal to entertain themselves. This want of charity was a very ill preparation for the Eucharist, which they received presently after. When he therefore charges them with eating and k 1 Cor. xi. 21, 22. προλαμβάνειν hand,’ that is, before the Eucharist, seems here to signify ‘taking before- not ‘ to take before others.’ THE COMMUNION. rare drinking “unworthily,” he means performing the Ordinance CHAP. in so unseemly and unbecoming a manner as these Corin- thians did; and he immediately declares, that they were for 97. a reason “ guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” . We ought particularly to shew our reverence, by re- And out- ward reve- ceiving it in an humble posture of body; because it is an rence of action by which we covenant and communicate with God, °°” by which we expect to receive pardon and grace from Him. The ancient Christians did never worship what they received as the Very Christ, both God and Man, which the Papists have done for many ages past, and still do (and in this I believe them guilty of idolatry); but they treated it de- cently', they came to it as to the Body of their King. It is commonly believed that Christ and His Apostles sat at the Communion; but this is all mistake. Our Translation in- deed says, they “sat down,” but this was to eat the Pass- Matt. xxvi. over ; and it is certain that the Greek word signifies not ‘to sit, but ‘lie down,’ and it is sometimes so turned in our Markv. 40. English Bibles. Now it is certain that the Jews, in eating the Passover, did use several prayers and hymns; and if they pronounced or sung them, while they thus leaned or lay along, then it must be owned, that this was a posture of devotion in our Saviour’s time; but if they rose up, and so changed their posture in order to pray and sing at the Pass- over, then we have the same reason to believe that they did so too in order to administer and receive the Eucharist. It is certain, that the long and solemn prayer, used by Christ”, (John xvi.) was offered by Him in the room where He in- stituted the Sacrament; and there is reason to believe, that the prayer itself was part of the devotion which He used on the occasion of His administering the Eucharist. And He cannot be supposed to have prayed in any posture but what was humble and fit for the worship of God. V. To make us worthy receivers, it is necessary that we Whatisthe should have a competent knowledge of the nature of the i ον ὃς Eucharist ; to which end I shall briefly explain the history ener Ἃ of the Institution, as it is recorded by St. Matthew, of blessing St. Mark, St. Luke, and St.Paul. Now we are informed eyo that, “after Christ and His Apostles had eaten the Passover, a 1 Cor. xi. ει See Part I. p. [237.] ™ See the Introduction. CHAP. Le xiv. 22; Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. ἈΠ raat Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor, xi. 24, 1 Sam. ix. 13. 278 He took Bread and blessed 105," The main point is, what is meant by ‘ blessing’ the Bread; now it is certain, this word is capable of several significations. And, first, some will have it to mean no more than ‘ giving thanks’ over it, as the master of the feast among the Jews used to do, espe- cially because St. Luke and St. Paul use this very word upon this occasion. But it is clear? beyond all doubt, that both these words have the same meaning in this history; and the meaning is, that Christ did by proper ways and means give or procure a blessing to the Bread which He had taken into His hands. I deny not but this might be done in a remote and less proper sense, by calling on God, and praising Him for bemg the Author of bread and all other fruits of the earth; but there are two other ways of blessing bread or any other creature, namely, offering it to God, as Samuel did the sacrifice ; for by this means he was said to ‘bless’ it: therefore all sacrifices are called ‘ bless- ings,’ both the meal-? and drink-offering, and also the beast4 offered at the altar. Whatever was offered at God’s altar did become God’s peculiar property, and was thereby blessed and sanctified. Or, lastly, to ‘ bless’ may signify to obtain by OF PREPARATION FOR prayer a special Divine blessing upon any creature. Thus Christ ‘ blessed"? the Bread and Fishes, that is, He did by n Learned men have observed, that ἐσθιόντων here is a participle of the second aorist, not of the present, or preter-imperfect tense. So the Critics; and observe, that it is expressly said, that He took the Cup ‘‘after supper,” or “when he had supped.” Luke xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi, 25. ° This is evident, because where St. Matthew and St. Mark say, Christ ‘blessed’ the Bread, St. Luke and St. Paul say, ‘‘ He gave thanks,” or " Eu- charistized’ the Bread: and though the three Evangelists do agree in saying, “6 gave thanks,” or ‘ Eucharistized’ the Cup; and St.Paul also says in one place, that He ‘ Eucharistized’ the Cup as He had the Bread, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25; yet at another place he calls it “the Cup of blessing, which we bless,” 1 Cor. x. 16. If therefore St. Paul had said, ‘which we Eucharis- tize,’ instead of ‘‘ which we bless,’’ the -sense of the words had still been the same; for it is certain, that both these words are transitive in this history. Ρ Joel ii. 14. ‘* He will leave a bless- ing behind Him, even a meat-offering, and a drink-offering.”’ q Mal. ii. 2, 3. God says to the priests, ‘‘I will curse your blessings, I will deprive you of the shoulder, and will dash the maw upon your faces, even the maw of your solemn feasts,” or sacrifices. So the LXX excellently well render it, and their Hebrew Books varied very little from the present; the shoulder and maw were the known portion of the priest in all peace-offer- ings. * In the two histories here men- tioned, there is a plain proof that to ‘bless’ and ‘ Eucharistize’ are words of the very same meaning. The first history mentions five loaves only; this is related by all four Evangelists; the three first (Matthew xiv. 19; Mark vi. 41; Luke ix. 16) do agree in using the same words, “‘ He blessed them ;”’ but St. John says, “ He Eucharistized them,” John vi. 11, 23. In the other history there is mention of seven loaves. THE COMMUNION. 279 prayer obtain the Divine power to descend upon them, by which they were so multiplied as to feed several thousands. Now the whole Christian Church, till of very late years, did by her practice declare, that she believed Christ to have blessed the Bread in all these three senses. Not, indeed, that the ancients thought any miraculous change made in the Bread and Wine, or expected that they should be multiplied, as the loaves and fishes were; but they conceived that the Bread and Wine, by the Holy Spirit or Divine benediction, were made the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ. Thus the elements were blessed, not only by having most solemn praises pronounced over them, but by being offered to God in remembrance of the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood, and by a prayer to God to render them the Body and Blood of Christ in life and power, though not in natural substance. It must also be observed, that our Saviour did, by an act of His own will, appoint or depute the Bread and Wine to be His Body and Blood in mystery, before He offered them to God; and then, having blessed them in the manner now described, He distributed first the Bread and then the Cup ; at the giving the former He said, “ This is My Body given,” or offered to God “for you;” for, when He appointed the Bread to be a figure of His Body, and as such offered it to God, He did then as a Priest, under this figure of Bread, present His own natural Body to His Father, as a Sacrifice for the sins of men; and therefore He bids them eat it as His Body “ given” or broken “for them.” At the delivery of the Cup, He bids them “all drink of it;” for it was His Blood, now “shed for them and for many,” even as many as should believe and obey Him, “for the remission of sins :” for, when He poured out and offered the Wine, He did thereby give or resign His Blood to be shed for the forgive- ness of sin to all true communicants. Thus, it is certain, the ancient primitive Church of Christ understood this his- tory of the Institution of the Eucharist. And this is the most proper meaning of the words themselves; for which St. Matthew says, “ He Eucharistized” _ fishes,’ Mark viii. 6, 7. This latter both the loaves and fishes, Matthew xv. history is omitted by SS. Luke and 36. St. Mark says, ‘‘ He Eucharistized John. the loaves,’’ and “δ blessed the CHAP. 7. CHAP. 7: The true method of administer- ing the Eu- charist. The benefits of worthy receiving. John vi. 63. 1 Cor. xii. 13. 280 OF PREPARATION FOR two reasons joined together I cannot but conclude this to have been the sense and intention of Christ Himself. From this it appears, what is the true method of celebrat- ing the Eucharist, which is, after having presented the Bread and Wine on the Altar, to praise God for having made so plentiful provision of these and other creatures for the use of man: then to rehearse the history of Christ’s Institution, by which the Priest does as it were open his commission, and shew the authority by which he is now acting, that he does it by virtue of those words spoken to the Apostles, and, in them, to all Christian Priests, “ Do,” or offer, “ this in re- membrance of Me:” and, further, by the repeating of this history, the Bread and Wine separated for this use are parti- cularly declared to be the symbols, image, or representation of His Body and Blood. Then they are to be offered to God in memory of that great Sacrifice once offered by Him. After which, the Priest and congregation are to pray to God, that He would render the Bread and Wine offered to Him, not only mere figures and images of Christ’s Body and Blood (for that they were before), but such figures and Images as may be in power and effect, though not in sub- stance, the Very Body and Blood of our Redeemer. And to these purposes the primitive Church, after the Words of In- stitution, always used such a Form of Prayer, as the reader will find at the end of the book, at this mark, No. 1. It is particularly to be observed from that Form of Prayer, that the ancient Christians believed that the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ were to all worthy receivers a means of strengthening them in piety, [and] of obtaining remission of their sins and everlasting life. And all this they learned from the Scripture, rightly understood: for Christ hath assured us, that the Flesh and Blood which He pro- mised to His disciples “are spirit and life;’ and St. Paul says, that “we are all made to drink into the One Spirit,” in which words he clearly alludes to the Cup in the Eucharist ; so that it is evident, that all good Christians do here receive increase of grace. Further, Christ assures us, that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are His Sacramental Body and Blood “ given” and “shed for the remission of sins ;” so that they are the seals of pardon to all who receive them with THE COMMUNION. 281 duly-prepared hearts. Lastly, Christ hath said, “He that CHAP. feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh My Blood his drink, hath everlasting life, and I will raise him at the last day.” From which it is clear, that he, who with a true faith and other good dispositions receives the Sacrament, does at the same time receive an assurance of a happy Resurrection; and he, who receives without faith and other good dispositions, does not perform the duty here enjoined by Christ Jesus, and so has no right to the promises. VI. The last means to render ourselves worthy communi- cants is self-examination. And how and in what particulars we are to examine ourselves, appears by the foregoing dis- course. The questions, then, which every communicant should put to himself, are these : 1. Whether he has been duly baptized ? 2. Whether he has kept his Baptism undefiled? If he hath, he is one of the most worthy sort of communicants: if he hath not, he ought further to call himself to account, whether his repentance be answerable to the guilt of his sin? And because in these points many difficulties may arise, therefore if any doubt remain upon his mind, he ought to lay his case before some discreet spiritual guide, as the primitive Christians did; not in order to receive private ab- solution, but only to be well advised concerning the degrees of repentance which are necessary in order to fit him for the Eucharist after any wilful sin. 3. Whether he be sincerely resolved, with God’s grace, to keep himself pure and undefiled for the future? Without this, no man can worthily receive it. 4. Whether he hath been guilty of want of reverence at the receiving it? that so, if he have formerly sinned in this particular, he may for the time to come use more care and diligence, and beg God’s pardon for what is past. 5. Whether he hath studied to get a competent knowledge of the nature of this Mystery? If he hath not, I desire him to read over again and again what he finds under this head just above. And, indeed, all middling readers will find it necessary to read the whole of what has here been said with great attention. And I pray God give to all, eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to understand. John vi. 84. APPENDIX. DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. No. I. THE PRAYER IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION IN THE MOST ANCIENT LITURGY NOW EXTANT. Wuererore, remembering Christ’s Passion, and Death, and Resurrection from the dead, and Return into Heaven, and His second Coming with glory and great power to judge the quick and dead aud to recompense every man according to his works, we offer to Thee, our King and our God, ac- cording to His appointment, this Bread and this Cup; giving Thee thanks through Him, that Thou hast vouchsafed us to stand before Thee, and to sacrifice to Thee: and we beseech Thee to look favourably on these Thy gifts, which are here set before Thee, O Thou Self-sufficient God: and do Thou ac- cept them to the honour of Thy Christ, and send down Thine Holy Spirit, the Witness of the Lord Jesus His Passion, that He may make this Bread the Body of Thy Christ, and this Cup the Blood of Thy Christ; that they who are par- takers thereof may be confirmed in godliness, may obtain remission of their sins, may be delivered from the devil and his snares, may be replenished with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of Thy Christ, may obtain everlasting life, Thou being reconciled to them, O Lord Almighty. No. I]. A PRAYER TO BE USED BY ONE THAT IS GOING TO COMMUNICATE, WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE USED EVERY DAY BY A CONSTANT COMMUNICANT; AND, IF IT BE FRE- QUENTLY OFFERED WITH A SINCERE HEART, WILL PRE- SERVE A MAN IN SUCH A DISPOSITION OF MIND AS TO BE ALWAYS FIT FOR THE HOLY SACRAMENT. O most merciful God and Father, I acknowledge and adore Thine infinite love in sending Thy Son Jesus Christ DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 283 to take upon Him our nature, and to suffer death upon the Cross, as a Sacrifice for the sins of men. I bless the Divine goodness and wisdom of Thy Son, in offering-His Body and Blood to Thee, and in commanding His Church to continue the memorial of it until His coming again to judge the quick and the dead. Grant, O gracious God, that all Christian men may have a just sense of the riches of Thy love and mercy in Christ Jesus, and may be duly affected with His holy Life, heavenly Sermons, meritorious Death and Passion, glorious Resurrec- tion and Ascension; that we may all delight ourselves in doing Thy Will and His, in offering the good Oblation, in shewing forth His Death according to His appomtment: and, Lord, let the offering made by Thy Church be pleasant to Thee, as in the days of old, and come up with acceptance on Thine Altar; let Thy gracious Presence be with Thy people assembled together and praying in the Name of Thy Son. Turn not away Thy Face from the Priests, and the con- gregations that join with them in pleading the merits of Thy Son’s Death and Passion, in the manner that He Himself ordained. Let the fire of Thy Holy Spirit always descend on the Christian Sacrifice, and on those who offer it; that their iniquity may be taken away, and their sin purged. We are taught by Christ Himself, that, except we feed upon the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, there is no life in us; and that he, who feedeth upon His Flesh and drinketh His Blood, hath eternal life. Give, Good God, to all Christian people, hearts seriously to believe and consider these great truths, and truly to understand this Mystery, that none who believe in Christ may live in the neglect of this duty, or perform it in an unworthy manner. Open their eyes, that they may discern the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament; that they may know and feel the life and spirit, by which our Lord Christ is there present, and no longer look for the natural Body and Blood, which are in Heaven only, and which must there remain until the time of restitution of all things. Grant, that all Christians may receive these Pledges of Salvation with awe and reverence, equally abhorring profaneness and superstition ; that all, who call Christ their Master, may continue with one accord in 284 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. breaking of this Bread, that they may all be One Body and One Loaf; and that this Feast of Love may no longer be the occasion of strife and division. And since the Blood of Thy Son is the Blood of the Eternal Covenant, and that we cannot in reason hope to partake of Thy Promises, unless we perform the conditions on which they are made, grant that none may presume to come to this Fountain, which Thou hast opened for sin and for unclean- ness, without broken hearts and bruised spirits, without a sincere sorrow for all their known wilful sins, and a sin- cere resolution of obedience for the time to come. Let no man dare to approach these Heavenly Mysteries, but such as earnestly desire and endeavour to keep their Baptismal Covenant undefiled, by persisting to renounce the devil, the world, and the flesh, and to contend for the Faith which was once delivered to the saints, and to add to their faith virtue and universal obedience. Oh, let the love of Thee and Thy Son fill and bear rule in the hearts of all communicants ; grant that none may come with boldness to the Throne of Grace, but they who really love their neighbours in the same manner they love themselves, that are free from all malice and revenge; and, if they have done wrong, are ready to make satisfaction for it. May all that name the Name of Christ depart from all iniquity. May all that eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup, do it with a sincere desire that Christ may ever dwell with them, and they with Christ; and, to that end, learn from Him to be meek and lowly of mind, and to resign themselves up to Thee in well-doing. Let these words of my mouth and these desires of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, especially in behalf of myself; that I may never be guilty of the Body and Blood of my Lord and Saviour, nor eat and drink them to my own damnation: but give me grace so to Jabour, and prepare myself for that Bread which endureth to everlasting life, that I may always receive and eat it to my present comfort and increase of grace, and to the final salvation of my soul and body at the last day; and, to that end, that I may in the _ best manner try and prove myself. I lie down in my shame, and my confusion covers me, when I remember all my wilful sins; I have a sincere indig- DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 285 nation against myself, I loathe my own folly and vileness, for having acted contrary to my known duty. I have Here men- sinned against Thee and against my own con- ton the ἔ particulars, science; but I humbly confess my sins, I confess with all the them with grief and anguish of heart; I abhor and Sear detest, and promise to use the best care and cir- ΤΣ cumspection, that I may avoid them for the time to come. I humbly intreat Thy mercy and forgiveness; and I trust Thou wilt seal my pardon in the Communion of the Body and Blood of Thy dear Son. I lament and bewail, not only my known but my unknown sins, such as I have com- mitted through ignorance, forgetfulness, and surprise, and have wholly escaped my notice and remembrance. I lament and deplore the frailty and infirmities of my nature, every lesser excess, levity, and indecency, that I have committed. Who knows how oft he offends? O cleanse Thou me from my secret faults. Oh, let me obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need, through our High-Priest, Who is touched with a feeling of our infirmities; through the Oblation which He is always pleading in heaven, and which He hath taught His Church to represent here on earth. O God, to Whom all hearts are open, all desires known, Thou seest that it is the secret earnest purpose of my soul to resist or fly from all the temptations of the devil, to destroy his works, and to defeat his malicious designs against myself and against all others. Thou knowest that I do from the bottom of my heart renounce all filthy lucre, all sinful gain, all designs of growing rich or great by the wages of un- righteousness, all immoderate love of wealth and honour; and that I am sincere, when I pray to Thee, that Thou wouldest keep me unspotted from the world. It is my hearty wish and prayer, that I may mortify all the sinful lusts of the flesh, and guard myself by Thy grace from those vices, which are most agreeable to flesh and blood, and to which I am by nature or custom most inclined. Grant, O my God, that I may so thoroughly learn to deny myself, that I may never, with profane Esau, seli my birth-right for any pleasure or profit here on earth; but that I may be ready to part with whatever is dearest to me here, for the sake of Thee, my God, and of my ever-blessed Redeemer, and for 286 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. the salvation of my own soul; and that I may be ready upon a just occasion to die for Christ, as He hath for me and for mankind. Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief. I believe Thee to be the Maker and the Governor of the world. I believe Jesus Christ to be Thy True and Only Son by Nature. I believe Him to be God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, my only Saviour and Redeemer, and the Judge of all mankind. I believe the Holy Spirit to be the Lord and Giver of life. Τὸ these Three really Divine Persons, in Whose Names I was baptized, and Who do all partake of the One Deity, I acknowledge all glory to be due from myself and from all mankind. I beheve Thou hast One Church upon earth, and that the sincere members of it have com- munion with Thee, and Thy Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and with each other; and, by living and dying in this com- munion, I expect remission of sins in this life, and a happy Resurrection hereafter. Lord, evermore keep me stedfast in this Faith. Enable me, O Heavenly Father, to make my faith perfect by my works, and by my life and conversation to adorn the doctrine of my God and Saviour. O do Thou write Thy Law in my heart, that I may never wilfully and presumptuously sin against Thee, either in thought, word, or deed. And, for- asmuch as our thoughts are quick, and flow faster than our reason, and our fancies more strong and active than our judgment, and our passions warm and hasty and not easy to be governed ; therefore do Thou, Lord, by Thy grace make me more vigilant and jealous over my own heart: give in- ward strength and vigour to my reason and judgment, that by them I may be able to check and restrain all the vain and foolish conceits of my own mind, that I may never let them grow into sin by my consenting to them or approving of them ; that I may never be so far transported through any sudden heat as to do or say any thing to the dishonour of Thy Divine Majesty or of Thy Holy Laws, to the hurt of my neighbour or to my own shame. And because the tongue is -an unruly member and a great instrument of sin, therefore I do in an especial manner beg the assistance of Thy Spirit, that I may tame and bridle it, and be always slow to speak, DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 287 except where Thy honour, and the vindication of truth and innocence, or the good of myself or my neighbour, is con- cerned; or, at least, where I may please others without offend- ing Thee. Above and beyond all things else, grant that I may love Thee, my God, and so keep the first and greatest Command- ment. Thou art infinitely amiable in Thyself, and full of love toward us. ΑἹ] that we can know of Thee excites me to love Thee more and more; and to renounce every thing which is contrary to the love I owe to Thee. Thou art my Chief Good; Thy gracious Presence makes Heaven what it is, a place of perfect happiness; I desire and sincerely will endea- vour, that my treasure may be there, and my heart there. I love and adore Thy Son, not only as my Lord and my God, and possessed of the same Divine Nature with Thee, but as my Saviour and Redeemer, Who shed His own Blood for my sake. O grant, that if Thou in Thy Providence shalt call me to it, I may shed mine for Thee and Him. Let my love toward Thee make me well affected to all men, peaceful and reconcileable, easy to forgive such wrongs as are to be forgiven, just and upright in my dealings, ready to give to all their due and to return good for evil. Give me a tenderness and compassion for the souls and bodies of all men; make me fearful of hurting them in their goods, estates, and reputations; dispose me to do every thing that reasonably I can for the present and eternal good of all, and especially of those of the household of faith. O pardon and forgive mine enemies: incline their hearts to turn and re- pent, that I may joyfully embrace them as my friends and brethren ; and, if, when I am bringing my gift to the Altar, I remember that my brother hath any wrong to lay to my charge, I [may] profess myself in full purpose to do all that can in justice be required of me, in order to procure peace and re- conciliation with him before I offer my gift. If I am forced in my own defence to go to law, or to deal severely with any man, yet grant that 1 may always preserve a charitable dis- position toward my adversary, and never use extreme rigour. Thou, O Lord, dost justly resist the proud and give grace to the humble. I desire sincerely to walk humbly with Thee, my God, and with my fellow-creatures. Grant that I 288 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. may always approach Thine House and Altar with fear and reverence, and serve Thee and work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. And for Thy sake, Good God, make me submissive and obedient to my governors in Church and State, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. I desire not great things for myself; I abhor the thoughts of assuming or usurping what belongs not to me. I have taken on me the yoke of the blessed Jesus, Who was meek and lowly of heart. O grant that I may never shake it off through a proud or rebellious spirit. Grant, O God, that I may put my trust in Thee, and be doing good; that I may in all conditions of life submit to Thy appointments, cheerfully acknowledge Thy right of dominion over us, and the wisdom, justice, and goodness of all Thy proceedings with myself and other men; that in whatever state I am I may learn to be content, and rejoice in tribulations and in suffering according to Thy pie if that shall be my lot. With these purposes and dispositions of mind I desire on all opportunities to go to Thine Altar, and to join in offering the Christian Sacrifice and in feeding on the Body of Thy Son and in drinking His Blood. Oh, Thou that hast put these good desires into my heart, be pleased to bring them all to good effect, through the merits and mediation of Thy Blessed Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. No. III. DeEvorions at THE TIME OF RECEIVING. At going into the Chancel, or towards the Lord’s Table, before the Offeriory begins, say, Like as the hart desireth the water-brooks, so longeth my soul after Thee, Ὁ God. My heart is athirst for God, even for the Living God. Oh, let me come to appear in the Pre- sence of God. I will go unto the Altar of God, even of the God of my joy and gladness; and there will I give thanks unto Thee, O God, my God. At the offering thine alms, say, O Almighty God, Possessor of heaven and earth, of Thine own give I Thee. Accept of this freewill-offering of mine DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR, 289 hands, as a testimony of mine acknowledgment of Thy right over all that I enjoy, as an expression of my love and charity to Christ’s poor members, and as a small proof of my love to Him. O grant that all my alms-deeds may be done with such purity of intention, and with such a liberal hand and heart, that they may be as a sacrifice of sweet-smelling sayour in Thy sight, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. If thou art poor, and hast no alms to give, say, Thanks and glory be to God, Who made both poor and rich, and careth for both alike; that gives worldly goods plentifully to some, that so their abundance may be a supply to the wants of others. May all that partake of their charity bless God, Who disposes men to give of what they have with open hands and cheerful hearts. God reward them an hun- dred-fold into their bosom; may all happiness and eternal salvation come to them and their families. Accept, Ὁ Lord, my willing mind, my charitable desires; accept my prayers in behalf of them who contribute to the relief of the poor and needy; and let my crying come unto Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. When the Priest places the alms and the Bread and Wine on the Altar, say, The Lord accept thine Oblations, and perform all thy petitions, in behalf of thyself and us. After the Prayer of Consecration, say, O most merciful Lord God, as we do believe Thy Son Jesus Christ, the High-Priest of our Oblation, to be now and always appearing at the Right-Hand of Glory, and always pre- senting His crucified and now glorified Body in our behalf; so we beseech Thee, let His intercession prevail with Thee for the acceptance of the services performed by Thy Church here on earth, according to His appointment. Reject not us nor our Oblations, while we wholly depend upon Thy Son Christ Jesus, as our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen. JOHNSON. U 290 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. Just before you recewe the Sacrament of Christ's Body, say, What am I, vile dust and ashes, that I should be admitted to this royal feast, to eat the Heavenly Bread, which the Son of God giveth to His Church? May I eat it, not only with my mouth but with my mind; may I truly discern the Lord’s Body, and be replenished with the life and spirit of these Holy Mysteries. 1 wholly resign myself up to Thee, O Holy Jesus, Who hast given Thyself for me; do Thou be pleased to take possession of me, and grant that I may continue Thine for ever; let Thy Holy Spirit dwell and bear rule in me, cleanse and purify me from all sin, and quicken my mortal body, and seal me to the day of redemption. Between receiving the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, say as much as the time will permit of what here follows. Blessed be Thy Name, O Lord Jesus, for this Thine ines- timable gift; for this comfort, which Thou affordest me in this vale of tears. As long as I live, will I magnify Thee; as long as I have my being, I will most thankfully acknowledge Thy goodness in offermg Thy Body and Blood as a Sacrifice for my sins, and feeding and strengthening my body and soul to ever- lasting life by these Pledges of Thy love. Let this Holy Food repair in me whatever has been de- cayed by the lusts of the flesh or the wiles of Satan. Let my understanding for the future be exercised in the knowledge of Thee, and of those Divine Truths which Thou camest from Heaven to teach us, which alone can make me wise unto salvation. May my will choose and delight in my God and Saviour above all things, as the chiefest good and the most desirable portion. May my affections be entirely fixed upon my Maker and Redeemer, as the most lovely, perfect, satisfyimg enjoyment. May my judgment always direct me to refuse evil and to choose good ; to prefer things eternal before things temporal ; heaven before earth, and God before all. O may my soul by frequent Communion be firmly and DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 291 unalterably bent into an union and conformity with my God and Saviour; so that in all thigs I may do His Will, not my own. ‘These are now the desires of my heart; O may they ever be so. Amen, Lord Jesus, Amen. Just before receiving the Cup, say, I will take the Cup of salvation, and call upon the Name of the Lord; I will call upon Him for pardon, grace, and salvation. He will not reject my prayer, nor turn His mercy from me. After you have received in both kinds, say, O Heavenly Father, we are taught by Thy Son Jesus Christ, that he who feedeth on His Flesh and drinketh His Blood hath eternal life; I have endeavoured in the sincerity of my heart to fulfil the will of my Lord and Saviour, according to His own appointment. Be it therefore unto me according to His word. May the hopes of eternal life be my support and comfort in this world; and may the enjoyment of it be my portion for ever. Grant, O God, that I may be truly sanctified both in body and soul, through the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant ; and that I may never tread it under foot, or do despite to the Spirit of grace. By feeding us with the Body of Thy Son, and giving His Blood to be drank by us, Thou affordest us the greatest assurance of Thy love and favour toward us that we can expect in this hfe; do Thou give us a heart duly to esteem and value these testimonies of Thy grace and mercy. In this Sacrament Thou sealest Thy promises of pardon, grace, and everlasting happiness to all sincere communicants. ‘The Cup, which I have now received, is the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ; and by drinking of it we engage our- selves to believe and live according to the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour ; Grant, O God, that we may never forget to take hold of this Covenant, and to perform the conditions required on our part; that we may cease to do evil, and learn to do well; that we may depart from all iniquity, and walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, and order our conversation in all-respects, as becomes the Gospel of Christ. u 2 292 : DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. I am Thine, Lord, by the right of ereation, [ am Thine by purchase ; for Thou hast redeemed me by the Blood of Thy Son, That Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sins of the world. JI am Thine by Covenant, not only by being early dedicated to Thee in Baptism, but by my own free act and deed; for I have renewed this Covenant with Thee in the Holy Communion. I am underthe strongest ties and bonds to love and serve and obey Thee; and I rejoice in those bonds; for Thy service is the most perfect freedom. I hum- bly trust, by the power of Thy grace, and by my own dili- gence, to persevere and stand fast in this glorious lberty unto my liffe’s end. Give grace to all Thy faithful Priests and people, who communicate in this Sacrifice and Feast of good things, that they may not break the yoke and burst the bond of Thy Covenant, but live and die in a strict obser- vation of it, through Jesus Christ. Amen. A Prayer to be said after the Communion, in behalf of ali men, but especially of Christians. O most merciful and gracious Lord God, That art the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe, having now humbly represented to Thy Divine Majesty the glorious Sacrifice, which Thy dearest Son Jesus Christ offered, of His own Body and Blood, relying on Thy goodness, and trusting in Thy promises, and in the never-ceasing intercession made by our Eternal High-Priest in heaven, I put up my prayers to Thee in behalf of all that call on Thy Name, and have communicated to-day in the One Sacrifice, throughout the whole Christian world; and also in behalf of all them that desire to communicate, but are hindered by any just neces- sity, whatsoever it be. Give unto me, O Lord, and give unto them a portion of all the good prayers made by Christ in heaven, and by Thy Church on earth, Be pleased now, in this day of mercy, when Thou openest the treasures of heaven, and rainest down Manna to refresh our weary souls, be pleased of Thine infinite goodness to grant, that this Holy Communion may be sweetness and strengthening nourishment to every honest Christian ; that it may be health and safety in every tempta- DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 293 tion; joy and peace in every trouble; light and strength in every good word and work; comfort and defence in the hour of death, and against all the malice of the spints of darkness. Unite all that have a sincere love for Christ and His Gospel in the bonds of one common faith and a universal charity ; that no prejudices, mistakes, or private interests, no wiles of Satan or worldly politics may keep us any longer in darkness and division; that, from the rising up of the sun to the gomg down thereof, the One Pure Oblation may be offered, and all Christians may be of one heart and one mind, and praise Thee and their Saviour with one voice and one spirit; that Christians of all nations and tongues and kmgdoms may agree in singing praises to Thee, Who sittest upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever. Give Thy blessing to all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governments; grant to them the spirit of justice and mercy, prudence and equity, the favour of Thee their God, and the love of their people. Grant that they may so administer the trust reposed in them, that they may be at peace with Thee and with one another, always remembering the great account they are to give to Thee, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Pour down an Apostolical spirit on all Bishops and Priests ; grant to them a zeal of souls, wisdom to conduct their several charges, purity to become examples to their flocks ; that their labours and their lives may greatly promote the honour and the kingdom of the Lord Jesus; that, bemg burning and shining lights, men may rejoice in them, and glorify Thee the Giver of all good gifts. Turn, Good Lord, the hearts of children to their parents, of parents to their children; of servants to their masters, of masters to their servants; of wives to their husbands, of husbands to their wives ; of people to their Kings and Priests, of Kings and Priests to their people; of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; of all toward one another, and especially toward Thee. Let Thy continual pity cleanse and defend Thy Whole Church: kindle a primitive zeal in the breasts of all that fear Thy Name; that they may ask and seek for the old 294: DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. paths, and diligently walk in them. Revive the first fervours of faith and charity, simplicity, justice, patience, humility, mortification, and self-denial, in all Christians; that they may indeed live according to the doctrine of the Holy Jesus, without scandal or reproach. I humbly beseech Thy Divine Majesty to accept the Saari: fice this day offered to Thee in behalf of my dearest friends and relations; [name particulars ;| grant unto them all the wise and holy desires of their own hearts; grant that they may never fall into Thy displeasure by any presumptuous sin or wicked habit: let them be never separated from Thy love; grant that they may want nothing necessary to life and godliness, and that their portion may be among Thine elect people. Accept of this Sacrifice in behalf of all that suffer wrong- fully, or that are under Thy correcting Hand; sanctify their afflictions to them, and then put an end to their sufferings. Relieve all that are oppressed ; restore all to their rights, who are injuriously deprived of them. Suppress all violent, warring spirits, that unjustly disturb the peace of the world. Support all that are sick, and either restore them to their health or prepare them for a happy change. Lord, ease the griefs, abate the pains, resolve the doubts, redress the hard- ships, vindicate the innocence, supply the wants, relieve the necessities of all, so far as is consistent with Thy justice, and goodness, and wisdom in governing the world; but look with a particular compassion upon those, who from a high or plentiful condition are fallen into poverty. Be merciful, O Lord, to all, not only to those whom 1 have, but whom I have not, remembered: grant that all careless and corrupt Christians may by Thy Providence be struck with such a sense of their sins, that they may earnestly repent and live well for the time to come; that they, who through ignorance or worldly interest continue in the im- pure Communion of the Church of Rome, may be convinced of their errors, and no longer sit in darkness and in the shadow of death. To all heretics and schismatics give the grace of truth, peace, humility, charity, and obedience; and grant that none, who have the light of Thy Gospel shining upon them, may throw themselves away, and have their portion with the unbelievers. DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR, 295 Take pity, O Thou Lover of souls, on all that are strangers to the kingdom of Thy Son; let the sweet sound of the Gospel be heard in all the dark corners of the earth; that so all the ends of the world may remember themselves, and be turned unto the Lord, and become one fold under -One Shepherd. Shorten the days of our trouble, and put an end to the days of our sin; and let the kingdom of the Lord mightily prevail ; of That Lord, Whom I adore and love, and pray, that I may still love Him more and more for ever and ever. Amen. No. IV. ΑΝ ADVICE FOR HIM WHO ONLY COMMUNICATES SPIRITUALLY, ACCORDING TO THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PART OF THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, pp. 455, 6. THIS ADVICE 1 TRANSCRIBED FROM THE MOST PIOUS AND LEARNED BISHOP TAYLOR'S WORTHY COMMUNICANT?®, AND IS AS FOLLOWS. “THERE are many persons well-disposed by the measures of a holy life to communicate frequently, but it may hap- pen that they are unavoidably hindered. Some have a timorous conscience—others are advised by thei spiritual guides” to abstain*,—some are scandalized at irremediable miscarriages in public doctrines or government—some dare not receive it at the hands of a wicked Priest—some can have it of no Priest at all; but are in a long journey, or un- der persecution, or in a country of a differing persuasion— some cannot have it every day, but every day desire it. “Such persons as these, if they prepare themselves with all the essential and ornamental measures of address, and actually desire that they could actually communicate, they may place themselves on their knees; and building an Altar in their heart may celebrate the Death of Christ, and in holy desires join with all congregations in the Christian world, who that day celebrate the Holy Communion ; and may serve their devotion by the former prayers and actions a [ Cap. vii. sect. iii.] p. 386. Edition and of such he here speaks. 1686. ¢ [Here Johnson omits these words, _ ° The Bishop must mean, mistaken “for a time, that they may proceed injudicious guides; for none other in the virtue of repentance further would direct such to forbear, “ who are νοοῖ, &c. | well-disposed to it by a holy life;’’ 296 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. Eucharistical, changing only such circumstantial words, as relate to actual participation. [He proves by a citation from St. Augustine, that] “ when this is done without the actual Sacramental participation, this is called Spiritual Manducation. Concerning which I will only add the advice of a religious Person; ‘ Let every soul be ready and desirous often to receive the Holy Eucharist to the glory of God: but, if he cannot so often communicate Sacramentally as he desires, let him not be afflicted, but remain in perfect resignation to the Will of God and dis- pose himself to a spiritual Communion; for no man and no thing can hinder a well-disposed soul, but that by holy desires she may, if she please, communicate every day.’ “lo this nothing is necessary to be added, but that this way is never to be used but upon just necessity, not upon peevishness and spiritual pride ; not in the spirit of schism and fond opinions; not in despite of our brethren, and contempt or condemnation of the holy congregations of the Lord; but with a living faith, an actual charity, and great humility, and with the spirit of devotion ; and that, so much the more intensely and fervently, by how much he is really troubled for the want of actual participation in the Com- munion of Saints.” I must have leave to add to what this admirable writer has said on this occasion, An Act of Spiritual Communion, to be used after the Prayer above-writlen, No. I1., when the person is destitute of an opportunity of external Communion. My soul hath a desire and longing to enter into the courts of the Lord; when shall I come to appear before the Presence of God, in the assembly of His people? In the mean time, I know full well, O Heavenly Father, that Thy eyes are in every place, in all the dark corners of the earth ; and that Thou art every where near to all that call upon Thee faith- fully. ‘I rely upon the Sacrifice offered by Christ Jesus for the pardon of my sins, for the assistance of Thy grace in doing of, 4 (Serm. xxi. De Verbis Domini. ] DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 297 my duty for the future, and for the assurance of a happy Resurrection to eternal life. I acknowledge it to be the bounden duty of all Christians to communicate with Christ, and with each other in that Holy Ordinance, where He has declared His Body to be given to God for us, His Blood to be shed for the remission of our sins; and has commanded us to eat the one, and to drink the other. Lord, Thou knowest the desire of my heart to be to this Bread and this Cup; and that, whenever Thou in Thy good Providence shalt remove the obstacle under which I at present lie, my heart is ready to join with any true Christian Priest and people in offering this Sacrifice and partaking of this spiritual feast. In the mean time, I lament the want of opportunity; and promise, that, if Thou wilt deliver me from my present destitution, I will give thanks unto Thy Name, I will pay my vows in the midst of Thy people, and will with them celebrate the Com- munion of the Body and Blood of my Redeemer. Accept, O Lord, of my will and desire, while I cannot actually communicate. Let Thy gracious Presence be with me, while I do now in mind and spirit approach Thine Altar, and offer my mite, and join in the devotions of Thy Church, and magnify Thy love and mercy im all Thy works, and especially in the Redemption of the world through Christ Jesus, and confess my unworthiness of’ the least of Thy mercies, and especially of that which is the greatest. I lament and abhor my sins, and renounce them for the time to come; I sincerely love Thee, and Thy Son, and His Gospel, above all things ; I love my neighbours after the same manner that I love myself; I desire their present welfare and their eternal happiness; I sincerely forgive mine enemies, and desire and purpose in all things to fulfil Thy Will. Lord, reject not my prayer, nor turn Thy mercy from me; while, though absent from all true Christian congregations in body, but present with them all in snirit and desire, I join with them in pleading the merits of the all-sufficient Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Thy Son, for the pardon of my own sins and of all sincere Penitents, for the obtaining of all necessary graces and of a happy Resurrection to eternal life. I sincerely labour for, and have a true hunger and thirst after, the Bread and Cup that endureth to everlasting hfe. Oh, 298 DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. whilst I am denied the Sacrament itself, be Thou pleased to grant me the power and effect of it by the operation of the Holy Ghost ; and dismiss me not without a blessing, through the High-Priest of our Oblation, Jesus Christ, Thine only Son, my Lord and Saviour. Amen. No. V. A PRAYER TO BE USED BY A SINCERE PENITENT CHRIS- TIAN, WHO LIVES UNDER THE CENSURE OF EXCOMMUNICA- TION, OR IS REPELLED FROM THE LORD'S TABLE BY THE MINISTER, OR OF HIS OWN ACCORD ABSTAINS FROM THE SACRAMENT, ON ACCOUNT OF SOME GROSS AND SCANDALOUS ACT OF SIN, OR FOR SOME EVIL HABIT. O atmicuty Lord God, Who hast declared wrath, tribula- tion, and anguish against every soul of man that doth evil; I am confounded with guilt and shame and with a just fear of Thy displeasure for the sins which I have committed [name them particularly with all their aggravating circumstances ; | I am in Thy sight a polluted person; I loathe myself; I am a scandal to others, a spot to the Church, a burden to the earth, and deserve to be scorned and rejected by Thee: sin, like a crust of leprosy, hath overspread me; I am justly separated from the congregation of Thy faithful people. 1 am unworthy, O Lord, I am unworthy to come into Thy Presence, to eat the Heavenly Bread, the Bread of Thy chil- dren, to drink the Cup of blessing, the Wine of gladness. My conscience accuses me; the devils rejoice at my fall, and aggravate my crimes, already too great. I confess to Thee, O God, what Thou knewest before. I confess it to magnify Thy mercy; for it were just in Thee to destroy me, and to leave me no time and place for repentance. I have deserved death, but Thou delightest not in that ; Thou desirest rather that I should repent and live. Blessed be Thy goodness, which hath so long spared me, and doth yet spare me; so that I am not swept away in the midst of my sins. O Thou That desirest all men should be saved, grant me a repentance to salvation not to be repented of. Give me grace so to express my godly sorrow by fastings, by watchings unto prayer, by abstinence even from lawful pleasures, by alms-deeds, by forgiving all that have offended me, that I may be received DEVOTIONS FOR THE ALTAR. 299 as areturning prodigal ; that Satan may be trodden under my feet; that the hand-writing against me may be blotted out ; that all my sins, known and secret, wilful and unwilful, may be forgotten ; that I may be cleansed from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit; that there may be joy in heaven at my conversion ; that I may be again restored to the true sheep- fold and to my old pastures, and recover the dignity from which I am fallen, and again be made partaker of the Divine Mysteries, the Pledges of Thy love. And when I am made whole, grant me such firmness of mind, that I may never again fall from my own stedfastness by committing any pre- sumptuous or wilful sin; but that, with Thy Apostle Peter, with Mary Magdalene, and with all sincere zealous Penitents, I may for the future more affectionately love Thee and Thy Holy Laws, and be for ever loved by Thee; and, when this life is ended, be received into my Master’s joy, through Him Who came down from heaven to seek and to save that which was lost, Thy Son Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. CONCLUSION *. I promisepD in the Epistle Prefatory‘ to the First Part, that “aif any should attack the argumentative part of that book, and do it in such a manner as became a scholar and one that understood the subject on which he wrote, an answer should not be wanting, God giving me hfe and health.” But I never promised to tire my reader and myself with tedious vindica- tions of my own personal credit and character against the drollery or malicious insinuations of my adversaries. Dr. Wise by using this method has effectually given up the cause in the opinion of all judicious men; for no man abandons himself wholly to grimace and farce in a religious dispute, but he that is destitute of proof or argument. Dr. T——r* is very gentleman-like in his style and address, but by his many falsifications has forfeited the character of a divine and ascholar. I shall therefore for the future think it a sufficient answer to any book which I know comes from his hands, to say, ‘It was written by Dr. T re IT hope Mr. Lewis will not imagine his pamphlet unanswer- able, because no particular confutation of it has been pub- lished. We have been old confidants; and though he seems to have violated the laws of friendship, yet I thought it would best become me not altogether to forget our former alliance. I the rather chose to be silent, because the pamphlet is written against me rather than against the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist; and I thank God I can easily forgive any personal reflections. Mr. Lewis knows I have sufficient proof that he was formerly a friend to this doctrine, and I am not without hopes that he is so still; especially, because I am sure, there is no argument produced by him in his pamphlet sufficient to alter the judgment of any discerning person. There is very little in it which has any appearance of proof but what he will find answered in this Second Part, though without any mention of his name; for I was unwilling to ex- “ [This portion comes immediately ΓΡ, 45. after the Addenda, in the First Edition 8 [ Dr. Turner. ] of 1718. } . CONCLUSION. 301 pose an old friend, or to consent that he should be exposed by another. And I hope he will not provoke me or any one else to fescue out to him the places where his surmises are confuted. But there is one point in which he seems to think that he has an advantage of me; I mean, because I give some countenance to, or however do not directly contradict, the notion of some of the Fathers, that the Sacramental Body and Blood are wholly converted into the nourishment of our bodies. Now when Mr. L. can prove that this is contrary to the nature of bread and wine, and that it cannot be done without a miracle, 1 promise to give up this notion, as a pious excess of those particular Fathers, and which I had never entirely made my own. Yet when this is done, I shall think the doctrine of the Sacrifice as true and safe as it was before; for there is no manner of dependence between these two doctrines ; either of them may be false and the other true; I only mentioned it by the bye, as an instance of the honourable opinion which the ancients had of the Sacrament. And indeed there are very few things said by Mr. L. but that I may safely grant them to be true, without any danger to the main cause. So I take my leave of Mr. Lewis, hoping, that since we cannot be entire friends, yet that we shall be moderate adversaries ; and that though he be fallen out with me, yet he is not in earnest an enemy to the Sacrifice in the Eucharist. The strength of my cause does in a great measure depend upon a plain matter of fact, which is, that Christ in the In- stitution of the Eucharist said, ‘This is My Body given for you.” Hedeclares that He did then and there give His Body for the sins of men. Let no man think that he has answered this, by saying that the time present is sometimes put for the time to come; for though this be true, yet no good arguer will from thence conclude, that therefore the present is always to be taken for the future. Let it be shewed, that ever any matter of fact, besides this, was thought to have been done after- wards, when all the writers who relate it, and who are no less than four, do all agree that it was done at that present time. No man in any other case will say, that the present is anywhere put for the future, except it do appear from other evidence, that the thing was not then done, but that it was done some time after. And if it can be proved that our Saviour did 302 CONCLUSION. not in the Eucharist perform the Oblation of His Body and Blood, and that He did it at some other time only here on earth; if this, I say, can be proved from any plain direct words of the New Testament, I shall be ready to allow the force of this argument. If indeed the Church had always understood our Saviour as meaning the time to come, though speaking of the time then present, this might be some prejudice against the doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist: but since Theodoret", Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory Nyssen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyprian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and the author of the Constitutions, do clearly understand our Saviour as meaning the time present; since the whole Church of Christ, till now of late ages, has by her constant practice declared, that she believed Christ as a Priest to have performed the Oblation of Himself, when He insti- tuted the Eucharist ; I must have leave to observe, that they, who notwithstanding all this do assert that Christ meant the time yet to come, must be men that pay greater regard to their own opinion or to a modern tradition than to four in- spired writers and to the universal judgment of the Church in the purest ages. There is one point in which it concerns me to be very im- portunate with my reader, and it is a piece of common justice, I mean, that he would take my sentiments from my own words, and not from the representation of those who either have already written against me, or may hereafter do it. And if I can prevail thus far with those who are pleased to be judges in this dispute, I persuade myself, there will be no occasion for me to trouble the world with any thing further on this subject. If my reader be one of those, who is convinced of the truth of this doctrine, I further beg his prayers for me, as often as he performs the Holy Oblation or is present at the cele- bration of it. h See Part I. p. [135, 147. ] BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY, IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE EUCHARIST, AS REPRESENTED IN THE FOREGOING TREATISE, IS CONFIRMED FROM A LATIN BOOK OF THE RIGHT REVEREND DR. POYNET, LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, A MAN VERY EMINENT AND ZEALOUS IN THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AND WHO DIED IN EXILE IN THE REIGN OF Q. MARY. THE BOOK IS ENTITLED, “DIALLACTICON VIRI BONI ET LITERATI, DE VERI- TATE, NATURA, ATQUE SUBSTANTIA CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS CHRISTI IN EUCHARISTIA.” It was first printed in or before the year of our Lord 1557, and reprinted in the year 1688, for Griffin and Keble. The first edition or editions I never saw ; that published in the year 1688 contains 82 pages in 4to. A wohile before the writing of this [Bishop Jewell’s] Apology, came forth the Diallactic of the famous Dr. Poynet, Bishop of Winchester, frit on purpose to explain and manifest the faith and doctrine of the Church of England in that point *. I ΤΗΙΝΚ it very providential, that I had finished and sent to the press the foregoing treatise, before I ever had seen or heard of this book, directly or indirectly ; and that, within a few days after I had put my papers into the bookseller’s hands, a learned friend, who was well acquainted with the scheme of the doctrine of the Eucharist which I designed to publish, was pleased to let me know, that I had the great Poynet with me, as to the main of what I had asserted on this subject, and withal sent me a printed copy of his book. This I must confess was no small satisfaction to me; for though I was well enough assured that I had antiquity on my side, and that no man need to be ashamed of a doctrine so well supported; yet I was apprehensive, that this preju- dice lay against a great part of what I had advanced in this treatise, viz., that no man beside myself had ever pretended to discover those notions in the monuments of the ancient Church and the writings of the Fathers, which I have here ventured to lay before the learned world. I did not doubt 4 Bishop Cosin’s History of Transubstant., ο. 2. 904. BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. but that others, who were better versed in antiquity than myself, must have seen these doctrines clearly taught in the primitive Church; but I was not sensible, that any man had ever in print declared his sentiments to this effect ; and the ‘reader will therefore easily believe, that it was not only a means of confirming me in my opinion that I understood the ancients rightly, but a great comfort to find, that I was not alone in the judgment I had made upon so important a head of Christian divinity ; especially when the author I now speak of was a person, that made so great a figure in our Reformation. My Christian reader will believe me, when I most solemnly assure him, that I have not altered one point of my whole scheme, since I had the happiness of perusing Bishop Poy- net’s Diallacticon ; and that as it was not in my power to make any corrections to his book, so neither has he occa- sioned any alterations in mine. And he that considers, how exact an agreement there is in all particulars of any great moment or consequence (excepting that of adoration) between the Diallacticon and the Unbloody Sacrifice, under every head that is handled in both books, will not only be convinced that t he doctrines here treated of are the more certain as drawn from the same premises and supported by much the same authorities, in books written by two persons at so great a distance from each other in age as well as other respects, and utterly unacquainted with each other’s notions ; but will likewise consider it as a standing proof, that when several men do set themselves to examine any doctrine, where the evidence and means of information are sufficient, they will certainly agree in their conclusions as to the main, if they are men of an impartial integrity ; and this is the only good quality, in which I pretend to compare with Bishop Poynet. It is true, it was not the design of this most learned prelate to treat of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice; if it had, I see no reason to doubt but his judgment had been as clear for me in this respect, as it is in others; not only because the doc- trine of the material Eucharist laid down by Bishop Poynet is the foundation on which the Sacrifice stands, but because of some short but very frank and apert intimations in the Diallacticon, that his real opinion was for the Eucharistical Sacrifice. There are also several propositions in relation to BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. 305 the material Eucharist, which Bishop Poynet did not think fit to consider, but which are handled in the Unbloody Sacri- fice ; and there is such a dependence and connection between the doctrines asserted by this exceJlent man, and those others which I have undertaken to prove in the foregoing book, over and above what the Bishop has advanced in the Diallacticon, that he who observes how strongly and decisively he pronounces for me in almost every point that he was then pleased to take under his cognisance, will have little reason to doubt but that he would have given judgment on my side in those other particulars, which did not fall under his consideration. And I have the greater reason to believe so, when 1 observe how great a regard this Bishop expresses and pays to the primitive Fathers. There is one particular, for which his book may be condemned by men that are rigid and censorious; which is, that he cites several spurious pieces, and takes many passages of St. Augustine and others upon the credit of Gratian, who often very unfairly represents his authors ; but the age in which he lived is a sufficient apology for this. For learned men know very well, that the spuri- ousness of those pieces and the unfaithfulness of Gratian had not been so effectually discovered at the beginning of the Reformation, as they have since that time; and the in- genious reader, who has an opportunity of perusing his book, will observe, that he generally produces such a number of unexceptionable citations as are sufficient to carry his point, without the aid of supposititious or dubious authorities. And for the satisfaction of such readers, as want the book itself, I have abridged it, so far as I thought it necessary, to give them a sketch of this venerable Bishop’s notions on this weighty subject”. Bishop Poynet begins his book by observing, that the Reformation was like to lose ground by means of the dis- putes concerning the Eucharist among the Protestants them- selves; and tells us he had laid this matter greatly to heart, and recommended the cure of this evil to God by his prayers, and at the same time applied himself to inquire into the Ὁ Advertisement. Wherever Bishop my reader to them, as in the foregoing Poynet cites any passages from anti- book. quity, that I have made use of, I refer JOHNSON. x 306 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. truth by examining the Scriptures and testimonies of the Fathers, that so he might be able clearly to determine this matter, and to give satisfaction to any that asked it*. He reduces his discourse to three heads. “ First” (says he) “I will shew, that the verity of Christ’s Body is given in the Sacrament. Secondly, that there is a difference between Christ’s proper Body and That in the Sacrament, and that the ancients so judged. Thirdly, I will shew, what sort of Body That is, Which is received in the mystery, and why It is so styled, according to the judgment of the Fathers*.” 1. He proves the verity of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament from the words of institution, as recorded by SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. He adds, that “what our Saviour says, John vi. 51. 53. 55, 1s by the Fathers both Greek and Latin with one consent referred to the Sacrament of the EKucharist*.” To prove the verity of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist, he alleges the authority of Justin Martyr‘ and Irenzus’, many passages from St. Augustine out of Gratian, and then St. Hilary"; several passages from Cyril of Alexandria; Pseudo- Cyprian. De Cena; Jerome from Gratian; Chrysostom}, Pseud-Ambrosius De Sacramentis. Several places from (the) true St. Ambrose*, Eusebius Emissenus from Gratian, Leo and Synod. Rom., Gregory Nyssen, Euthymius, Theophy- Ἰδοῦ, John Damascen.! He concludes this head with these words; “Though our faith depends not on men, but on the word of God; yet when they confirm their judgment by the authority of Scrip- ture, it 15 of great use to pious souls and such as love truth, to consider, how so many men eminent for their piety and learning understood the words of Scripture, and with one consent transmitted their interpretations to posterity: nor ee ag on quod accipitur in mysterio, et cur eo ἀρ, 8, ([‘*Primum ostendam veri- nomine censeatur, indicabo, secundum tatem Corporis Christi in Eucharistia eorundem Patrum sententiam.”’ } dari fidelibus, nee has voces, Naturam © φῦ 3, 4. atque Substantiam, fugiendas esse: sed f ap. 1,2, Ap, veteres de hoc Sacramento disserentes 5, γε δος Ap. ΠῚ ita locutos fuisse. Deinde discrimen h a. p. 20s Ap, esse monstrabo inter Corpus Domini 1 Zs ΘΟ ΔῊ proprium, et Il]ud quod inest in Sacra- k particularly, i. p. 27. Ap. mento, veteresque Patres ita censuisse. 1 p, 4—14. Postremo cujusmodi sit hoc Corpus BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. 307 can he avoid the imputation of temerity, who shall dare oppose so great authority™.” 2. He proceeds to shew, whether the ancients believed a dif- ference between That Body of the Lord Which is distributed in the Sacrament, and That Which He took of His Virgin Mother; or whether ‘verity,’ ‘nature,’ ‘substance,’ are to be taken in a common sense, or in a manner peculiar to the Sacrament; “ For,” says he, “we must not only observe, in what words the Fathers spoke, but what they meant in so speaking".” He observes, that “Christ’s Body” sometimes signifies in Scripture That Body Which was born of the Virgin, died, &c., and sometimes the Church, and at other places the Sacrament; in the first place it is taken properly, in the others improperly°®. “This,” says the Bishop, “ ought in the first place to be observed, that the ancients in discoursing on this subject do apply the words of our Saviour, Joh. vi. 55, 53, 51, to the Sacrament. Nor are they to be regarded, who deny that this chapter refers to this matter, in opposition to so great a cloud of witnesses. But their arguing is rather to be ap- proved, who think, that as this Evangelist speaks of the humanity of Christ more sparingly, but more copiously of His Divinity; so, that John takes no notice of the insti- tution and external rite of the Sacrament, but that the true genuine meaning is by him discovered, and more apertly de- livered to us. The minds of the Capernaites, when they heard these words, were much offended, and thereupon they went away and deserted Him; but the Apostle who stayed behind, being well advised and raised to a higher and more august notion, heard [Christ say], “ The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life.” Hence it is, that the ancients do all reject the common opinion, and the vulgar sense of the words, ‘This is My Body,’ and what Our Saviour said concern- mp. 14. “ἘΠ quanquamfides nos- miserint; neque temeritatis culpam tra non hominibus, sed verbo Dei niti- tur, tamen quum illi sententiam suam authoritate Scripture muniant, utile est admodum piis animis et veritatis cupidis considerare, quo pacto tot ex- imii pietate ac doctrina viri Scripture verba intellexerint, magnoque consensu ad posteros interpretationes suas trans- effugiet, qui tantam audebit authorita- tem contemnere.”’ ] n [** Neque enim observandum est solum quibus verbis olim Patres lo- quuti sunt, sed quid etiam sibi vole- bant ita loquentes.”’ } ° p. 14, 15. EZ BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. 308 ing eating His flesh; and follow the more divine meaning, and that which is more agreeable to Sacraments, as they affirm ?.” . He cites Chrysostom’, Pseud- Hieronymus in Ep. ad Ephes., several passages from St. Augustine in Prosper, 5. p. 33. Ap. 1. 20, St. Augustine on Psalm xxxili. and on Psalm xcviii., in which are those words, and then, e. p. 31. Ap., and his Epistle to Boniface ; several passages of the same Father from Gratian ; and then Ad Dardanum, and On John, Tract 50; Gregor. Naz’. and Gregor. Nyssen. in Homil. Pasch. Euse- bius Emissen, from Gratian ; Ambrose from Gratian, and the true Ambrose’, then Pseud-Ambr. De Sacramentis; and the true Ambr.* Having mentioned the words of St. Ambrose, “ Christ offers Himself as a Priest, here in an image, there (viz., in Heaven) in the verity,” Bishop Poynet adds", “ He distinguishes one oblation from the other; and though* both are truly per- formed in their way, yet that which is celebrated in the Church is in an image; the Verity Itself remains to inter- cede with the Father for us.” Further, he supposes St. Ambrose borrowed these words from Origen on Psalm xxxvii., where he speaks of Christ as a “« Priest now offering Sacrifices to the Father, and as being to P p. 15, 16. [“ Illudin primis ani- madvertendum occurrit, quoties apud veteres agitur de hoc Sacramento, verba Domini nostri que Joan. cap. 6. orem aucustioremque subvectos audi- isse, ‘Verba que Ego loquutus sum, spiritus et vita sunt.’ Hine factum est ut veteres omnes commune judicium et referuntur, ‘Caro Mea vere est cibus,’ &c. ad hoc Sacramentum omnes appli- cant.—Nec audiendi sunt, qui tanta nube testium refragante negant illud caput Joan. huc referendum esse. Quin potius illorum probanda videtur oratio, qui ut hune Evangelistam humani- tatem Christi parcius quam ceteros, Divinitatem plenius explicare censent, ita que ab aliis Evangelistis de Sacra- menti hujus institutione ac ritu tradun- tur externo, ea quidem Joannem non commemorasse, sed eorum veram et germanam intelligentiam ab ipso nobis patefactam, et apertius traditam esse indicant. Constat autem Capernaitarum animos, quum dixisset Dominus, ‘Caro Mea vere est cibus,’ &c. valde offensas atque perturbatos fuisse, et proinde deserentes Kum abiisse: intellexerant enim crasse nimium et populariter: duodecim autem Apostolos qui reman- serant admonitos, et ad sensum alti- vulgarem intellectum in verbis illis, ‘Hoc est Corpus Meum,’ et quz lo- quutus est Dominus de comedenda Carne Sua, fugiant, et modum intelli- gendi diviniorem et Sacramentis ut ipsi asserunt magis congruentem sequan- tur.”’ | as, p. 40. Ap. ΠΕΡ ol Ae eck. praioaie. tm. p. 27. Ap.; p. 16—28. ἃ [Discernit alteram oblationem ab altera, et quamvis utraque suo modo vere fiat, hac tamen que celebratur in Ecclesia fit in imagine, Veritas autem Ipsa manet, ut advocatus pro nobis apud Patrem.”’ ] x Et quamvis utraque suo modo vere fiat: I appeal to the reader,whether Bishop Poynet do not here declare for a true Sacrifice. Y p. 28. BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. 309 offer them also hereafter ;” he subjoins, “‘ Origen writes to men of learning and experience, and is not therefore in- telligible to every body; but this he manifestly declares, that the Sacrifices, which are offered here, are images of That Verity, Who has entered into the heavens :—And though these images have their verity too, yet that is dif- ferent from the proper Verity2.” He proceeds to cite Origen In Matth. and Contra Celsum?, and? Homil. 7.in Levit., and next Epiphanius‘, then Pseudo- Cyprian De Cend, and Cyril Alexandr.’, and several other places; and then Theophylact, and John Damascen. He observes the last to be a very inconsistent writer, that he sometimes denies, at other times affirms, the Bread to remain after consecration. He cites him for saying of the Sacra- mental Body, “ This is that pure * Unbloody Sacrifice, which God hath commanded to be offered ;” and reflects thus upon the words, “If this be meantf of His assumed Body and Blood, how is it unbloody? If of His spiritual Body and Bloodg, what he says is ὑπ". He further cites Bertram at large, and with great approbation, and ends with Aquinas and Lombard. So his citations to prove the Sacramental Body distinct from His [Christ’s] proper Body born of the Virgin, reach from p. 16 to p. 49. The difference between the Proper and the Sacramental Body he asserts to be, that the first has human shape, mem- bers distinct from each other, sense, &c., the other has none of these ; one is not in mystery, the other is; one is not subject to corruption, the other is, it being materially bread ; one cannot, the other may and ought to be eaten; one is Ζ p. 28, 29. [‘‘ Doctis et exercitatis scribit Origenes, ideoque non cuivis obvius. Illud tamen manifeste tradit, Hostias que hic offeruntur, imagines esse Illius Veritatis, Que penetravit eelos. Et quamvis imagines iste suam quoque veritatem habeant, tamen hanc ab Illa propria Veritate differre.’’ } Aarne 9; Ap. » Here Bishop Poynet produces those very words to prove that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper or natural Body, which Dr. Whitby alleges as an argument that John vi. is not to be understood of the Eucharist. The :eader is judge whe- ther the Bishop or the Doctor are most in the right. © ce p; 22, Ap. ad ἢ p. 44. Ap. © [“ Hee est pura illa et sanguinis expers Victima, quam Deus per Pro- phetam ab ortu solis ad occasum Sibi offerri jussit.”’ ] f [Si de assumpto Corpore loqui- tur et Sanguine, quomodo sanguinis expers est? si de spirituali Corpore et Sanguine, vera narrat.”’ | g Here again he clearly allows the Sacrifice, for the Spiritual Body is with him the Sacramental Body. hp. 42: John vi. 810 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. contained in a certain place, the other is not, but is present wherever the Sacrament is celebrated ; one was taken out of the Body of the Virgin, the other is not, but is what it is by benediction ; one is a natural Body, the other supernatural ; one is simply properly and absolutely [the Body of Christ], the other secundum quid, and improperly’. ordly, He goes on to shew how the Sacrament is the Body of the Lord, more at large; and wherefore our Lord and His Apostle Paul and the ancients declared it so to be; “not,” says he, “that the modus* of it, which is a spiritual and secret thing, can be comprehended by human reason ; or that we endeavour to pry into what is forbidden and denied us; but that we may follow what is delivered to us by authority of Scriptures and of the ancients, which are agreed in this point, excluding all human inventions. And that is firmly to be maintained, which we have already proved, that not only the words of our Lord, but the words used at the Lord’s Supper, ‘ Take, eat, This is My Body,’ &c., are not to be understood carnally but spiritually, and that the same manducation is meant in both places; when I say not carnally, 1 mean not according to the letter, nor as the words properly sound'.” To prove that the words are not to be taken carnally, he cites St. Chrysostom™, Pseudo- Cyprian, Theophylact, St. Augustine". He observes two ways of eating a thing ‘carnally:’ the first, he says, is to eat it roast or boiled, and cut into small pieces; the other, to eat it raw, and to suck the running blood, as wild beasts do. If we say the Flesh of Christ, strictly so called, is pre- sent, whether we mean, that It is raw, roast, or boiled; whether entire, or cut in pieces ; whether openly, or covertly; it is the carnal sense, and the words are carnally taken, if i p. 49, 50. * (“Non quod modus iste, qui spi- ritualis et arcana res est, humana ratione deprehendi possit, aut nos cu- riose que vetita negataque sunt inves- tigare conemur, sed ut commentis hu- manis exclusis, que Scripturarum et antiquorum Patrum cum his consen- tientium authoritate nobis tradita sunt, sequamur. Illud firmiter tenendum est, quod ante probavimus, non solum verba Domini que referuntur Joan. cap. 6. sed hee etiam Coene Dominice verba, ‘ Accipite, edite, Hoc est Cor- pus Meum,’ spiritualiter non carna- liter intelligenda esse, et eandem utro- bique manducationem intelligi; cum dico non carnaliter, dico non secundum literam neque ut verba proprie so- μὰ γ. p. 40. Ap. n s. p. 98. Ap. Lh , BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. 311 they mean proper flesh; we do not therefore not eat car- nally, because we do not see It. They who are blind see not what they eat; and men do frequently, in broth and soups, eat flesh and eggs, which they neither see nor taste. And this, says he, is what Chrysostom calls carnal eating. Now the ancient Fathers observed two things in this Sacrament ; and on the account of both it was deservedly called and esteemed the Body of Christ. For Ist, because the Bread is a figure of the true Body, it is deservedly called the Body. 2. Much more because it has the vital power joined with it. ὃ. But, most of all, because it contains both. That the figure of any thing may, without injury, be called the thing itself, Esaias shews, when he says, “‘ The people is truly grass.” He gives several other instances, and cites St. Au- gustine’s Epistle to Boniface, in which are these words, “ If Sacraments® had not some likeness of those things, whereof they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all?.” He produces the words of Tertullian’, Nazianzen', Augustine Contra Adimantum, Chrysostom’s Homily on Matt. xxvi, 26— 28, and thereupon reflects on the Papists, who reproach others as Sacramentarians, but do themselves set aside the Sacra- ment. 2ndly, There is another thing in the Sacrament, which the ancients acknowledging affirmed [the Sacrament | to be truly the Lord’s Body; and that is the efficacious life- giving virtue of His Body, Which is joined with the Bread and Wine by grace and the mystical benediction. This is called by divers names, by St. Augustine’, “the intelligible Body,” or “the invisible spiritual Body ;” by Jerome, “the Divine spiritual Flesh ;” by Irenzus, “the heavenly thing ;” ° [**Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent.”’ | P p. o4. Ὁ api 9: Ap. ἘΠΕ p. 21. Ap. * If this Right Reverend author had distinguished between the ‘ heavenly thing’ in Ireneus, (as being the same with what St. Augustine calls else- where the ‘ virtue of the Sacrament,’ which is called by others ‘the Divine grace and benediction,’) and ‘ the spiri- tual Divine Food Flesh or Body ;’ and affirmed this latter to be the entire Sacramental Body; and ‘ the heavenly thing’ to be that Divine power of the Spirit by which the Bread is made the Body of Christ, (as he seems to do at another * place,) there had been a per- fect agreement between the Diallac- ticon and the Unbloody Sacrifice in this particular. St. Augustine calls the Sacramental Body intelligible and invisible, as being what It is, not to the eye of the body, but of the mind ; to our faith, not to our senses, * See the first reference in the next page. 312 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. by Ambrose, “ spiritual food,” and “the Body of the Divine Spirit,” by all which the same thing is meant. And this is the cause, why this Sacrament is most worthy of the name of the true Body and Blood; since it not only outwardly bears Its figure and image, but carries along with it the hidden latent natural property of the same Body, that is, the life-giving vir- tue ; so that now it cannot be thought an empty figure, or sign of a thing absent; but the Divine and spiritual Body of our Lord, present by grace, full of virtue, powerful in efficacy. We give the names of the things themselves to their virtue or efficacy—nor does Scripture want examples of this sort ; we will content ourselves with one instance, but an illustrious one. Christ said of John the Baptist, “ He is Elias,” because the angel said, “ He shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias.” As John therefore was Elias, because he possessed the virtue and power of Ehas: so the Bread of the Lord is the Body of Christ, because it has Its grace and vital power united to itt. And that this is no new contrived opinion, but received and approved by ancient writers, we will prove partly by repeating what has been alleged already, partly by adding more". He proceeds to produce his au- thorities to this purpose, viz., St. Augustine*, and another passage from Gratian, and in Tract on John i., on Ps. Ixv., Tract on John xxvi. and on Ps. lxxvil., then he alleges Pseudo-Ambrosius De Sacramentis, and the true St. Ambrose’, Eusebius Emissenus from Gratian. And whether they are the genuine words of Eusebius or not, they well deserve to be translated, and are as follows, “2 Because Christ was going to remove His Body, Which He had assumed, out of sight, and to convey It into heaven, it was necessary that on the day of the Supper the Sacrament of His Body and Blood should be consecrated for us; that what was once offered as a ransom might perpetually be celebrated in a mystery ; that t See the last marginal note. rebatur in pretium, ut quia quotidiana αν, 50—57 et indefessa currebat pro omnium sa- x n. p. 32. Ap lute Redemptio, perpetua esset Re- YK. ΚΝ demptionis Oblatio, et perennis Vic- tima Illa viveret in memoria, et sem- z {“Quia Corpus assumptum abla- Ω - per presens esset in gratia, Vera turus erat ab oculis, et illaturus side- ribus, necessarium erat ut die cceenz Sacramentum nobis Corporis et San- guinis consecraretur, ut coleretur ju- giter per mysterium, quod semel offe- unica et perfecta Hostia, fide estimanda non specie, neque exteriori censenda visu, sed interiori affectu.’’ ] ἢ because our Redemption flows with a daily unwearied stream for the salvation of all, the Oblation of [that] Redemption might be perpetuated ; and that this lasting Sacrifice might always live in the memorial, and might ever be present by grace, that true perfect and only Sacrifice to be estimated by faith, not by appearance ; to be valued not by outward sense, but by inward affection®.” He cites the same author for these words”, “The invisible High-Priest turns the visible creatures, by a word, into the substance of His Body and Blood, by His secret power, saying, ‘Take, eat, This is My Body.” And Bishop Poynet observes*, how he explains himself in the next words‘, “that earthy mortal things are turned into the substance of Christ, do you, who are regenerate in Christ, take information from yourself.” And then he adds®, if it be attentively considered, how Emissenus, Ambrose, and other Fathers use the word ‘nature’’ and ‘substance,’ it may easily be perceived, how vainly they make a rattle, who assert a carnal manducation of the Flesh, without accommodating words to the subject- matter. Words change their signification in every science: genus, species, figura, and the like, denote one thing with grammarians, another with logicians. We ought to observe the same in divinity. When the Fathers, in treating on the Sacrament, use the word ‘nature’ and ‘substance, they speak not in a physical but theological sense, not as natural philosophers but as men discoursing of Divine things; and so giving the names of ‘nature’ and ‘substance’ to grace, BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. ola ® p. 60. If I could have been satis- fied, that these words which are often cited by the writers on this subject, and which are extant in the fifth Homily de Paschate, which goes under his name, had been genuine, they had not been omitted by me in the foregoing work. For this Eusebius lived in the middle of the fourth century: and though learned men do not allow, that the works which bear his name were ever composed by him, yet it must be owned that the words are in themselves as full of good sense and judgment as any that Were ever spoken or written on this noble subject since the age of inspi- ration. δ [* Nam Invisibilis Sacerdos visi- biles creaturas in substantiam Corporis et Sanguinis sui, verbo secreta potes- tate convertit, dicens, ‘ Accipite et co- medite, Hoc est Corpus Meum.’ ”’} © p. 60. 4 [Quod in Christi substantiam terrena et mortalia convertantur, teip- sum qui in Christo es regeneratus in- terroga.”” | © p. 61. f What follows, the reader will take as an apology for the ancients, for so it was clearly intended, not as if he thought that these expressions were in themselves eligible. His apology for the Fathers is just; but it does by no means follow that we should choose such ways of speaking, since the Church of Rome has made such ill use of them. 314 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. virtue, and efficacy, the nature of the Sacrament requiring” them so to dos. He cites Chrysostom for saying, “ We are converted into the Flesh of Christ :” Epiphanius im Anchorato, part of the words are those, 6. p. 22. Ap., and again, d. p. 22. Ap., Pseudo-Cyprian De Cend ; Cyril. Alexand. ad Celosyr. in words like those, m. p. 45. Ap., and g. p. 44. Ap., then he proceeds to Athanasius", to Chrysostom, Homi/. |xxxiil. in Matth. xxvi. among the rest, the last sentence '; Theodoret*, and Euthymius, Leo, and Synod. Rom. from Gratian; Hilary from Gratian ; Theophylact, Bertram, Trithemius, Bernard’. But here a scruple starts up, viz., If we believe the grace and virtue of the true Body to be jomed with the Bread and Wine, or—shal]l seem to attribute too much to the symbols —the adoration of the Sacrament and peril of idolatry will be the consequence of it.—‘‘ Now,” says he, “as to what concerns the adoration of the Sacrament, the ancients re- ceived the Sacrament with reverence and great honour, and yet were safe from idolatry; and so might we too, by re- storing the ancient discipline and the form of catechism.” He shews, that the ancients adored, when they received, from St. Augustine™. He cites him also from Prosper, and after him Eusebius Emissenus, then Chrysostom in Hom. xxiv. on 1 Cor., Ambrose on 1 Cor. xi., Theodoret®, and lastly, Augustine De Doctriné Christiané ; who, having mentioned the two Sacraments, adds°, “ Every one, when he receives them, being well instructed, acknowledges the meaning of them, and venerates them, not with a carnal servitude but rather with a spiritual liberty.” ‘And here,” says the Bishop, “we see how Christians of old gave honour and adoration, in receiving both Baptism and the Supper, with- 5 p. 57—62 accederent, et quo pacto quum hono- bh a. p. 17. Ap rem sive adorationem adhibuerint tam it. p. 40. Ap in Baptismo quam in Coena celebranda, k i, p. 46. Ap tamen id sine periculo fiebat, aut scan- 1 p. 62—72 dalo. Periculo ut hie liquet, quum ms. p. 33. Ap non ad id quod videtur et caducum est, ° m, p. 46; A sed ad virtutem et significationem re- ο [“ *Unusquisque quum accipit, quo referantur imbutus agnoscit, ut ea non carnali servitute, sed spirituali potius libertate veneretur.’ Hie videmus quali doctrina fuerunt olim imbuti Christian, priusquam ad Sacramentorum usum spicerent: scandalo, quod olim religio fuerit coram infidelibus, aut mysteri- orum ignaris, non dicam Sacramenta sumere, sed omnino de tam arcanis rebus, apud illos verba facere.”’ ] BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. 315 out danger; because they did not do it, with respect to what was visible and perishable, but to the virtue and signification, and this without scandal; for of old they made a conscience, not only of taking the Sacrament, but of speaking of such mysterious things before infidels, or men that were ignorant of them.” To this purpose he cites? Theodoret’s second Dialogue to this purpose.—Adoration may be affirmed to be of two sorts: the first is that, which we pay to God alone; the other is that, which we give to instituted signs and Divine mysteries, according to that text, * Adore His foot-stool,’ which most understand of the ark of the covenant, others of the humanity of Christ: or if they think the adoration in both cases to be the same, we may say that the Flesh of Christ, though a creature, is to be adored, because of the Divinity united to it; and that the ark was to be adored on account of the Divine Majesty, which God had promised should be there present. Here the Bishop seems, in some sense, to allow a Divine honour to be paid to what is present in the Eucharist: and therefore it should seem, that by ‘the Divine invisible grace’ he under- stood the Divinity of Christ; for it is observable, that he never expressly attributes the efficacy of the Sacrament to the Divine operation of the Holy Spirit, according to the sentiment of the ancients, (as has been shewed at large in the Unbloody Sacrifice ;) but further, this excellent man had not considered, that? Divine honour is due to the natural Body of Christ, on account of the hypostatical union only; and that neither the Divinity of Christ, nor the Holy Ghost, were ever by the ancients supposed to be hypostatically united to the symbols in the Eucharist; and that therefore they could not worship them with a Divine honour. After which manner we may also adore the Eucharist on account of the ineffable and invisible Divine grace joined with it, as St. Augustine speaks, not worshipping what is seen and passes away, but what is believed and understood. And it P [p. 75. ] 4 See Bishop Stillingfieet’s Discourse of the Idolatry practised ia the Church of Rome, chap. ii. p. 113, &c. [Ed. 1671. ‘To make the elements the object of Divine worship, as they do; they must suppose an_ hypostatical union between them and the Divine nature of Christ ; for if the only reason of joining the Human nature with the Divine in the Person of Christ as the object of our worship, be the hyposta- tical union of those natures,”’ &c. } 316 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. deserves our observation, that this adoration was not paid of old by idle spectators, but by those who received the mys- teries, and were made partakers of the grace belonging to them; for he that adores and receives it, to him it is the Body of Christ ; not to him that adores it, and receives it not’. But whereas it is denied, that the wicked eat the Body of Christ, which they must do, if the spiritual grace be jomed with the Bread; we must use a distinction. For if we con- sider the nature of the Sacrament itself, the Divine virtue cannot be absent from the sign, inasmuch as it is a Sacra- ment and serves for this use; but if we consider the way of living and disposition of the receiver, that which is in itself both hfe and grace, is neither the one nor the other to him; because the pravity of wicked men is incapable of receiving so great goodness; nor can it be fruitful; nay, on the con- trary it is death and damnation to such. For as many kinds of meats are wholesome in their own nature, but when eaten by diseased bodies increase the evil and hasten death; not through their own nature, but the indisposition of him who eats them; so it is in the Sacrament, the proper virtue whereof is always present with it, until it ceases from its office, although when a wicked man receives it, he can neither receive so great goodness, nor perceive the benefit of it. To this purpose he cites Pseudo-Cyprian De Cena‘, whose words are very apposite, and Augustine contra Literas Petilianit,and De Baptismo". Both these citations are much to the purpose; the latter I will translate for my English reader*. ‘As Judas made room for the devil to enter into himself, when Christ delivered to him the sop, not because what he received was evil, but because he received it with an τ p. 72—76. ciat mansionem.”* | Sp. 77. [“Sacramenta quidem, t lib. 2. 6. 47. quantum in se est, sine propria esse aoe | Ὁ, virtute non possunt, nec ullo modo Divina se absentat Majestas mysteriis. Sed quamvis ab indignis se sumi vel contingi Sacramenta permittant, non possunt tamen Spiritus esse participes, quorum infidelitas vel indignitas tantze sanctitudini contradicat. Ideoque aliis sunt hec munera, odor vite in vitam, aliis odor mortis in mortem, quia om- nino justum est, ut tanto priventur beneficio gratie contemptores, nec in indignis tantze gratie puritas 5101 fa- x [** Sicut enim Judas cui buccellam tradidit Dominus, non malum accipi- endo, sed male accipiendo, locum in se diabolo prebuit: sic indigne quisque sumens Dominicum sacramentum non efficit, ut, quia ipse malus est, malum sit, aut, quia non ad salutem accipit, nihil acceperit. Corpus enim Domini et Sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis, quibus dicebat Apostolus, ‘Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit.’”’ BISHOP POYNET'’S TESTIMONY. ole evil disposition ; so whoever unworthily receives the Sacra~ ment of the Lord cannot make that an evil thing, because he is himself evil. Nor does he receive nothing, because he receives it not to salvation. For even to those, to whom the Apostle says, ‘He that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself; to them, notwithstanding all this, it was the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the Lord.” He cites him’ to the same purpose’, and proceeds thus; “‘ Wherefore let it be a fixed conclusion, that Sacra- ments, while they remain Sacraments, retain their virtue, and that there can be no separation ; for they always consist of their parts, viz., the terrene and the celestial, the visible and the invisible, the internal and the external; whether they who receive them be good or bad, worthy or unworthy. Nay, and that change of the signs, and the transition of the elements into the internal substance, which we everywhere meet with among the ancients, can by no means be con- sistent, if we separate the virtue from the sign, and would have one taken apart from the other: I mean, so long as the sign serves for that use, and is applied to that end, for which it was appointed by God’s Word. For if we use it contrary to the institution of Christ, it either is no Sacra- ment at all, or it ceases to be one. Therefore they sin not a little, who make use of the symbols of Bread and Wine, not for the purpose which Christ intended, but consecrate them for pomp, which is not allowed by the Word of God, and yet put them off for Sacraments to the silly people. For though they be prepared with due rites, and for lawful ends ; yet, when that use and their proper function ceases, they no longer retain the name or virtue of Sacraments. And the ancient practice of the Church gives us a proof for this; for when the Communion was ended, they consumed what re- mained of the Sacraments, eating it together as a common supper, as Jerome? testifies upon the eleventh chapter of the 7p. 77. =, i, 6.36; Ap. @ I cannot observe any single point in which the Diallacticon contradicts the Unbloody Sacrifice (excepting in the honour due to the Sacrament) but this, that the former asserts the re- mainder of the Eucharistical Body and Blood in the primitive Church to have been eaten and drunk in a common feast, or burnt in the fire; but the Un- bloody Sacrifice shews that it was re- served to be sent to the sick, or for un- foreseen emergencies. But this is not inconsistent, as may seem at first sight ; for a great, or even the greatest part, 318 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. first Epistle to the Corinthians; and what remained uncon- sumed was in part thrown into the fire, as Hesychius of might be eaten and drunk by the com- municants, after not only they that were present had received their share, and enough of it to carry some away with them, as was the practice in some Churches; but after those that were absent had had their shares sent home to them. And though the main of what was left, after every one both pre- sent and absent had received a part, was eaten and drunk; yet still they might, and did, in many places at least, reserve a modicum for extraordinary emergencies. And if any of the sym- bols had been so long reserved, as to become exceedingly stale, or even nau- seous aud offensive; this most probably was that, which they burned in the fire. I am sensible Hesychius on Levit. viii. asserts, ‘‘Igni tradi, quecunque re- manere contigerit inconsumpta,” that whatever of the symbols happened to remain unconsumed, was burnt; but ail that remained could not both be eaten and burnt; nor is there any rea- son to believe that they ever burned any but what could not be properly consumed, that is, by manducation ; and therefore I am apt to think, that inconsumpta here stands for incon- sumptibilia ; (the Greek was perhaps ἀληπτὸς, OY ἀναλωτὸς, or some partti- ciple of that form) what was so cor- rupted with long keeping, as not to be fit to be received with the mouth. And this they learned from the law of Moses, as Hesychius intimates, which directs the sacrifices, that were grown stale or in danger of putrefaction, to be burnt in the fire, Levit. vii. 17; viii. 31, 32. But, however, a_ sufficient quantity of the sacred symbols might be sent to the absent, and some perhaps reserved for contingencies, before the rest was cast into the fire. And it is probable, that not only in the Church of Jerusalem, but in others, the cor- rupted symbols were so disposed of. For how could Sacraments, when unfit for oral manducation, be more decently consumed, especially when the old law required even the most holy things to be put into the fire, when they were grown offensive to the taste? And while the Sacrament was reserved in the Church only for proper uses, as for dying penitents, and such like acci- dents, not for superstition, as now in the Church of Rome; the nature of it was not at all altered by being so re- served, even according to Bishop Poy- net’s argument. But Hesychius has in the same place some words that are a peremptory declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation; for whereas in the eighth of Levit. ver. 31, Moses and his sons are commanded to eat the bread with the flesh; he says this was done, ‘‘ ut intelligeremus nos illud ab eo mysterium dici, quod simul panis et Caro est,’ that we might understand that mystery to be here meant by him (Moses), which is at the same time both bread and Flesh; bread in substance, Flesh in mystery. And though I will not say, that when any considerable quantity of the sacred symbols remained after celebration, and after provision was made for occasional uses, the clergy and people did nowhere eat and drink it; yet I take leave to observe, that the words of St. Jerome, or rather of Pelagius, or some other uncertain writer, whose works are com- monly published among those of St. Jerome, to which Bishop Poynet here refers us, do not at all prove the regu- lar practice of the Church, either in that age or any other. For the author was commenting on the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, and de- scribing the disorderly method of the people there in celebrating the Eucha- rist. I will transcribe the whole pas- sage in the original Latin, that the reader may be satisfied that I do truly represent the case; “‘1 Cor. xi. 18. Convenientibus ergo vobis in unum, jam non est Dominicam,’ &c.] Jam non est Dominica, sed humana; quando unusquisque tanquam coenam propriam solus invadit: et alii qui non obtulerit, non impertit: ita ut magis propter saturitatem, quam propter mysterium videamini convenire. Czterum Do- minica Coena omnibus debet esse com- munis: quia Ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant, equaliter tradidit Sacramenta. Coena autem ideo dicitur, quia Dominus in Ceena tradidit Sacra- menta. Item hoe ideo dicit: quia in Ecclesia convenientes, oblationes suas separatim offerebant: et post com- munionem, quecunque eis de Sacri- ficiis superfuissent, illic in Ecclesia communem ccenam comedentes, pa- riter consumebant.’’—[ Tom. v. p. 998, Ed. Ben,] In English, ‘ Now this is 319 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY. Jerusalem teaches. Neither of which could have been rightly done, unless they had ceased to be Sacraments.” He farther observes, that this doctrine of the Eucharist is not perplexed and difficult, but as clear and perspicuous as the nature of a mystery will permit it to be. No words of Scripture, no sayings of the Fathers contradict it ; but all do harmoniously agree together. There are some, who cannot hear of the Sacraments being a sign or figure: they have here the Verity or thing itself acknowledged. They will have the substance of the Body; they see we affirm the substance to be pre- sent, and our communion with Christ naturally and substan- tially explained. We would not fall out about the words, though barbarous and unnecessary, if they meant such a change of substance as is made in a man regenerated by Baptism. We do not so much avoid the words, though some account is to be made of them, but we demand that signi- fication which the Fathers teach us. We only reject the notion of eating flesh, which the Fathers also reject as im- pious, as repugnant to Scripture and the true faith’. not the Supper of the Lord, but of man, when every one seizes it as his own supper, and imparts nothing to him, who brought no offering; so that you seem to meet together to fill the belly, rather than for the sake of the mystery. Farther, the Lord’s Supper ought to be common toall, because He equally delivered the Sacraments to all His disciples that were present. And it is called a Supper on this account, because the Lord delivered the Sacra- ments at Supper. And for this reason he says this; because when they met in the Church, they offered their obla- tious separately; and after the Com- munion, they consumed all that re- mained of the Sacrifices there in the Church, by eating together a common Supper.” I cannot believe that the author in these words describes the usual commendable practice of Chris- tians in that age wherein he wrote; or that he intended to propose the irregu- larities of the Corinthians to the imita- tion of posterity; but that he performs the part of an interpreter or historian, by nakedly relating the fact, which he supposed to be the occasion of the dis- orders committed in the Church of Corinth. Lest my reader should be too free in condemning this most learned man, for giving too much countenance to the Romish doctrine of the Real Presence, he may observe that the Waldenses, or (as the Reverend Mr. Dorrington says) the Bohemians, did publicly pro- fess, that the Bread was not only the spiritual and blessed or consecrated, but the natural Body of Christ; they complain that their adversaries were not willing to believe them in this point, and therefore they repeat it again with more vehemence (to free themselves from all suspicion), that after the words of consecration pro- nounced by the Priest, the Bread is the very natural Body of Christ taken of the Virgin Mary. See their Excusatio in Fascicul. Rerum, vol. i. p. 181. [“* De Corpore et Sanguine Christi sic credimus, quod post verbum per Sacer- dotem recte consecratum quod statim panis est Corpus Christi verum natu- rale, sumptum ex Maria Virgine.’’ ] And yet in this same Apology they directly deny transsubstantiation and the worship of the Host; nay, they were at that time under persecution, because they could not believe the one nor practise the other. And indeed to say that the Eucharistical Bread is the natural Body of Christ, is to suppose that the material Bread still remains, ® p. 76. 81. s I . 990 BISHOP POYNET’S TESTIMONY He concludes by praying to God, that He would remove from the minds of Pastors Docters and Ministers of the Church the affectation of dispute and dominion, and compose their minds to peace and brotherly love; that they may not abuse this peculiar bond of charity (the Sacrament) delivered by Christ Himself to His Church, as a means of fomenting strife and faction, ἕο. τῇ ANIMADVERSIONS ON A BOOK WRITTEN BY THE REVEREND DR. THOMAS WISE?, ENTITLED, ‘““THE CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Nc.,” WHICH HE PUB- LISHED CHIEFLY IN ANSWER TO A PRINTED LETTER, CALLED, “A SEASONABLE APOLOGY IN BEHALF OF THE REVEREND DR. GEORGE HICKEs, Xc.,” WHICH LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON OCCASION OF A SERMON PREACHED BY DR. WISE, AT A VISITATION AT CANTERBURY, JUNE l, 1710, IN WHICH THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST WAS OPPOSED, WHICH SERMON THE DOCTOR PRINTED. Tuis gentleman has given the world a specimen of a very singular disposition towards me; for he has once and again voted for me at the election of Proctors for this Diocese, and yet both preached and written against me. His favours I do hereby acknowledge; but I think I could not put a worse construction upon them than to suppose that he intended these votes as spells, to tie my hands and charm me out of my natural right of self-defence. Since his first voting for me, he has published many reflections in his “ Christian Eu- charist,” upon a book which was then generally known to be mine, I mean, the “ Propitiatory Oblation.” By this he has made it evident, that notwithstanding his appearance of friendliness he thinks himself at liberty to attack me from the press or pulpit, and that therefore I am equally at liberty to repel him. | Whatever has any appearance of strength either in his Book or Sermon, and which any other man of middling judg- ment would have said upon the same occasion, is, I think, fully answered in the foregoing book; though I have rarely there mentioned his name or cited his words at large; not only because this would have made the volume swell without any just reason, but because I do not think that the Doctor a [The Editor has still to regret his are not found in the Bodleian or the having been unable to meet withacopy British Museum. ] of this and the following Tract; they JOHNSON. Y oon ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE has always given his citations, that are to the purpose, their full force, nor his arguments their true edge. And as for such citations as are of very small weight on his own side of the question, and such arguings as are peculiar to the Doctor, I have reserved them to be considered by themselves here at the end of the book, that so my reader might not, in the perusal of the ‘‘ Unbloody Sacrifice,’ be interrupted with matters, which are oftentimes not very pertinent to the subject. But, after all, one half of the book must for ever remain unanswered; I mean his high airs and all those sallies of an ill-governed fancy, with which his book abounds ; in which 1 have no inclination to pursue him, and which I think nothing can excuse in a Divine, when he 15 treating of the Mysteries of religion, the Arcana Regni, which the very Angels desire to look into. Nor have I either leisure or emulation to strip him of those plumes he spreads, those ample vindications and encomiums of himself, with which his book is filled. I am very far from being an enemy to the Doctor or a detractor from his merits; yet I cannot at the same time dissemble my resentments and indignation at his awkward un-Doctor-ly way of treating his argument and his antagonist. As for the sermon, there is nothing in it with which I shall detain my reader, but a marginal note, p. 15, where he speaks of a distinction made by St. Ignatius, “of three several parts or acts in the Holy Eucharist, namely, 1. προσφορὰ, ‘the bare offering Bread and Wine;’ 2. θυσία, ‘ the mystical commemoration of Christ’s Body and Blood; 3. δοχὴ, ‘a receiving and participation of the same.’” And could the Doctor believe, that an Apostolical man, a disciple of St. John, did really distinguish the sacred solemnity into these three parts, and yet remain unconvinced that the Eucharist was a Sacrifice? Was it possible for him to conceive, that the Holy Martyr affirmed that there was both an Oblation and a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, and yet not feel the force of such words? Can he in his own conscience think that he has answered this allegation, by saying, that “the Bread and Wine are symbols of Christ’s real Sacrifice?” For let us give this for granted; and may not symbols be really offered, and, by being offered, become a real Sacrifice ? Were not all*the CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Xc. 323 Levitical sacrifices intended by God, as types of Christ’s Body? and yet willhe dispute, whether they were sacrifices or not? Is there any possible answer to be made to so clear a proof? When he owns, “the words are the most signi- ficative of a real Sacrifice,” could he be blind in such a sun- shine? I desire the reader to take a measure of the Doctor’s judgment from this single passage ; and he will easily discern, that there is something in him that can turn the scale against the most weighty evidence. But what is yet more strange, these words are not in the genuine Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnzeans, but in the interpolated only. And I cannot . but admire to see a gentleman of the Doctor’s elevation refer us to the authority of a spurious writer directly and un- questionably for the doctrine of the Sacrifice, without taking any notice or giving the least hint that it is not genuine; it is such an authority as wants nothing to render it perfectly unanswerable but only this, that the words to which he refers are not the words of the real Ignatius, as our Doctor took them to be. I can heartily forgive the Doctor a great many such mistakes; but, sure, when he reflects on it, he will never be able to forgive himself. He in vain cites Mr. Mede and Dr. Hickes to patronize him in this foul error. Mr. Mede’s Discourses on this subject were written before the Medicean copy of Ignatius’s Epistles was published by Vossius; and Dr. Hickes, in the place referred to, says not one word of Ignatius or his Epistles. The capital argument used by the Doctor to prove the Eucharist no Sacrifice is this, that it is called the Body and Blood of Christ as well as a Sacrifice ; and if we do not be- heve it to be the real Body and Blood, why should we be- heve it to be a real Sacrifice? This he mentions in the fifteenth page of his Sermon; and with this he begins his arguings in his book. But, if nothing can be a real Sacrifice but the real Body of Christ, this annuls not only the Saeri- fice of the Eucharist, but all other sacrifices, except that which was offered by Christ Jesus in person; and this makes clear work indeed: and though the Scriptures and the ancients often call the Eucharist the Body and Blood, yet they give us to understand too, that the Bread and Wine remains. Nay, the Fathers often call the Bread and Wine, the symbols, Y 2 324 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE types, and figures, of the natural Body and Blood, as has -peen plentifully proved. And when the Doctor can shew πῶς ot any of the ancients, when they call the Eucharist a Sacrifice, do by any additional words give us to understand that they mean not a proper Sacrifice (as they evidently tell us they mean not the natural Body and Blood), then we should own that this argument were plausible. The places cited from St. Chrysostom and others, who affirm it only to be a Memorial or Commemoration, have been particularly considered in the foregoing book; and it has been shewed, that a commemorative sacrifice may have all the properties of a real sacrifice, and that they all meet together in the Eucharist. And the Doctor would have saved me this reflec- tion, if he had pleased to remember that the Eucharist is called a Sacrifice by the ancients, not only because it repre- sents a Sacrifice, but because it is actually offered; and that in the first Eucharist Christ “ gave His Body” to God by the symbols of Bread and Wine. P. 18, 19. That the Eucharistical Oblations, and, among these, Bread and Wine, were in the primitive Church “ offered by the eternal law of nature at the Holy Table, called also an Altar,” is a direct contradiction to his own cause; for it supposes Oblations to be a law of nature, and therefore obli- gatory in all times and places. My Lord B. of N. [Bishop of Norwich] censures me for saying, that Oblation of Bread and Wine is to be made by the law of the Church of England ; but, if it be required by the law of nature, then I hope none will suppose that such Oblations are not to be made in our Church, except they are disposed to make the laws of nature and the Church repugnant to each other. Here I shall leave him to the correction of his own friends. P. 19. He tells us the manner of making these Oblations was “with Holy Eucharists, and blessings, and saying of Grace ;—first by the people in general then by the adminis- tering Priest.” Saying of Grace? Is this the language of a Doctor of Divinity? I should rather call it the cant of the Rights-men and Grecians, the Deists and scoffers. The latter indeed apply this phrase to the most solemn consecration ; our Doctor here means it of the supposed previous devotions, and therefore is one step behind them. If the Doctor could CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c. 325 help us to the sight of one of those prayers or ‘Graces,’ as he chooses to speak, which was said, “ first by-the people in gene- ral” over the Oblations ; or produce any proof, that any such prayer was made by them, distinct from what was pronounced by the Priest; I dare say, all antiquarians would acknowledge it a great rarity: and I will engage, that the gentlemen just now mentioned, the Rights-men and Deists, will in a very special manner express their obligations to him; but until this be done, I must believe it an invention of his own, and’ avery sorry one too. For certainly the people in the primi- tive Church were not to eat and drink the oblations they brought, excepting only that small portion, that was singled out to be consecrated into the Eucharistical Body and Blood. I think it is allowed, that the περισσεύματα, mentioned in the eighth book of the Constitutions, were the Bread and Wine offered by the people, remaining over and above what was taken out and consecrated for the Eucharistical Body and Blood. These are, by that Constitution, directed to be divided by determined proportions between the Bishop, Clergy, and Deaconesses ; the people had no share of them. If the people in the Church of Alexandria were allowed to partake of the Perisseumata, yet this must be allowed to have been pecu- har to them?. And no oblations but those of Bread and Wine were necessarily and perpetually offered on the Altar. Now to make the people say grace over those offerings which were to be eaten by others, was a most incongruous fancy. Once a year indeed, grapes and ears of corn were permitted by the Apostolical Canon to be offered ; and these were wholly or chiefly intended to be eaten by those who brought them, if we may believe the Scholiasts ; but these offerings were no part of the Eucharist, properly so called. I know some would persuade us, that the Love-feasts were furnished out of the remainder of the Altar-oblations; but this is mere supposi- tion, and may be confuted out of the Constitution now men- tioned, by which the Perissewmata are ordered to be shared out between the Bishop and Clergy. P. 20. He argues (if I may so say) again from the inter- polation of St. Ignatius. Ibid. As to the passage from St. Cyprian, which the Doctor Ὁ See Can. 7, Theophil. Alexandr. 326 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE here cites, I have particularly considered it, Chap. 11. Sect. 1. of the foregoing book. He observes, that St. Augustine calls the Eucharist “the Sacrament of memorial ;” and do we deny it this title? But the Doctor may see that he calls it a Saeri- fice’, and not a Sacrament; would the Doctor from thence argue, that he did not believe it to be a Sacrament ? P. 22, 23. He labours to prove that gifts and sacrifices are distinct things; but it is very certain, that the ancients did not nicely observe this distinction. The lay-oblations were sometimes called ‘Sacrifices*;’ and the consecrated sym- bols are sometimes called ‘ Gifts*.?. Nay, the Levitical saeri- fices, both as to those portions which were offered to God and those which were to be eaten by the priests, are by the LXX called δῶρα Θεοῦ, Lev. xxi. 6, 8, 21, 22; for these In- terpreters, by ‘the Bread’ or Food ‘of God,’ understood the holy penman to mean, whatever was in especial manner given or offered on the altar to God. P. 24. He argues thus; “If the oblations were a true Sacrifice, there were two other proper material Sacrifices in the Eucharist, namely, that part of the oblations which sup- plied the Holy Supper, and the other remaining part from ' which it was taken.””? This is very arch indeed, and a clear proof, that the Doctor has not forgot the doctrine of sophisms. Thus the Doctor’s book is three books; for the Christian Eucharist, which contains the whole volume, is one, the Reply to the Apology is a second, and the Reply to the Letter for Transubstantiation a third. The Bread and Wine, consecrated and offered as the representative Body and Blood, are strictly speaking the only Sacrifice: it might as rationally be said, that what of the sin-offering and peace- offering remained after the oblation was a distinct sacrifice, as that the remaining part of the Eucharistical Bread and Wine are so. Ibid. He mistakes Tertullian’s Agape for the Eucharist. The worship of Christians had been spoken of in the fore- going part of the Apology; here he speaks of the Christian Supper, and says‘, “ When we are at the charge of an enter- © a. p. 31. Ε p.31.H.and 1. p. 36. Ap. ‘ {**Coena nostra de nomine ratio- _ 4 See Chap. II. Sect. 4. nem sui ostendit. Id vocatur quod di- © See Liturg. Clem. d. p. 54. Ap. lectio penes Grecos. Quantiseunque Liturg. S. Jacobi, i. b. 55, Ap. sumptibus constet; lucrum est pie- CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c, 327 tainment, it is to refresh the bowels of the needy; you (heathen,) gorge the parasites—we feed the hungry, because we know God takes a peculiar delight in seeing us do it. I leave you from hence to guess at the rest of our discipline in matters of pure religion,” &c.; these are the words of the most ingenious Mr. Reeves’s translation, and cannot be ap- plied to the Eucharist. P. 25. He musters up the old argument against the Sacri- fice, viz., that Jews and heathens told the Christians, that they had neither sacrifices nor altars; “real” and “ material” are his own additions; “and I do not find,” says he, “ that the ancients ever directly answered, that they had any; but only that, in conformity a little to the Jews and heathens, they had what might go by the name of sacrifices and altars.” Now I challenge him to produce any single Father that ever gave the least occasion for this imputation. I have said enough as to this particular in the present treatise, and the Propitiatory Oblation, p. 78, 79. But, in truth, the Doctor seems to have taken Julian the Apostate for an ancient Father; for he says something more like what the Doctor imputes to them than any thing that was ever said by them. You have it in the Doctor’s own translation in the next page, viz., You Christians have found out a new sacrifice :—why do you not offer sacrifice?” The primitive Fathers were so far from humouring the Jews or heathens, in telling them that they had something that might go by the name of sacrifice, that they seldom spake apertly to them of any sacrifice they had. Justin Martyr is the only instance of doing this, that I have ever met with; but they spake of a sacrifice freely and in words at length to their own people, who were the only persons concerned to know it. He cites Cyril of Alexandria for extolling the internal sacrifices of the mind; we can readily subscribe to all that Cyril is here cited for. He lays some stress upon Cyril’s using the word ἄῦλος. as if he was ignorant that the ancients denied the tatis nomine facere sumptum. Siqui- Deum major est contemplatio medio- dem inopes quosque refrigerio isto ju- crium. Si honesta causa est convivii, vamus, non qua penes vos parasiti reliquum ordinem discipline zstimate affectant ad gloriam famulande liber- qui sit, de religionis officio.’,—Apolog., tatis sub auctoramento ventris inter p. 32. Ed. Par. 1664. | contumelias saginandi; sed qua penes 328 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE Oblation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to be a cor- poreal oblation. P. 28. Here he speaks of “ the contention of great wits” in the citation of a learned modern, and would have us believe, that “much light of truth is drawn out from the striking of two flints one against another.” The reader will easily guess whom he meant by one of these flints; and he is willing to let his adversary be the other rather than lose the advan- tage of so apt a comparison. P. 29. Here he introduces a very learned man saying that St. Cyril of Alexandria allows “no sacrifice properly so called, whether bloody or unbloody, among Christians, saving that of the Cross.” My reader will rather believe St. Cyril himself, whose authority for the Sacrifice I have produced in the foregoing book, than either the Doctor or his learned man ; especially because they produce no such words from St. Cyril as do at all countenance this notion. P. 30. He owns, the Fathers not only called the Bread and Wine a Sacrifice, but a ‘ true’ and ‘ propitiatory’ Sacri- fice ; but denies that they thought them so im themselves. If he means, that the Eucharistical Sacrifice offered by us is not propitiatory, if considered abstractedly from the Macta- tion on the Cross, we readily confess it. Nay, we say that no sacrifice but that of Christ Jesus was propitiatory, if by ‘propitiatory’ be meant, ‘in itself satisfactory; but, instead of proving that it is not propitiatory (in virtue of the prin- cipal Sacrifice), he is content to say that “it is not a repre- sentative Sacrifice ;” which is what he was to have proved. P. 31. Here he would have it thought, that “a repre- sentative commemorative Sacrifice cannot be a real one,” but he gives us no reason why we should think as he does; and, having observed that St. Chrysostom tells us, “we are to do this in remembrance of what Christ once did,” and added ‘on the Cross,” (which is the Doctor’s own comment,) he says, “So must this Father be understood, when saying, that Christ has changed the sacrifice and commanded us to offer Himself instead of the sacrifices of brute creatures ;” and immediately goes on, “ wherefore I tell you, though the ancients called the Bread and Wine a real Sacrifice, yet can you not from hence infer it to be indeed one.” This I give CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Wc. 329 my reader as a specimen of the Doctor’s arguing and in- ferring. I suppose the strength of the argument les in those words, ‘I tell you;’ for if it had not been for those words, I should have concluded that St. Chrysostom asserted a real Sacrifice in the words last mentioned; and so I be- lieve will my reader think that the Doctor ought to have done; for nothing is more usual with the ancients than by the Sacrifice of Christ to mean the Sacrifice of His Eucha- ristical Body and Blood. P. 32. To shew that the Fathers spake figuratively, when they called the Eucharist “a Sacrifice, though not when they called it a Sacrament,” he argues, that if they had, “ there would have been sign upon sign, figure upon figure ;” but what he means by it, he does not tell us. It is the Sacra- ment, which, we assert,.is offered by a real act of oblation ; and how this can add sign to sign, I conceive not, except he could prove that the act of oblation was only figurative and ᾿ not real. To support this, he adds, “ Bread and Wine did not pass under the name of a Sacrifice, until made a Sacrament ;” which is neither true, nor, if it were true, would it at all help his cause: to mend the matter, he adds these words, “ as St. Ignatius remarks.”” Now where did St. Ignatius ever make this remark? He directs us in the margin to his Epistle to the Smyrneeans, and therefore undoubtedly means the interpolated words mentioned twice before in his Sermon, p- 15, in his Book, p. 20; and yet there is no mention of a Sacrament. The words, which he is so very fond of, are these, “ Without a Bishop it is not lawful to offer or to present a Sacrifice, or to make a distribution of it,” as Dr. W. supposes ; but, as Primate Ussher more probably says, ‘to make a love-feast.” If the reader can see any thing like a proof on Dr. W.’s side, it is more than I can do; though 1 can easily discern, that they are full of proof against him. P. 33. He observes, Dr. Hickes puts the word ‘ Sacrifice’ before ‘Sacrament;’ and from thence argues, that he reckons the Eucharist a Sacrifice on account of the previous obla- tion; and from thence concludes Dr. Hiekes to be “ incon- sistent with himself.” But why? Because Dr. W. had told us before, that “as St. Ignatius remarked,” so did Dr. Hickes too, and indeed both alike, that “the Bread and Wine did 330 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE not pass under the name of Sacrifice, until made a Sacra- ment. Dr. Hickes indeed cites a common saying, Dona sunt que Deo donantur, Sacrificia, que cum orationibus con- secrantur, in the place here referred to; but will Dr. W. infer, that any thing is no sacrifice because it is a gift; or that it ceases to be a gift, when it becomes a sacrifice? It is further owned, that Dr. Hickes asserts, that, by the Liturgy of K. Edward VI., “the Holy Gifts are presented to God on the Altar; then consecrated, by prayer, for the Eucharist.” And if the Doctor thought that what had been offered on an Altar might properly be styled a Sacrifice, who can blame him or disprove him? But, after all, suppose the Doctor had never so flatly asserted, that Bread and Wine are a Sacra- ment before they are a Sacrifice, where and how does he contradict this? Why, Dr. W. tells us, that he says, “ Sacri- fice and Sacrament ;” to which I will only say, that if I should make a collection of Dr. W.’s inconsistencies, no better grounded than this which he charges on Dr. Hickes, and produce all the Hystera-protera in his Book and Sermon, and draw inferences from them, as he does in this place, I will be bound to prove, that he holds heresies and heterodoxies, which he never yet heard or thought of; but there is no occasion for him that writes against Dr. W. to hunt for such small game as this. He in the same place cites St. Ambrose or rather Hilary the Deacon, for saying, Una est hee Hostia, non multe; which, he falsely says, is to be understood of ‘the Sacrifice of the Cross, and no more.”’ It was meant of the Grand Sacrifice, faithfully and authoritatively represented in the Eucharist ; and this is indeed “the vote of all Antiquity,” who speak of the Eucharist, in all times and places, as One Bread and One Sacrifice. In this and the next page he sides with the Papists for their Sacrifice of Transubstantiation against Dr. Hickes’s and the Apologist’s Sacrifice of Bread and Wine; and expressly asserts that they “talk more absurdly than even the Roman- ists,” and cites Bellarmine, Maldonatus, and Salmeron, against a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine; and yet has the face to com- plain of his adversary for ‘ leading him a dance to downright Transubstantiation.” Now the reader is judge, which of the two are most inclined to the Romish Sacrifice, the Apologist, — ° «ρου swe ἴ ee ee i οὐδ Ψ'Γ Ὸ - CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c. 991 who asserts the opinion of Dr. Hickes, (who is expressly for a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine,) or Dr. W., who in this respect sides with the Jesuits against him. And Here I cannot but reflect on the disingenuous proceedings of Dr. W., who has sprinkled his whole book with malicious insinuations of Dr. Hickes’s inclinations to Popery, and of his tco favourable opinion of Transubstantiation; and yet, here and in other places, thinks he has great advantage of him for asserting a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, and declares this to be more absurd than Transubstantiation. They, who indulge them- selves in the most unchristian and diabolical practice of accusing their brethren of a crime so very black and flagrant, should take special care so to contrive the calumnies, that they may at least be consistent and hang together; for those slanders, that confute themselves (which is the present case), do at once absolve the party accused, and convict the delator of forgery and nonsense both in one. We know the devil to be the common father of lies, especially such as are mali- cious ; but, im the case now before us, I can see none of the craft or subtlety of the old serpent ; the Doctor, in contriving this calumny, was left, I charitably believe, to his own natural invention ; I cannot say, the Doctor has the innocence of the dove, nor yet can I allow him the cunning of the serpent; he abounds with gall, but he wants the sting. JHe, that would make a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine more absurd than the Sacrifice of Transubstantiation, and would in the same breath condemn his adversary for a Papist for asserting the former and denying the latter, must give his reader leave to call in question his judgment, his understanding, and even his senses; and I am very sure 1 am not transported beyond the bounds of strict truth in what I now say. No Protestant ean believe, that to assert the Eucharist to be Bread and Wine has any manner of absurdity in it; and, if Bread and Wine be there, there can be no absurdity in offermg them to God, even though we were not obliged to offer them; except you will say, that whatever is not commanded is absurd. However, it is not so absurd to offer Bread and Wine, which we are sure are there, as to suppose (contrary to com- mon sense) that the substance of the Body and Blood are there, and to pretend to offer them as such; and he, whose 332 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE understanding and senses cannot inform and convince him of this, must be allowed to be very defective in both, and very open to the artifices of the Jesuits; and I should not at all wonder to see such a man converted to Popery, espe- cially if he were turned out of his preferment in the Church of England and put to shifts to get his daily bread, which has been the case of the Non-jurors; and therefore I cannot but take this opportunity of declaring, that I look on them to be the men that have given the greatest proof of their obstinate aversion to Popery, of any in the whole kingdom. Dr. W. and I do not know what it is for Clergymen to be denied a subsistence in the Church, and to be treated as criminals for acting according to conscience, and to see others rewarded with preferment for insulting and abusing us; and they who, notwithstanding this hard usage, are firm to the Church, and deaf to the arguments and invitations of the Papists, nay, zealous against their errors and forward to oppose them, shew themselves to be Christians and Protes- tants in earnest; and on this account should be regarded as some of our truest and fastest friends ; and he, who is now the most conspicuous among them and who has most remarkably distinguished himself in these particulars, is one of the last of all men living, that a Doctor of Divinity should have singled out, on whom to disgorge his choler and slander. I will not say, that they have been guilty of no excesses; even the patience of Job did not preserve him from some intemperate words ; but I cannot but believe them truer friends to Religion than those who have with the greatest violence opposed them, and better subjects to the Queen than those Deists and fanatics that have taken the oaths. P. 44. Here he supposes ‘mystical’ to be opposed to ‘real ;; but without any grounds. The Eucharist is a real feast, and yet a mystical one; and why not a real though mystical Sacrifice, as well as a real and mystical feast ? P. 45. He would not have us think Mr. Mede so much our friend, as we imagine; because he says “the Eucharist is nothing but the Sacrifice of Christ again and again comme- morated,” as if we said otherwise: then he cites the passage in Ireneus, which the reader may see in the Appendix®, which ce. prt Ap. CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c. 999 is as directly for the Sacrifice, as anything the Doctor is able to say can be against it; and presently cries out, “ Will ye after all this assert the Lord’s Supper to bea true Sacrifice ?” He had just before cited the words of Chrysostom, mentioned p- 31; so little is he capable of discerning between his friends and foes. P. 46. He supposes, we give up the words ‘true’ and ‘proper’ Sacrifice, when we call the Eucharist an Oblation; and yet he is never pleased to inform us, wherein the one does essen- tially differ from the other. The author of the Propitiatory Oblation has sufficiently explained himself in that treatise, and this ; and as to the Doctor’s comment upon it, (as he calls it,) he leaves it to the reader’s judgment: yet I cannot but desire the reader to observe, how far I gave up the word ‘Sacrifice’ in the book cited by the Doctor; which he will easily apprehend by the following words, viz., “I rather choose to use the phrase of a Propitiatory Oblation than the word Sacrifice ; because the word Sacrifice does, for the most part and in common acceptation, signify ‘to slay in order to offer up.’ I know that it is sometimes otherwise understood, and that it is often applied by the ancients to the Oblation in the Eucharist—and therefore I lay aside the word at present, rather that the reader may better understand me, than that I shall uncharitably misunderstand others, that are disposed still to make use of it®.” P. 54. His words to the gentleman, against whom he writes, in this place are very remarkable, viz., “It is the general opinion, that I have here done you too much honour by standing to parley with you thus long.” I was much startled at this passage; because it supposes, that he knew what the “general opinion” of men was concerning his present per- formance, before he had finished one fourth part of it. I was more surprised yet, when I met with those words, (p. 89,) viz., “The printer, as he has been the last, so he has always been the first, that has so much as seen what I have hitherto done, and do now publish.” These two passages I could not for a while look upon, as otherwise than a flat contradiction ; the first supposes, that the generality knew how long he had been parleying with his adversary, and how much honour he h Prop. Oblat., pp. 8, 9. 304 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE had done him in his present writings ; but the latter declares it to have been a secret to all, till it came to the press. It concerned me much to understand my author’s phrase and way of expression; and at last I apprehend I have found the key to it. The Doctor, you are to understand, takes it for granted, that whatever he wots or conceives must be “ the general opinion ;” which is a very modest and acute way of judging, and lets us into his meaning, when he says of his sermon, that “it met with a general approbation'.” In both cases you are to conceive that he summoned a council of all his faculties, and all these did unanimously give their suffrage in favour of their master and his performances. For the future, I shall perfectly well understand the Doctor, when he speaks of “ the general opinion” and of “ a general appro- bation.” P. 121. “ Eucharist,” he says, “in the abstract, is applied to the Lord’s Supper ;” and says, “It is purely thanksgiving, prayer, and praise,—spiritual, mental, and rational;” in a word, one of George Foxe’s sacrifices; and yet, p. 165, he cites Origen for saying, “the Bread, called the Eucharist ;” and even in this page he says, “The Sacrifice of Christ is represented in Bread and Wine,” and yet denies it to bea “material Sacrifice, except the extremes of a contradiction can be reconciled.” I refer him to Chap. 11. Sect. 1. of the foregoing treatise. P. 181. I overlook his glozing addresses to himself, and to the very great man (whom I honour), as the very Pudenda of his book. | P. 182, &c. He tells us, “‘ Where the Bishop is, there is no such thing as party,” and refers to St. Ignatius for a proof of it. And I own this is true of a Bishop sound in the Faith and true to his character, of an Ignatian Bishop, of a Bishop that does not abandon his Altar; for the Martyr’s rule is, “ One Bishop, One Altar;” upon this condition I join issue with him. P. 158. He supposes that I am against the notion of a real Altar, because I call it a “ Communion-Table,” in the “ Propitiatory Oblation ;” as if, when I call a man a Minister _ or Clergyman, I deny him to be a real Priest. P. 160. To prove that the word ‘ Offer’ does not signify i See Advertisement before the Sermon. Oe ee “wT T= = CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Xc. 339 strictly ‘to sacrifice,’ he produces these words of St. Cyprian, Sacrificia pro tis semper offerimus, quoties Martyrum pas- siones celebramus* ; he might well be afraid to give them in English, for then even his female readers would bave seen that they prove the direct contrary. He asks his adversary, “how he would construe these words.” I answer for him, that they are capable of no other just rendition but this, “ We always offer Sacrifices for them, as often as we celebrate the passions of the Martyrs ;” by them meaning several great men, before mentioned by St. Cyprian. He introduces this citation with the following words, (speaking to his adversary), “Sir, you are a strange man at extorting; you will get out of me a great deal of what I intended to have reserved, if ever I do myself the honour to hold a personal conference with Dr. Hickes.” This it seems was some of that light, which he speaks of before, that was to have been “ drawn” (as he expresses it) from this flinty wit, when it came to a colli- sion. If this were one of the chief of those rarities, which he kept zz petto for a personal congress, Dr. Hickes would have obtained a very cheap victory ; for it is plain, he has an ad- versary that at every turn stabs himself with his own sword. He cites Rigaltius on these words of St. Cyprian, but to what purpose I cannot see; for Rigaltius does not say that of- ferre Sacrificium does not signify “to offer Sacrifice,” and yet nothing less than this can do the Doctor any service. Ibid. To prove that ‘to offer Sacrifice,’ in the language of the Christian Church, is not to be taken in a proper sense, “ What,” says he, “if it had been, as in the first and second Canons of Ancyra, Aiaxovovs θύσαντας, who yet, even ac- cording to you, had no authority (strictly speaking) to offer Sacrifice?” The words are dark; but this is plain, that he supposes by the ‘ Sacrificing Deacons’ is meant, ‘ Deacons celebrating the Eucharist.’ Now in the first of these Canons there is not one word of Deacons ; but it forbids Priests, who had sacrificed to idols in the persecution, to make the Chris- tian Oblation, or to preach; the first clause of the second Canon is this, διακόνους ὁμοίως θύσαντας; μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἀναπαλαίσαντας τὴν μὲν ἄλλην τιμὴν ἔχειν, πεπαῦσθαι δὲ αὐτοὺς πάσης τῆς ἱερατικῆς λειτουργίας τῆς τε τοῦ ἄρτον ἢ Kk Ep. 84. p. 47. Ed. Paris. 1726. 336 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE ποτήριον ἀναφέρειν, ἡ κηρύσσειν. “That, in like manner, Deacons, that have sacrificed but have afterwards entered the conflict, do cease from all attendance on the Priest and from distributing the Bread and Cup, but retain all other honour.” It is exceeding strange, that the Doctor could not distinguish between offering Christian and heathen sacrifice ; especially since Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, are so clear and unanimous in the point; and the first Canon explams the second. It is true, the word, which I here render ‘dis- tribute,’ may in strictness be turned ‘offer ;? and there may be an instance or two in Latin Antiquity, where the Bread or Cup are said to be offered to the people: but this way of speaking is so very rare, that nothing can be built upon it; and, since we are sure that, when it is so used, it imports no more than ‘giving’ or ‘ distributing,’ I have rendered it accordingly. Dr. Wise here produces no proof of it, but only his Avaxovovs θύσαντας, and a reference to the Latin Translation of the eighty Nicene Canons from the Arabic; which are of no authority, and the Translation so obscure, and the sense so uncertain, that nothing can safely be inferred from it. The words stand thus, Pudlice autem Sacrificium offerant [Monachi| in ejusmodi locis diebus festis—Quia, ubi est Altare, ibi oportet celebrare festos dies, convenire Diaconos, et rite offerre Sacrificium, et adimplere cere- monias, &c. which I should thus render, “ Let [the Monks] publicly offer the Sacrifice in such places on the festivals—for, where there is an Altar, there it is fit to celebrate the festivals, to convene the Deacons, to offer the Sacrifice with proper rites, and to consummate the ceremonies.” The Doctor says, “Deacons are said by the ancients, rite offerre Sacrificium ;” and in his margin refers to these Arabic Canons, in the second tome of Labbe’s Councils, p. 351, for the proof of it. I find nothing like it in p. 851; but in p. 352 are the words above produced. The forgers of the Arabic Nicene Canons are his ancients ; yet I do not find that any but Turrianus the Jesuit and some other bigots of the Church of Rome have ever said one word in their behalf: and if they did never so clearly -speak his sense, yet I should not think it any detriment to the cause I plead, to give the authors and translators of these Canons up to the Doctor, as adversaries, not to the Sacrifice, CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c. 337 but to the sole right, which Bishops and Priests have, to offer it. He runs to forgers of the seventh or eighth century to prove that Deacons may sacrifice; but neither do these forgers speak his sense. P. 164. He would have it thought, that his adversary does oftenest say, that “the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, on account of the previous Oblation of Bread and Wine.” Why should the Doctor trouble his own or his reader’s head with such airy useless doubts and speculations ? Whatever was brought to the temple in order to be offered on the altar was called a sacrifice, whether it were still under the hands of the lay- offerer, or actually presented to the priest. P. 165. “Not,” says he, “that the Gifts or Bread and Wine were this Eucharist ;” and, to prove this, he cites the words of Origen, as above, “the Bread, called Eucharist ;’ and he adds, ‘The Bread and Wine, barely as offered at the Holy Table, were not this Eucharist or thanksgiving for the particular benefits of the sufferings of Christ, but symbols of Eucharist or gratitude to God for all His blessings.” These are his words; what were his thoughts, we are left to guess. P. 168. As to his proof, that, if the Bread and Wine be a real Sacrifice, then Incense must be so too; I answer, that Incense is no Evangelical sacrifice: neither the Apostles, nor the primitive Church of the first three hundred and fifty or four hundred‘years did use it, as Mr. Dodwell has lately proved in his book on this subject. If it had been a Gospel- Sacrifice, that 15, if it had been a representation of some other thing, that might prevail with God to bestow His mercies on us, and as such presented to Him, it had undoubt- edly been a spiritual Sacrifice too ; and the Doctor himself tells us, that in St. James’s and St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy, it was called a “ spiritual odour ;” and this is a proof, that, not only im the very primitive but in the middle ages, it was not thought an inconsistence to call a material thing ‘a spiritual sacrifice. And though some later Liturgies do direct the Priest vocally to offer up the Incense; yet, by the second Apostolical Canon, where Incense is first mentioned, the Bishop or Priest is charged to offer Bread and Wine only in the Sacrifice ; the Oil and Incense are permitted to be placed on the Altar, as mere Jay-oblations ; and even this sentence JOHNSON. Z 338 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE in the Apostolical Canons seems to be an interpolation of later ages. P. 169. The Doctor would have it, that by “ the Gift brought to God,” in the Clementine Liturgy’, is meant Christ Himself ; forgetting, that Prayer is there made, “ that it may be received up to the Heavenly Altar :” and yet perhaps he had some sus- picions of his mistake, for he adds, “ but rather the symbol ;” and of this he justly understands “the Pure Gift” in the fifth Nicene Canon. And I should have thought, that he under- stood some words of St. Chrysostom there cited in the same sense, as he ought to do, and so will every one else that reads his words before the citation; but, having imperfectly repeated St. Chrysostom’s words, he shuffles in some words of his own to persuade his reader that Chrysostom meant “a gift from Christ to His disciples” and not to God. He cites St. Jerome, calling the Eucharist a ‘ pledge,’ which our Saviour gave to His disciples upon His departure from them to remind them of His love; and he might have cited Gau- dentius™, to the same purpose: nor is this at all inconsistent with the notion of a Sacrifice ; the Passover was both a sa- crifice and a pledge, and was intended by God to preserve the memory of His love to them always fresh upon their minds. P. 172. Here our Doctor maims a citation from Tertullian, which I will therefore give my reader more fully. Ht in omni loco Sacrificium Nomini Meo offertur (Mal. i. 11) δέ Sacrifictum mundum, glorie scilicet relatio, et benedictio, et laus, et hymni. Que omnia cum in te deprehendantur, et sig- naculum frontium, et Ecclesiarum Sacramenta, et munditie Sacrificiorum, debes jam erumpere, uti dicas, Spiritum Crea- toris Tuo Christo prophetasse*. Dr. W. supposes, that he calls the ‘giving glory, &c., “the purity of the Sacrifices ;” whereas, in truth, he makes ‘the purity of the Sacrifices’ a thing clearly distinct from ‘giving glory,’ ‘praise,’ &c., and if ‘the purity of the Sacrifices’ are explanatory words, they must be supposed to relate to what goes just before, viz., ‘the Sacraments of the Churches ;’ for it is not unusual with the ancients to call the Bread and Wine ‘Sacraments’ or 1d. p. 54, Ap. mc, paolr Ap. n [ Adv. Marcionem, lib, iii. p. 410.] Pee ee ee 7 CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Kc. 339 ‘ Mysteries’ in the plural number, as has been once and again observed in the foregoing treatise. P. 173. If there must be a Sacrifice, the Doctor is for con- tinuing that of the Passover; and so will we, when he has produced one good authority for it from Scripture and pure antiquity. P. 175. He makes the great Athanasius call the heathen sacrifices ‘real,’ in opposition to that of the Eucharist. Risum teneatis? But the work here cited is not entirely St. Atha- nasius’s; nor is there one tittle of Sacrificing in the words cited by him. But his master-piece of critique is, that μεμνημένοι προ- σφέρομεν in all the ancient Liturgies is to be rendered by ‘remembering we ofier:’ he ought in justice to have added ‘this Bread and this Cup;’ for the Clementine Liturgy has these words immediately following the word ‘offer,’ and all the other Liturgies have words denoting the same things; and how the bare act of reminiscence can offer Bread and Wine will be a difficulty too hard for the Doctor to solve. Ρ. 176. He has a criticism like this upon the words of St. Justin Martyr°; he would have ποιεῖν be rendered con- jicere, ‘to make bread and wine,’ or what else you please, so it may not signify ‘to offer ;’ and, to confute this Father, he thus argues, “ But however I say that, not the Bread and Wine appointed for the said purpose, but the sacrifice of prayer, praise, &c., is the true Christian Eucharist or Sacri- fice ;””? who can resist such reason, such authority ? P. 176. As to his citation from Eusebius? he mis-trans- lates it thus, “ We offer Sacrifice and Incense—while we celebrate,—and offer the Eucharist, &c.” The true rendi- tion is, “ We both sacrifice and offer Incense; the one we do, while we celebrate—and offer the Eucharist or Sacrifice of thanksgiving for [our] salvation by hymns, &c., the other we do, when we offer ourselves, &c.;” for, by coniounding the ‘Pure Offering’ in Malachi with the ‘Incense,’ he would make the former as well as latter seem a mere mental action. All that here follows has been effectually answered in this book. P. 177. It is strange, that the Doctor will not allow, that ἀναιμάκτους θυσίας can signify anything but prayer and ° b. p. 3. Ap. P g. p. 16. Ap. 2 340 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE praise in Chrysostom and Cicumenius, when he himself ac- knowledges, p. 276, that in the citation from Plutarch, to which I had directed him in the Propitiatory Oblation, an unbloody sacrifice is a sacrifice of bread and wine, and he has not produced a single proof that it ever has any other meaning. The unbloody Sacrifices of Christians are offered by our lips, as Gicumenius in this citation declares; because the Oblation is made by prayer, not by blood and fire. P. 178. This citation from Justin Martyr is particularly considered, Chap. II. Sect. 2. P. 179. Here begins a paragraph, which is continued without interruption to p. 293, which is the longest that 1 think I ever observed; but (which makes the matter worse,) this paragraph is only part of an interlocution, which the Doctor very naturally makes in his own person in a dia- logue betwixt himself and his adversary; the whole inter- locution contains 154 pages (if I number rightly,) viz., from Ῥ. 160 to p. 814. Many a good book is less in bulk, and few ill ones contain more numerous mistakes. However he was resolved to outdo his adversary in multiplicity of words, for to all this the poor apologist is permitted to answer but in five lines and a half; and yet I cannot but think that the Doctor has been so just as to let him say what is a full answer to all this long interlocution, in little more than a line and a half of those words which the Doctor put in his mouth. I have more regard to the Doctor than to repeat them, for they will be thought a reflection from my pen; but the Doctor took a just liberty in making bold with himself. The reader may have them for looking in p- 314, and they are as well worth his perusal as any in the whole book ; they stand very legible in the very front of the apologist’s reply. P. 180. He proves very fully, that prayers and praises were offered in the Eucharist, which I suppose nobody ever denied; but then he mentions Cyril of Jerusalem, as speaking of “a prayer, while the holy and tremendous Sacrifice lay in open view ;? which, by the bye,” says the Doctor, “ will you construe literally? Here we have a rational Sacrifice...” Then he proceeds to Origen’s words‘; and to prove that Origen 4 b..p. 40. Ap; CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, XC. 941 meant not a proper Sacrifice, he says, “ It is not offered by a Priest ;” to prove, that it is not offered by a Priest, he cites some words from Bishop Jewell, so far from his purpose, that the Bishop declares, ‘This I mean not of ministration of Sacraments ;” nor is there one word of Origen mentioned in that place by the author, whom he cites page 181. The reader can scarcely believe this credible, unless he please to convince himself by ocular inspection. P. 182. He produces Tertullian in his Apologetic, c. 30, speaking of “‘ offering prayer to God ;” and, because he could not but be conscious that this was nothing to his purpose, he adds, “and no material thing ; which are words of the Doctor’s own invention. P. 183. Here he would prove that St. Augustine knew of no human sacrifice, because he says, “If you ask for the Priest (High-Priest he means) He is above the heavens.” This High-Priest was in heaven during the Levitical cco- nomy ; were there, therefore, no priests in the temple ? P. 184. The Doctor observes that, though the adduction of the Gifts to the Holy Table did not make them a perfect sacrifice, yet a more particular benediction of them might. He grants such a benediction was used in some of the ancient Liturgies, and produces the words of one of them, viz. “ Bless the Prothesis, accept the Sacrifice ;’ he does not here say, from what Liturgy he has these words; but p. 22. he cites them as from St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy, published by Erasmus, which is a book I never saw: but, without seeing it, I may dare say that these words are part of the Prothesis, that is, the Service used at the buffet or side-Altar, before. the adduction of the elements to the Altar, properly so called ; for I apprehend the elements are never called the Prothesis, after they are taken from the side-Altar, in those Liturgies which have a Prothesis; and therefore these words must, I suppose, be as distant from the Benediction or Consecration, as the beginning of the Office is from the most solemn part of the consecrative Prayer, following, in all Liturgies, the commemorative Oblation. But, because the Doctor found the words ‘bless’ and ‘sacrifice’ in the Prayer, he thought it necessary that his reader should take it for a part of the more solemn Office; whereas, though the elements are called 942, ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE ‘ Prothesis’ and ‘the Sacrifice,’ yet the blessing of them is not to be understood, as if they expected it to be performed during the time they were on the side-Altar ; but, afterwards, by rehearsing the Words of Institution, by the commemora- tive Oblation, and Prayers for the descent of the Spirit. This proleptical way of expression is very usual in all religious Forms. Thus, in the first Prayer of our Baptismal Office, we pray, that the person to be baptized may be “washed with the Holy Ghost,” not at the time when these words are pronounced, but when the act of Baptization is afterward performed: and he may see, that the acceptance and sancti- fication of the Sacrifice is prayed for in the introductory part of the several later Liturgies, in the sense that I now speak of; not that it was thought, that it was actually to be done in the very instant that this first petition was put up. What he means by all this, and on what grounds he supposes that Mr. Mede distinguishes between the Benediction and Con- secration, he does not inform us, nor am I at leisure to guess. P. 186. He tells us, “ The blessing or agnizing God in His creatures falls in together with the Consecration, as set down in the excellent Form now used in our Church.” I wish, with all my heart, he could shew me such a Form of agnizing God in His creatures in our Liturgy; and, whereas he talks of this agnition falling in with the Consecration in other Liturgies, it gives me reason to question, whether he ever did attentively peruse any of them; for, it is certain, the agnition always preceded the Consecration. St. Basil’s Liturgy in the Words of Institution says, indeed, that “ Christ did exhibit Bread to His Father ;’ but this does not ne- cessarily prove, that the Priest and people, at the repetition of these words, did themselves formally agnize God’s do- minion; and not only the Liturgies but Justin Martyr’s description of the celebration of the Eucharist plainly shews, that this agnition was made in words very ample and in the very entrance of the holy action. It commonly ended with the Trisagium ; and so was not only before the Consecration strictly so called, but even the Commemorative Oblation and the Words of Institution. Ibid. He tells us, it was “the Benediction [ that | distinguished CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, XC. 343 the Bread and Wine from other Altar-offerings :” by which he seems to suppose it necessary, that other Oblations should be made on the Altar, beside those of Bread and Wine; and in this lies his mistake. If by ‘ Benediction’ he means the whole process of agnizing God in His creatures, the Tris- agium, Words of Institution, Commemorative Oblation, and Prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit, he says the truth ; but then, Benediction signifies the whole Ante-Communion Service, I mean, all that went before the distribution. The 37th Canon of Carthage permits honey and milk to be offered on the Altar once a year; and the Apostolical Canon allows grapes and ears of corn to be offered in their proper season, that is, Autumn; but that either the honey, milk, grapes, or corn, were vocally to be offered by the Priest, together with the Bread and Wine, is only a supposition of the Doctor and some others. There is no reason to believe, that any materials, except the Bread and Wine, were any otherwise offered than by being solemnly presented on the Altar, and that but once a year. What benediction they had, was performed apart from that of the Bread and Wine. “The secondary Benediction” is a mere figment, with which the Doctor endeavours to puzzle the cause, p. 187. There was but one Benediction in the primitive times; the Prothesis and other additions were made in after-ages. And, whereas he there supposes that Irenzus by ‘ first-fruits,’ meant all ma- terial oblations, he surely forgets the words of Irencus’; “ Admonishing His disciples to offer the first-fruits of His creatures, He took Bread, and said,‘ This is My Body,’ &c.” The very words of the African Canon‘, here cited by him, would plainly teach him the truth; for in the Greek Trans- lation (which he cites, as preferring it before the Latin ori- ginal) a charge is given, that nothing be offered in the Sacra- ment πλέον τοῦ Σ᾽ ώματος καὶ “Αιματος Χριστοῦ, “ more than the Body and Blood of Christ ; and the Latin original means the same thing by those words, “ nothing but what Christ hath commanded.” P. 186. He tells us that, in Chrysostom’s Liturgy, the word ‘consecrate’ is paraphrased by ‘offering these gifts.’ I know the Doctor’s glosses too well to lay any stress upon * c. p. 4. Ap. 1. 17. * African Code, Can. 37. 344 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE them. I own, that Oblation was one part of Consecration ; but I am far from believing, that to ‘ consecrate’ and ‘ offer the gifts,’ are parallel expressions ; and therefore I wish he had told us, in what word the Liturgy expresses the English ‘consecrate,’ or had given us the entire sentence. The very phrase, here cited by the Doctor, is used in St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy (in the second vol. of Biblioth. Patrum, p. 74,) in its proper sense; and that the reader may be convinced of it, I here give the whole period faithfully translated: “ Enable me,” says the Priest, “ by the power of the Holy Spirit, to stand at this Holy Table, and perform the hierurgy of Thy Holy and undefiled Body and of Thy Precious Blood. For to Thee I pray, bowing down my neck; and, I beseech Thee, turn not Thy Face away from me, nor reject me from among Thy servants, but grant that these Gifts may be offered (Gr. προσενεχθῆναι τὰ δῶρα ταῦτα) to Thee, by me, a sinner, and Thy unworthy servant; for Thou art the Offerer and the Offered.” Now if these should be the very words that the Doctor had in his eye, which is not improbable, I can only say, the Doctor has given us a new specimen of his judg- ment and impartiality. P. 188. He supposes his adversary will say, that “the Eu- charist is not that Sacrifice (of Christ), but one that repre- sents it; to which,” says he, “1 oppose the voice of the Church in the emphatical words of Eulogius; ‘The tremen- dous Sacrament of the Body of Christ, which we offer, is not an Oblation of different or distinct Sacrifices, or indeed any more than a Commemoration of that once offered.” It is certain, these words are an emphatical proof of what he supposes his adversaries would say, viz., that the Eucharist is not the personal Sacrifice of Christ, but one that represents it. It is not an offering of various sacrifices: for the Eucharist, offered in Britain and the Indies, is the same, as being sanc- tified by the same Spirit, as being One and the same mys- terious Body of Christ, in power though not in substance ; and in this sense it is the same, that was offered by Christ in the first Institution. And St. Augustine means the same by the Similitudo Ejus Sacrificii, that Eulogius does by ἀνάμ- vycis. Noman did ever more industriously confute his own cause ; but in charity I believe he does it unwittingly. CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Wc. 940 P. 191. As before he called the supposed prayers of the people over their own Oblations, a ‘ saying of Grace ;’ so he here calls the most solemn and most excellent Form of Conse- cration now extant in the whole world, by the same name ; by which he has filled up the measure of his profaneness, and in this respect deserves to be treated no longer as a Clergyman, but as one that makes no difference between holy and profane, that cannot “discern the Lord’s Body,” or make a difference between the Lord’s Table and his own. He asks, “ What this blessing amounts to more than saying Grace?” I answer, as much as a sacrifice differs from common food; the words are‘', “ We beseech Thee to look propitiously on these Gifts lyimg before Thee;” for I hope that he does not think that they are Gifts, as given by God to men, but as having been solemnly offered by men to God in thé words immediately foregoing. I answer further, that they amount to more than a common Grace, especially in what follows; “And be Thou well pleased with them for the honour of Thy Christ; and send down Thy Holy Spirit on this Sacrifice,—and make this Bread the Body of Thy Christ, this Cup the Blood of Thy Christ, that they who partake of it may be confirmed in godliness, obtain remission of sins, be delivered from the deceit of the devil, be filled with the Holy Spirit, may be worthy of Thy Christ, may obtain everlasting life.” He who, when he had these words before him, could ask what they amounted to more than a common Grace, must be a man, not only insensible of the power of words, but very much disposed to make the Sacrament a common meal. He observes that “The for- mality of blessing was full as solemn (John vi. 11, and in the parallel texts) at our Saviour’s multiplying the loaves, as in the Institution of the Supper.” True, and therefore I sup- pose it has a signification in both places, importing a spiri- tual, Divine, przeternatural blessing imparted to the Bread. The Benediction communicated to the loaves and fishes was miraculous; and though the Benediction on the Eucharisti- cal elements be not miraculous, yet it is Divine and spiri- tual and beyond the power of nature. And he therefore, who uses such language, deserves a severer reprimand than I am able to give him. t See c. p. 53, 54, Ap. 1. 34, 35, 346 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE P. 191. Here he repeats his old error, which he is so ex- ceedingly fond of, in citing the interpolation of Ignatius, and confounding the Agape with the Eucharist. P. 195. Here he begins to prove, that Christ did not sacri- fice in the Institution. And thus he argues: “ If Christ did offer Sacrifice, it was either by a formal offering of Bread and Wine to God, or His blessing or consecration of them ; but that neither of the latter was a proper sacrificial rite, we have just now seen. And as touching the former, after all your stir about it, no less a man than Ignatius will vouch against this, when contra-distinguishing οὔτε προσφέρειν to οὔτε θυσίαν προσκομίζειν ; or though I should grant that a formal offering may pass in itself for a true sacrificial rite, yet would I deny that our Lord, so far as I can find, did at all use it.” Never were lines more big and stuffed with error ; for (to pass by the interpolation of St. Ignatius, which he has been observed to mention four or five times before, and always in opposition to his own cause) he denies, or would seem to deny, that either Offering or Consecrating are sacrificial rites. He would have done well to tell us, what are sacrificial rites ; for if these are not, I must declare I cannot guess what are. Nay, if he can shew us any other rite essential to Sacrifice, except that of making the Oblation by a Priest duly com- missioned, I will acknowledge myself in a great error. I know what the Doctor would be at; he would, with Dr. Hancock, make the ‘ sprinkling of the blood, and the ‘ burn- ing part or the whole in fire’ to be the sacrificial rites; but he was aware, that our Great High-Priest did neither of these in the Grand Sacrifice. And, further, it has been observed, that these rites were formerly the two actions, by which the Oblation was made; and that no other rites, but those whereby the Oblation was made, were ever thought essential. And therefore I must reckon it another error in the Doctor, that he supposes any other necessary. What he means by saying, that Pseud-Ignatius denies Offering to be a sacrificial rite, I cannot divine. He speaks of ‘offering’ or ‘presenting a sacrifice ;? by the first, I conceive, he means the Priestly Oblation; by the second, the layman’s offering it to the Priest: but let the first be the layman’s part in making his offering to the Priest, the second the Priest’s part in pre- senting it to God; I cannot discern on either supposition, CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c. 347 how he can be conceived to deny that Offering is a sacrificial rite. I should rather think, that he speaks of these two actions (if one be not exegetical of the other) to be the only actions necessary to Sacrifice ; and, indeed; it must be owned, that the layman is as much obliged to bring an oblation, as the Priest to offer it. I believe my reader will not wonder that the man, who doubts whether Offering be a sacrificial rite and cannot see a proper Sacrifice in these words of Pseud- Ignatius, which he seems to hug as his darling authority, should deny and oppose the doctrine of the Sacrifice or any other doctrine whatsoever. I shall not repeat what I have formerly said in the foregoing treatise concerning our Saviour’s offering Himself in the Eucharist. The reader will find all that the Doctor here says, obviated, Chap. 11. sect. 1. P. 202. After this account which I have given of the Doctor’s arguings, I am not at all concerned at the repre- sentation he here makes of the most excellent Bishop Bull’s writings, or my own; the reader will take our meaning from our own words, and not from Dr. W.’s. Ρ. 206. “If,” says the Doctor, “you will needs have a Sacrifice, why do ye stand aloof from the Papists?’ Why? because they are for a Sacrifice that implies Transubstantia- tion, for such a Sacrifice as the Doctor every now and then pleads for in opposition to a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine; and because they, together with their false notion of a Sacri- fice, hold many other very gross errors. And, on the other side, we think ourselves obliged freely to declare our opin- ions in this point, that we may make it appear we are not schismatics from the Church of the very purest ages, which most certainly looked upon it as a real Sacrifice and cele- brated it as such. And, as for the dirt, which some would throw upon us, as if we were Papists or popishly affected ; we look upon this, as the last refuge of unconscionable ad- versaries ; for I am bold to say that Presbyterians do with as good reason call our Bishops ‘ Popes’ and our Liturgy ‘the Mass-book,’ and the Quakers and others have as good grounds for calling Priests and Sacraments ‘ rags of Popery,’ as Dr. W. has to insinuate that the doctrine of the Sacrifice has any tendency that way; I mean, the doctrine of the Sacrifice, as 348 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE held by the primitive Church, and asserted by Mr. Mede, Bishop Taylor, Bishop Bull, Dr. Grabe, and Dr. Hickes. P. 212. Here the Doctor justly observes, that the Order of Melchisedec was a Sacrificing Order; and yet, p. 215, he denies that he offered bread and wine; he ought to have informed us what it was he offered. But I observe the Doctor’s learning and knowledge is all negative; he has courage enough to deny any proposition that stands in his way; but his talent does not lie in building up, but wholly in pulling down. P. 215, 216. He allows Melchisedec’s Bread and Wine to be prefigurations of the Eucharistic symbols; and then adds, “Thus is St. Cyprian to be understood ;” and recites that most illustrious testimony of this Father, which my reader may see in the Appendix", for Christ’s offermg His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. He has not one word to take off so great an authority, as I with reason esteem that to be. P. 217. He deals much in the same manner with another irresistible evidence, from the same Epistle of this Blessed Martyr*. He had been citing the Archbishop of Spalato, for calling the Eucharist the ‘ Sacrifice of Memory,’ as he ex- presses it; and then goes on, “ And this I take to be St. Cyprian’s meaning, however speaking a little seemingly to the contrary ;” and then produces his words. He proceeds to descant upon them and I know not what else, until he comes to the end of page 221. What he says is very harmless ; but I cannot but observe, how he is forced at last to betake himself to the old loop-hole, that “ St.Cyprian does not mean it literally.” Now what is that [which] he does not mean literally, that Jesus Christ offered Himself? I suppose he will not say this, but, that He offered Himself in the Eucharist. And if Dr. W. mean, that the Eucharistical Body was not His natural Body, we own it ; but it is beyond doubt, that St. Cyprian did expressly say that Christ offered Himself in the Eucharist ; nor will the Doctor question, whether this venerable writer thought and believed what he said. Does he not literally say that “The Priest, who does what Christ did, offers a full and true Sacrifice?” And why must we not understand um. 4. pp. 13, 14. Ap. =m. 0. 0111. Ae a Ψ Α,.-- | feet te vibe ih: ones CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c. 349 him literally in the rest of the paragraph ? Why, because of the words which immediately follow, Ceterum omnis religio- nis et veritatis disciplina subvertitur, nisi id quod spirituali- ter mandatur, et fideliter reservetur. The Doctor leaves out mandatur in the Latin, but gives it a double rendition in the English, viz., ‘commanded’ and ‘meant.’ And it is certain, all our Saviour’s commands are spiritual; that is, all our actions must be attended with a sense of our duty, and our minds must go along with us in the outward performance. That Christ’s Eucharistical Body is a spiritual Body and spiritually offered, is very certain ; but it is evident that Dr. W., according to his hypothesis, cannot allow that it is offered in any sense; and therefore, when he says that the Father is not to be understood literally, he must mean, that St. Cyprian did not intend to say that Christ’s Body and Blood is commanded to be offered at all, which is directly contrary to his own words. Yet, sure, the Doctor does not think, that the word ‘ spiritually’ renders the Bread, Wine, and Water, which St. Cyprian declares ought to be offered in the Eucharist perfectly immaterial things, or makes them vanish into nothing; but, according to his usual method of confuting himself, to take off the force of the words ‘a full and true Sacrifice,’ he gives us the excellent explanation of Mr. Perkins, viz., “ It is called a full and true Sacrifice, not that Christ is hypostatically offered, but true, as tothe verity of the representation, and the verity of the effect of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which we attain in the Communion :” thus does the Doctor argue against us. P. 224. It is no great matter what Grotius says of the Passover, since the Scripture calls it a ‘sacrifice’ over and again. Dr. W. would persuade us that Dr. Spencer was of the same opinion with Grotius, but he was wiser than to mention page or chapter; and I have shewed that he ex- pressly asserts it to be a most eminent sacrifice, Chap. I. Sect. 5. of the foregoing treatise. P. 227. He cites St. Cyprian for sayingy, “ In the Sacri- fice, which Christ Himself offered, Christ only is to be fol- lowed ;” and confutes him by saying, “ He meant the Insti- tution of the Supper, which I have already shewed not to be ym. 9. p. 14, 15. Ap. 1 Pet. ii. 5. 350 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE a real Sacrifice.” This is the Doctor’s short way with the Fathers. P. 228. Here you have his shrewd argument against us, viz., that the Eucharist is never called a Sacrifice in the New Testament. Now this is more than the Doctor knows; the “spi- ritual Sacrifices” were very probably the Bread and Wine, to mention at present no other text. We are very sure that the symbols are Christ’s “ Body given for” us, Christ’s “ Blood shed for” us; and if Christ’s Body given for us be not a Sacri- fice, I know not what deserves that name. But my reader will observe, that this is the very argument used by Quakers and other enthusiasts against the word ‘Sacrament,’ that the Eucharist is never so called in Scripture. Nay, ‘ Sacra- ment’ is not a Scriptural word, and therefore their objection is more plausible than the Doctor’s. P. 229. He introduces Bellarmine and other writers of the Church of Rome, saying, that strictly Sacrificial terms were not applied to the Holy Eucharist by the first preachers. The same authors will tell you that Infant-Baptism and the Consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons cannot be proved from Holy Scripture. And the reason they have to say this is, to dispose such Protestants, as have a zeal for these doctrines, to join in with them in resolving these doc- trines into the authority of the Church. Can the Doctor be taken with such baits ? P. 236. To depress the authority of the most primitive Fathers, and who are only not inspired writers, he reflects on St. Clement’s mention of the Phoenix, and St. Barnabas’s allusion to the Hyena. And, when his hand was in, he might too have entered his exceptions against David’s similitude of “the deaf adder, which stoppeth her ears, and refuseth to hear the voice of the charmer.” The common belief of the people to whom_we speak, is a sufficient foundation for a similitude, a moral reflection, or even an argument ad homi- nes. But what a way of arguing is this? St. Clement was not a philosopher; therefore he was no good Divine? St. Clement had never travelled into the countries, where the Phoenix was reported to reside, and so had no opportunity of inquiring into the matter of fact ; therefore he could not understand Christianity, though preached to him by the CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &c. 351 Apostles ; and is not to be believed in relation to the Chris- tian Sacrifice, though he had seen it offered by the Apostles, and it was one chief part of his function, to offer it daily himself. ; P. 245. Here is a very extraordinary passage; “I will grant that, from the end of the second century, the Eucha- ristic Bread and Wine looked something like a Sacrifice ; yet, when it came to be thought really one by the people, the Fathers of the Church, very probably I say, guarded against it, and spoke more plainly than before of the Bread and Wine as made the Body and Blood of Christ by Consecration ; but, in process of time, hinc ille lachryme!”’—he means Trans- substantiation. He will not allow that the Eucharist looked like a Sacrifice, till toward the end of the second century ; he might as well have said the sixth or the tenth, especially since he believed the passage in the interpolated Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnzans to be genuine; for this Martyr lived in the first century, and wrote in the beginning of the second: and he owns this to be meant of the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ, p. 32. But how did the Fathers guard against this Sacrifice of Bread and Wine? Why, by speaking more plainly of the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood. Strange men of Fathers! to guard against a lesser error, by introducing a greater! The fundamental error of the Doctor is this, that he distinguishes between the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine and the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood. The ancient Fathers sufficiently guarded against this error, as I have shewed in the preceding work. P, 246. He makes the Right Reverend Bishop Fell’s ‘ Meal- oblation’ and his ‘libamen of Bread and Wine’ to be the ‘praise,’ &c. offered in the Communion; and his reason is, because the Bishop calls it ‘an Eucharistic Sacrifice.’ This is very argute ; but he ought to have observed, that the Bishop himself makes ‘the Prayer,’ which includes the praise, to be meant by the ‘ Incense,’ Mal. i. 10, 11. and not by the Mincha. The words of Bishop Fell are these ; Apud Christianos superest rationale et incruentum Sacrificium, quod Malachie verbis Min- cha puro, hoc est, Oblatione farrea cum suo libamine, Pane scili- cet et Vino, vero illo semperque duraturo Sacrificio Eucharistico, et precum piarum thymiamate constat. He deals in the same manner with the words of Bishop Montague in the next page. 352 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE P, 248. He introduces Justin Martyr’, saying, “God now receives everywhere from Christians those Sacrifices, which He appointed to be made, that is, in the Eucharist and Blessing of the Bread and Wine.” He renders the word Ev- χαριστία, ‘ Kucharist and Blessing,’ that he may with greater grace add, “which acts about them, and not the Bread and Wine, God testifies Himself to be pleased with.” But my reader cannot be ignorant of what has been more than once observed, that Justin Martyr and Origen, &c., call the Bread and Wine, the Eucharist. I have spoken elsewhere at large of this passage or rather this dismembered clause; for he cites another part of this paragraph, p. 178, to the very same purpose that he does this. P. 250. I heartily thank the Doctor for transcribing from Dr. Nicholls the long passage, relating to the Eucharist, and shewing the obligation that Priests are under to place the Bread and Wine on the Holy Table with their own hands, by virtue of that Rubric, which I have elsewhere mentioned ; and I do most earnestly recommend it to the consideration of my Reverend Brethren. P. 251. The Doctor seems to commend our English Trans- lators of the New Testament, for not turning the Greek Πρεσβύτερος by the English ‘ Priest.’ In this I cannot join with him, especially since the word ‘ Priest’ is retained in the Liturgy. I think by the same rule, whereby they turned Πρεσβύτερος, ‘Elder, they should have turned ᾿Επίσκοπος, ‘Overseer.’ I remember our Doctor, at one place, corrects Archbishop Cranmer for using the word ‘Priest,’ by adding in a parenthesis (‘Presbyter’ he means,) it is Ὁ. 217. I sup- pose he would alter the Litany and Ordination Service in the same manner, if they were not more incorrigible than an Archbishop, that has been dead these 150 years. P. 264, 265. The Doctor is here very profuse of his own or other men’s wit, such as it is, upon Dr. Hickes and his “satellites.” The author of the Propitiatory Oblation has _ just reason to think that this was meant to him among others, and he thanks him for it; for he does not question, but that it will always be more reputable, in the judgment of all the valuable part of mankind, for a Priest to second any oC, Pre, Lp. CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 353 great man in defence of Divine Truth, than to make one in forming a guard to attend a lay patriot in making his amdv- tus to beg for votes in shops and stalls in opposition to the loyal and peaceable majority of his own brethren. And the worst of Dr. Hickes’s enemies must allow him to be a man truly great, so far as learning and piety and constancy of mind can give a man right to that title. P. 266. Here he makes merry with that observation of Dr. Hickes and others, that ποιεῖν signifies ‘ to offer.” He thinks he has answered all the proofs brought for this signification of the word by the most learned writer last mentioned, by saying, “‘that ποιεῖν and facere are joined with a noun con- fessedly signifying ‘ Sacrifice,’”’ in all the instances produced by Dr. Hickes, (see p. 268, of Dr. W.’s book). He should have said a noun capable of a Sacrificial signification; for neither ‘ ox’ nor ‘sheep’ nor any such like words do of them- selves betoken ‘ Sacrifice,’ any more than they do ‘ ploughing’ or ‘grazing’ or any other action, in which they are capable of being agents or patients. And, certainly, the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ are as capable of being offered as any of those creatures, which are joined with the word ποιεῖν in that ample collection of authorities, which the reader may see in the ‘ Christian Priesthood.’ What Dr. W. can mean, when he allows that facere vitulum may signify ‘to sacrifice a calf,’ but ποιεῖν τοῦτο cannot signify ‘to offer this’ body or blood, I cannot conceive, except out of his abun- dant skill in the Greek tongue he would have τοῦτο put in the ablative case. And, whereas he calls this proof of Dr. Hickes’s and of the author of the ‘ Propitiatory Oblation’ argumentum vitulinum, it is left to the reader to judge, whether their argument or his answer have most of the calf in it. P. 268. The ‘Christian Priesthood’ cites Tertullian for saying, Nemo convulsus animum in fratrem suum munus apud Altare perficiet, nisi prius reconciliando fratri reversus ad patientiam fuerit. To this Dr. Hickes adds this observa- tion, that “ munus perficere is a Sacrificial expression.” Dr. W. here tells Dr. Hickes, that “he seems to have forgot- ten himself, in that he cites the compound perficere as coupled with a noun which does not necessarily signify JOHNSON. Aa 654. ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE ‘Sacrifice, namely manus; the which, as joined with perfi- cere, 1 should rather think equivalent with odire munus seu officium, ‘to do or execute an office.’”,—Here is an instance of our Doctor’s skill in the Latin. Tertullian evidently refers to Matt. v. 23. And, according to this conceit of Dr. W.’s, that verse should thus be rendered, “If thou bring thine office to the Altar, and there rememberest, &c. Leave thine office before the Altar, go, be reconciled to thy brother, then come, and offer thine office.” This is too crude to be put upon Tertullian, nor will any one own it, not the Doctor himself, though it be of his own making. P. 269. He represents. Dr. Hickes as saying, that λαβεῖν does always import Sacrificing, and that “he who taketh sacrificeth.” I consulted the ‘Christian Priesthood’ at p. 114, to which Dr. W. refers his reader. There the Doctor is upon quite another subject ; but in p. 24 of the Account of the third Edition, and prefixed to the book, he speaks particularly of this matter: but there are no words like those which Dr. W. imputes to him; he only says that “λαβεῖν will fairly bear this sense.” See how he misreports his adver- sary’s sayings; and then, to hide his fraud, directs you to a wrong place of his book! yet this is the man that would have himself thought to be a lover of truth. P. 279. Here he shews us again his fundamental mistake in relation to the Eucharist. He cites St. Augustine or Ful- gentius, De Fide ad Petrum, for saying, ‘‘'The Catholic Church continually offers throughout the world a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in faith and charity.” This he supposes a testi- mony for us; but he cites the same writer De Baptismo, for saying, “ Your faith is to be thus instructed, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, the Wine the Blood.” And this he supposes favourable to the Popish notion; and he talks of “carrying away the prize from both us and the Papists ;” as if the Doctor had forgot what he has elsewhere said, that the Papists allow no Bread in their Sacrifice, and that to say “the Bread is the Body of Christ” is, with them, rank heresy. This is equally inconsistent with the notions of the Papists and Dr. W., and only fits the primitive Apostolical Sacrifice for which I pled ΟΡ, 283. He cites St. Augustine for mentioning the two | : CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, XC. 355 ways of Sacrificing, that of Aaron, and that of Melchisedec ; and as saying in another place’, “ The former is taken away, and the other diffused throughout the world:” and though he seems first to question, whether the Father do not mean Transubstantiation, because he calls it the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood; yet, without any further arguing, in the next sentence he takes courage, and calls him “ the true patron of the Sacramentarians, as you” (speaking to his ad- versary) “and the Papists call us.” He refers to no place in the writings of Dr. Hickes or of any one else, where he or his friends are so called ; and therefore, if it be a calumny, it is one of his own coining: but it is strange he should ac- quiesce and patiently bear such an imputation ; for none, who believe the doctrine of the Church of England, can be styled ‘ Sacramentarians.’ (&colampadius and Zuinglius, with their adherents, were the men, who were of old justly branded with this infamous character; and whether the modern Calvinists do not favour this opinion, I have reason to doubt. It is probable, if the writers on our side had charged their adversaries with this error, we should have heard them make loud outcries against us on this head; but, since the Doctor impleads himself, he ought to have made his compurgation. For, if he be a Sacramentarian, he cannot believe that “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” But the Doctor does not content himself with moderate errors; for, in discoursing of the priesthood of - Melchisedec, he asserts that Christ “executed it on the Cross only.” It will be impossible to prove, that He did at all execute it on the Cross; because it cannot be proved, that the Melchisedec in Genesis did offer “ bloody sacrifice.” It is certain, St. Augustine whom he here cites is to be understood of the Eucharistical Sacrifice only, as may be seen in the Appendix”; and there is no more direct proof against the Fathers’ belief of Transubstantiation than that they perpetually say, that in the Eucharist we offer what Melchisedec did, viz., Bread and Wine; and this proof we can urge against the Papists with a much better face than they who would persuade men, that the Fathers were mis- * q. p. 33. Ap. ® D. p. 35. Ap. Aaz 356 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE taken in this point, and that Melchisedec did not sacrifice Bread and Wine. P. 284, 285. In these pages we have a lepid conceit of the Doctor’s, that the ancients called the Eucharist a ‘Sacri- fice,’ for the same reason that the Pope is styled ‘his Holiness,’ and two neighbouring Kings are styled ‘most Christian’ and ‘most Catholic, or that himself is called ‘Wise.’ I suppose he means an antiphrasis, and that therefore every proof we produce for the Sacrifice from antiquity is a direct argu- ment against it; and it 1s upon this lay only, that he and his friends are like to overpower us. P. 289. Dr. W. charges Dr. Hickes with saying, that the Bread and Wine, until consecrated, can at the most be pro-~ perly called no more than Dona. Dr. Hickes’s words, to which we are here referred, are as follows; “ The Bread and Wine were the matter, which the people offered, and the Bishop received and solemnly offered up to God by Consecra- tion for the Heavenly banquet of the Lord’s Supper; and as they were in the literal sense a proper material offermg or Sacrifice, so they were, in the mystical or Sacramental, the Body and Blood of Christ.” Let the reader judge between the most learned Dr. Hickes and his antagonist ; the words are in Pref. before the second Collection of Controversial Letters. Ibid. He supposes it a contradiction, to be a symbolical and real Sacrifice ; as if all the Levitical sacrifices were not both symbolical and real. He calls for the philosopher’s stone to reconcile this difficulty ; and a man would be ready to suspect that he himself had been studying it, I mean, by his very odd mixtures and jumbles of things of so very different a nature, which are so visible throughout the whole book. P. 290. Now the Doctor is come to the very- thing, which he denies, and which he expects we should prove, viz., that the Bread and Wine are a Sacrifice “ antecedently to, or ab- stractedly from, their being a representative.” But why are we bound to prove this? Is it not sufficient, that we prove them, not only to have been representatives, but to have been offered as such at God’s Altar, with the most solemn act of Oblation that was ever used in the whole world? What necessity is there, that it must have been a Sacrifice, before CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &Xc. 357 it became a representative? But, to humour the Doctor, I have proved that the lay-offerings were called ‘sacrifices ;’ those offerings which, the Doctor says, were made by the law of nature. And, certainly, an Altar-offering may be called a ‘ sacrifice,’ so soon as brought to the Altar-house. So it was under the Law, as any one may see, Lev. 1. 3, where the animal intended for a burnt-offering is called by that name, before it was presented to the priest ; and the same may be said of the sacrifice of peace-offering, which is so called while the animal was yet in the proprietor’s hands, and therefore before it had been offered by the priest, Lev. 111. 6—8. P. 292. We are here told, that Lactantius distinguishes “between the Heavenly Sacrament and the sacrifices, and remarks how the heathen praised all those Christians whom they could prevail upon to come to the latter.” What, did the heathen praise those whom they could persuade to come ‘to the Christian Sacrifices? This is a discovery indeed, but such a one, as even our adversaries could not believe, though Lactantius himself should say it; but, at other places, Lac- tantius owns, as we are told, that Christians had no sacrifices (meaning sacrifices offered by blood and smoke); but how then do these things consist ? Why, the truth is, Lactantius opposes the Christian Sacraments to the heathen sacrifices ; and no wonder that the heathen praised them whom they could prevail upon to frequent the latter. And was not this remark worthy of the Doctor, and very much for the service of his cause? In the same page he cites Aquinas, speaking of the Eucharist as a mere image. I was surprised to think that the Doctor had converted an old drudge of the Church of Rome, who had been dead and gone so many hundred years before the Doctor was born; but I found upon a scrutiny, that the Doctor uses Aquinas, as he does other authors ; he cites him by halves. Aquinas does indeed use the words there cited by the Doctor, and produces St. Augus- tine and St. Ambrose to the same purpose ; but to shew that he did no more than like them, he adds, “ As to the first manner (the figurative he means), Christ might be said to be immolated in the figures of the Old Testament.” His second manner is, that Christ is sacrificed ‘“‘as to the effect of His Passion; because by this Sacrament we are made 358 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE partakers of the fruit of it.” And to this purpose he cites an old Dominical Prayer, which says, “ As often as the com- memoration of this Sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our Redemption is exercised.” I wish Aquinas and the Ro- manists had never said any thing worse than this. P. 294. “The Right Reverend Bishop of Sarum,” says the Doctor, “asserts, that all that the ancients say concerning the unbloody Sacrifice must be understood to relate to the prayers and praises that accompanied it.” The reader may, Chap. 11. Sect. 1. of the foregoing book, see and hear the ancient Bishops and Fathers speaking for themselves ; and the reader is at liberty to judge for himself, whether the Bishop of Salisbury have fairly represented their sense. P. 295. He adds, the same learned Bishop tells us again, “ All that the Scripture has delivered to us concerning the Eucharist represents it as an action of the whole body of the people, in which the Priest has no special share but that of officiating.” No other share but that of officiating? I wish Dr. W. would inform us, what Priests ever had any other share in offering the Sacrifice, beside this of officiating. But he tells us, this is an action of the whole body of the people ; and does this derogate from the Sacrificial nature of it? At this rate any sacrifice, that was offered in behalf of the whole nation of the Israelites, was no proper sacrifice; for, in this case, “the whole congregation of the people were to offer it,” Lev. iv. 14. And, in all cases, the persons, at whose cost or for whose benefit the sacrifice was offered, are said them- selves to offer it, as has been proved by me over and again. And, sure, no man believes, that the most stupid of the Jewish people were so senseless as not to join with the priest in hearty wishes and silent prayers for the acceptance and efficacy of the sacrifice. By the Law of Moses there is no appearance of any vocal prayers or devotions to be used at the offering of the sacrifice, (only he that brought a sin-offer- ing was to confess his sin over the animal that was to be sacrificed); but, when verbal devotions were afterwards joined with sacrifice, the people as well as priest joined in those devotions, and the priest had no share but that of officiating, 1 Mace. iv. 52—56; the Jewish priests officiated in their ‘way, we in ours. CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, XC. 359 P. 296. He would infer from some words of the said Right Reverend Bishop, that “ during so long a tract of time as the ten first centuries, the Eucharist was not practised as a real Sacrifice.’ With what face then can the Doctor oppose such an authority, and tell us, as he does at another place (p. 245,) that from the end of the second century the people really believed the Bread and Wine a Sacrifice; and that. “the Fathers of the Church, to guard against this error, began to speak more plainly of the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood,” that is, in plain terms, to introduce the belief and practice of it? The truth is, the Doctor misunderstands his author, as it were easy to shew. The Bishop is a man of greater learning and knowledge than to assert so palpable a fiction; and if he had affirmed it, yet the Doctor himself could scarce have swallowed it, but might perhaps hope to put it upon his female readers. P. 302. Here he errs over his own old error, that to be a symbol and a memorial are inconsistent with the nature of a true Sacrifice ; and, because Eusebius calls 105 a ‘ Memorial,’ he cannot think he believed it a true Sacrifice. Now that the Doctor may see that his want of conviction proceeds not from the things themselves, but from some particular turn of his understanding and judgment, I will give him the words of St. Augustine’; “Christians celebrate the Memory of that same Sacrifice in the Holy Oblation and participation of His Body and Blood.” He calls it in the same sentence ‘a Memory,’ and yet ‘an Oblation of the Body and Blood.’ And, sure, the Doctor will allow the offering of Christ’s Body and Blood to be a true Sacrifice. P. 304. Here he runs into the old common-place of the sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the juge Sacri- ficitum in Heaven. And this is-an argument as valid against all the sacrifices under the Law, as those under the Gospel. For Christ was a Priest and Mediator before His Incarna- tion, as well as since; and Christ’s Blood was shed for re- mission of sins under the first Covenant, Heb. ix. 15, as well as under the Evangelical Dispensation. But we, as well as they, stand in need of an applicative Sacrifice; and we have no other but the Eucharist. ef. p. 16. Ap: a H, p. 36. Ap. 360 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE P. 305. In this page we have a fresh specimen of the Doctor’s good judgment in his pretended citation from St. Athanasius, which he thus translates: “As all, who think them- selves bound to offer sacrifice to God by the blood of animals’ and irrational things, do pervert the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ and make it seem abominable; so all, who circum- cise the flesh, do set at nought and overturn the spiritual Circumcision of Christians, viz., Holy Baptism.” The writer was speaking of such as yet practised Circumcision. By ‘ Holy Baptism,’ in this place, the Doctor is willing to under- stand the ‘inward sanctification by the Spirit ;? but I conceive he will scarce find any good authority for this sense of the words, if he mean ‘an inward sanctification,’ distinct from that conferred by Water-Baptism. Water-Baptism is spiri- tual-Baptism in the language of antiquity, and as it here stands in opposition to carnal Circumcision. Neither Jews nor Judaizing Christians could reproach spiritual Circum- cision, if by that he meant the Circumcision of the heart ; for that was required even by the Law of Moses, Deut. x. 16, and the word λοιδοροῦσι does infallibly signify ‘reproach,’ though the Doctor is pleased to render it ‘set at nought,’ thereby to reconcile his author’s notion to his own. And if Baptism by Water be spiritual Baptism, then I cannot con- ceive, why the unbloody Sacrifice should be any other than that of the Eucharist; especially since our adversaries have not yet been able to give us one single instance, where the epithet ‘unbloody’ is applied to prayer and praise. And the Doctor had nothing to trust to but a criticism of his own, viz., that ἄλογα must here signify not ‘ brutes,’ but ‘ senseless things ;’ whereas I am pretty sure, he is destitute of any good authority for so understanding it: and yet, upon these poor pretences, he makes this translation vary from the original; for he says, “by the blood of animals and irra- tional things,” whereas it is in the original, “by blood and brutes ;” so that I should claim this writer as my own, if he were worth contending for. The words were taken from Questiones ad Antiochum, which Dr. Cave says were written in the seventh century or afterwards; nor can I see why the Doctor should be so zealous to vindicate him from the imputation of a tautology, which is incident to the very best CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, ὅζο. 361 writers. Thus the Doctor, finding no supply from genuine antiquity, goes begging votes from one spurious writer to another, Pseud-Ignatius, Pseudo-Cyprianus, Pseud-Ambro- ‘sius, Pseud-Eusebius Emissenus, and Pseud-Athanasius ; and yet neither from them can he extort one word that comes home to his purpose. P. 306. The Doctor here asserts, that “‘the word ‘ Sacrifice ” cannot univocally be asserted of the Jewish and the Chris- tian Mincha.” If he mean that the latter is not so properly a Sacrifice as the other, he ought to have produced something at least that had a shadow of reason for it, which yet, I think, he has not done: for to say that it is offered without Sacrificial rites is to say he knows not what; except he could tell us what those Sacrificial rites are, which are essen- tial to Sacrificial oblations. I have said very often that the act or acts, whereby the material gift is presented to God, are the only rites necessary to constitute a Sacrifice; and that the prayers and praises pronounced by the Priest are the only necessary rites or actions for making the Christian Ob- lation; and I must believe I am right in this, until somebody can point out some other rite that was always thought ne- cessary beside that of Oblation. When we say it is a spiritual Sacrifice, our adversaries presently run away with the word ‘spiritual,’ and from thence conclude we mean an improper Sacrifice. But no such matter; by giving it this title, we mean that it is a more excellent Sacrifice than any offered under the Law, more clearly significative of the archetype, blessed by the especial Presence of the Divine Spirit, offered by a spiritual medium, viz., prayer and praise, which ought to proceed not from the mouth only but from the heart. When the Jews from the time of King David used Psalms and vocal devotions at the time of their sacrifices, yet it can- not be said that their sacrifices were offered by this medium. The rites of sprinkling the blood and burning some part of the material sacrifice were still the oblatory actions, enacted by the Divine authority of the Law; and what was sung or said was only an additional solemnity, and no necessary in- gredient of the sacrifice itself; and the presenting the Sacri- fice itself by a spiritual medium was reserved to be the dis- tinguishing character of the Evangelical Mincha. In the Ps. cxli. 2. 362 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE next page he denies the Mincha to be a proper sacrifice, “ be- cause the prayers of David are called Mincha.” Now suppose David had called his prayer, Mincha; yet it would by no means follow, that a Mincha was not a proper Sacrifice. For the same Divine writer says, ‘‘ The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ;’ the Hebrew word is zebachim nit, which signifies ‘ bloody’ or ‘slain sacrifices ;) but I apprehend, the Doctor himself will not say that it was David’s intention in these words to say, that a bullock that died by the sacrificial knife was not a proper sacrifice; and the case is parallel: but, in truth, David says no such thing. He begs that “his prayer may be set forth as incense, and the lifting up of his hands as the evening-Mincha,” or ‘ sacrifice’ as the English Translators justly renderit: (for 1 think it is evident, that. by the Mincha he means the lamb, as well as the bread and wine, which was to be offered every evening.) The Doctor was willing to have some merely mental action represented by the Mincha, and so transposes the words, applies that to the Mincha which David said of the incense, or else through a hasty zeal that would not give him leisure to look into his Bible relied too much on his memory; but if a Priest make such a blunder in his English Psalter, what can we expect from him in books with which he is less acquainted? The Doctor here applies the words of Chemnitius concerning Kccius to one whom he honours with the name of “ Dr. Hickes’s friend;” I can easily guess whom he had in his eye. The words he means are as follows, ““ Wherever Mincha is mentioned in the Old Testament, he pretends that it proves a real sacri- fice under the Gospel ;᾽ which words are just as true as those I cited from him immediately before, as I could easily demonstrate, if I had so great a regard to that friend of Doctor Hickes as Dr. W. has for his own person. In the mean time, when Dr. W. can shew that this nameless writer has made any such gross misapplication of the Jewish Mincha as Dr. W. has in his citation from Psalm exli., I dare engage, he shall recant his error. After this rub to him whom he calls “ Dr. Hickes’s friend,” he strikes at him, whom one may justly style a friend to all good men, and the truest fautor and benefactor to true Christianity and the Clergy, of any private gentleman in the whole kingdom; whose writings CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Sc. 363 and actions are the fairest transcript of primitive piety that is, I believe, anywhere to be found in the Christian world. I need not tell my reader, Mr. Nelson is the man. I should value myself, if it were in my power to say or do anything in his defence upon a just occasion; but what Dr. W. objects, of his citing the Rabbins, needs no defence. Dr. W. would certainly have thought it more reputable to have produced the evidence of the old Jewish Doctors than of those many modern and old spurious writers, whom he so plentifully quotes; but he could hear of none but what were directly against him, and so, to be even with them, he joins Chem- nitius in crying them down. P. 309. He seems to think, that the observation of the Jewish Sabbath (as well as the Lord’s day) is grounded on as good authority as the doctrine of the Sacrifice; and when he has proved it, I promise to concur with him. P. 313. Now to wind up his unmerciful long interlocution, which he could scarce barely transcribe in a week’s time nor intelligibly pronounce in less than five or six hours, he soothes himself in the following words, “ Thus have I endea- voured upon the whole matter to entertain you with a mix- ture of profitable and pleasant ;” and that he has really done his best, I in earnest believe. He may “ write a book six times as big,” p. 83, as he seems to threaten us he will do, if we do not mend our manners; but I am pretty sure, he cannot make a greater show of learning and argument in proportion to the bulk; nor can it be six times more trifling, obscure, and incoherent, immethodical and full of affectation, than the sample he has given us in this present work. The reader who has never perused his book is not to think that I have acted the part of a severe censor. I will be bound, if he think fit to call for it, to give him as many more instances of errors or impertinences, as 1 have yet mentioned. I have singled out those that do most nearly concern the cause in which I am engaged ; and, as for the rest, 1 am willing they should lie dormant in silence and neglect, except he give me further provocation. The animadversions I have made in these few sheets have been the most ungrateful part of my present undertaking ; but I thought it necessary to convince the world, that the two most copious writers against the 364 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE Sacrifice were altogether unequal to the task ; and I must declare that, of the two, Dr. Hancock is the most clear and tolerable writer. However, Dr. W. has his own good word ; for thus he goes on (speaking to his adversary), “ And now, Sir, will you be so partial as only in my case to reverse the maxim, which otherwise you would grant to hold universally, Omne tulit punctum, qui miscuit utile dulci ???—and p. 320, “1 love the truth and peace, and it were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorifying void ;” but I have not patience to transcribe such fulsome, canting stuff. If I could see anything that was Apostolical in the Doctor (except the character of a Priest, which he himself vilifies and in effect renounces), [ could willingly excuse his boasting and glorying; but I cannot discern so much as one of the infirmities of St. Paul in this writer. And I will no more undertake to make such glorifying void than to annihilate a Non-Ens. POSTSCRIPT. As Lam satisfied that there is nothing in Dr. W.’s Book or Sermon, which concerns the main cause, but what has been effectually answered ; and, as to what is personal, I never intended to meddle with it any further than to repel some of his grossest reproaches ; so I cannot but make one general reflection upon the authorities he produces from the ancients. We have seen what his reasonings are, and what foul mis- takes he has committed in relation to the authorities which he has cited ; but, because his appeals to antiquity are frequent and somewhat numerous, I thought fit to draw them up in a body and set them all at once in the reader’s view, that so it may appear what real service he has done to his cause by his allegations from the writers of the ancient Church. His citations for or against the doctrine of the Sacrifice are much about a hundred; I am apt to think, that this was the round number he aimed at. I will not dispute with him, whether he have furnished his complement by splitting one paragraph into two several citations for the proof of the very same thing, or whether he may not a little fall short or exceed as to the number just now mentioned. CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, XC. 365 I. I will lay before the reader the citations which he has produced directly against the cause which he would be thought to maintain, or which at least seem so to me. 1 Chrysostom’s Liturgy, Εὐλόγησον πρόθεσιν πρόσδεξαι θυσίαν, p. 22, 85. * 7 Cyprian’s Epistle to Cecilius, p. 20, 192, 216, 217, 222, 227, 228, (in Appendix, m.) 1 Chrysostom’s θυσίαν ἀμείψας, p. 31. 1 His citation from Pseud-Ignatius, p. 32, &c. 1 St. Ambrose, or Hilary, “Una est hec hostia, non multe,” p. 37. 1 From the Apostles’ Constitutions, lib. vi. c. 23, (which see in Appendix®,) p. 44. 1 Cyprian, “ Sacrificia pro ws offerimus,” p. 160. 1 Coneil. Nic. Can. Avaxovor μὴ ἔχοντες ἐξουσίαν προσ- φέρειν: p. 160. Idem Can. 5. Ka@apov δῶρον, p. 160, 169. Origen‘, p. 163. Chrysostom’s Liturgy, ἀναίμακτος θυσία, p. 165. Cyril of Jerusalem8, p. 163. Origen’s ἄρτος Εὐχαριστία καλούμενος: p. 165. St. James’s Liturgy, ἀναίμακτος θυσία, p. 166. Chrysostom’s Liturgy, προσενέχθῆναι τὰ δώρα, p. 168. Tertullian’s “ munditie Sacrificiorum,” p. 172. Justin Martyr concerning the leper’s cake", p. 178. Eusebius’s θύομεν καὶ θυμιῶμεν'᾽, p. 176. St. Mark’s Liturgy, ἀναίμακτος λατρεία, p. 176. St. Chrysostom’s ἀναίμακτοι θυσίαι, p. 177. Apost. Const.*, p. 179, 180. Cyril of Jerusalem, τῆς ἁγίας προκειμένης θυσίας", p. ee el 180. Origen™, p. 181. Jerome, “cum Te pro nobis offers,” p. 180. Can. 37. of Afr. Code", Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 24. p. 186, Eulogius, tod σώματος Κυρίου τελετὴ, p. 188. et “cp a. p. & f. p. 19. Ap. ‘ hb. p. 3. Ap. n p. 51. Appendix. tg. p. 16. 366 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE 1 St. Augustine, “ Christus omni die immolatur,” p. 203. 1 Euseb. Emis., “ Redemptionis Oblatio,” p. 208. 1 Cyril. Alex., ἀναίμακτός λατρεία, p. 2138. 1 Isidore Pelus., θεῖον Πάσχα, p. 228. 1 Chrysostom, ἐσφαγμένος κεῖται ὁ Χριστὸς, p. 277. 1 Gelasius Cyz., ἀμνὸς τεθυμμένος, p. 277. 1 Fulgentius, “ Sacrificium panis et vini,” p. 208. 1 Idem, “ Sacrificium Corporis et Sanguinis,’ p. 203. 1 St. Augustine, “ sacrificcum Melchisedec,” p. 283. 1 Pseud-Athanasius, ἀναίμακτος θυσία, p. 305. 1 Apost. Const., lib. viii. c. 46, ἀναίμακτος θυσία, p. 199. N.B. He cites St. Cyprian’s Epistle to Cecilius seven several times, and produces seven several passages out of it ; and that the whole Epistle is directly a confirmation of the doctrine of the Sacrifice will appear to any one, that pleases to peruse my large transcript from it in the Appendix ; and therefore it must be granted that, whatever fanciful turn Dr. W. may give to some of his words, they must in reality be meant in another sense than he has given them; so that forty-three at least of his citations, rightly understood, are evidences of the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. And I may reckon Cicumenius’s words of ‘the unbloody Sacrifice, offered by the lips,” for another; and Julian the Apostate’s “new Sacrifice” is an express acknowledgment of this doctrine; for though he, by calling it ‘ new,’ intended to disparage it, yet even Irenzeus calls it a ‘‘ new oblation.” If he had meant prayers and praises, he could not have called it ‘new,’ for this was as old as mankind. You have (Hcumenius’s words, p. 177, Julian the Apostate’s, p. 288, and you may, if you please, add Lucian’s καινὴ τελετη,, which is there also mentioned. I did not take notice of Gicumenius in the foregoing list; because his authority is of no weight, as being a writer of the tenth or eleventh century. Julian and Lucian were professed infidels, therefore I place them last of all; but their authority is as good for the Sacrifice, as it would have been against it, if Dr. W. could have made them speak his sense; so that near half his citations are proofs of the Sacrifice, though not perhaps so full as those which I have chosen for the support of it. Many of them CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, &C. 367 indeed are the very same; and the rest would have served, if 1 had not thought that I had better. II. Another file of citations you have from Dr. Wise, to prove that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise. Some of these I have produced ; because I apprehended that they are to be understood of a material sacrifice. However, I have mentioned them under this head; because it must be left to the reader’s judgment, whether the Doctor or I am right. This is certain, that nothing of this sort produced by the Doctor makes against us, because it is agreed on both sides that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise, and that prayer and praise are often called ‘ Sacrifice’ and have great power and excellency attributed to them. 2 Cyril of Alexandr., p. 26, and again, p. 122. 1 Tertullian, p. 161. 2 Basil’s and Chrysostom’s Liturgy, p. 166. 2 Justin Martyr, p. 178. 1 S. Clemens Rom., p. 179. 1 S. Gregor. Naz., 179. 1 Origen, p. 180 1 Lactantius, p. 181. 1 Tertulhan, p. 181. 2 8. Augustine, p. 182. 2 Clemens Alexandrin., p. 182. 1 Lactantius, p. 240. - Ill. He has the following citations to prove, that Christ’s natural Body is not offered m the Sacrament or is not at all there, but only a representative or memorial of It. 1 5, Augustine, p. 20. 1 Facundus, p. 41. S. Augustine, p. 183. S. Augustine, p. 281. . Augustine, p. 282. . Augustine, p. 283. . Augustine, p. 223. . Augustine and 5. Ambrose, p. 293. seud-Ambrose, p. 193. . Ambrose, p. 193. 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Cyril of Jerus., p. 193. 5 5 5 5 BP 5 C 368 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE 1 Epiphanius, p. 124. 1 Ephrem, p. 194. IV. He has the following citations to prove, that incense was thought a sacrifice, in the ages when the purity of the Church was declining. 1 From the Apost. Canons, p. 168. 1 Chrysostom’s Liturgy, p. 169. St. Basil’s Liturgy, p. 169. 1 Pseud-Hippolytus, p. 171. 1 S. James’s Liturgy, p. 172. V. He has the following citations to prove the Eucharist a feast, which neither Christian, Jew, Heathen, or Mahometan, ever doubted of. 1 Pseudo-Cyprian, p. 167. 1 Gregory Naz., p. 195. 1 Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 195, where he turns δεῖπνον τῶν τελουμένων, the ‘Supper of all suppers.’ VI. He has other citations to prove, that first-fruits were offered, which is allowed on both sides. 1 From the Constitutions®, where he makes the Constitutor say that “God permitted not Christians to sacrifice ;” de- falking “ta adoya” ‘brutes,’ which immediately follows in the Greek; with what conscience he did this, he himself knows. 1 Lactantius, p. 254. 1 Ireneus, p. 254. VII. He has two citations to prove, that Christ is im heaven; from whence he would infer, that there are no Priests on earth. a ] Origen, p. 215. 2 8. Augustine, p. 215, 183. VIII. He has one citation from Pseudo-Cyprian, to prove all Christians, Sacrificers, p. 161. IX. He has his two supposed authorities to prove, that Deacons sacrificed in the Church. ° a, p. 47. Ap. CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST RIGHTLY STATED, Xc. 369 1 The Canon of Ancyra, with the Ζιάκονοι θύσαντες, which I suppose he would be glad if I would strike out of the account, p. 160. 1 The Arabic Canon of Nice, which proves nothing at all, p- 160. I look upon other citations of his as mere blanks or cumble, as being produced for no purpose; as that of Lac- tantius, concerning offering the bodies of dead animals, p. 274; that from Cyril of Alexandria, that animals are more excellent than senseless creatures, p. 34; two or three from St. Jerome, and one from St. Ignatius, concerning Bishops and Priests, p. 219; one from St. Basil’s Liturgy, to prove that Christ took Bread and blessed it, p. 186. Another from Walafridus Strabo, intimating that Liturgies have been aug- mented, p. 241; and that from St. Cyprian, of the Church’s giving place to the Capitol, p. 175. Now setting aside these, (and there may be some others) as wholly foreign to the pre- sent dispute, we want about four of a hundred. We have then four citations remaining, which the Doctor might urge with some face, or five as the Doctor manages them; for he splits a paragraph of Justin Martyr into two, and cites one part of it, p. 178, the other, p. 248; the second is from St. Chrysostom, in his Sermon, p. 13, and Book, p. 31; the third from Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 182; the last from the Constitutions, p. 240. The first, third, and fourth, seem to say, that prayer and praise is the Christian Sacrifice; and the second, that the Eucharist is rather the Memory or Memorial than the Sacrifice. This last is considered, Chap. Il. Sect. 1; the three others, Chap. 11. Sect. 2. If Dr. W. had contented himself with these four authorities, he might have written with a plausible appearance of truth, and seemed to speak pertinently on the subject; but Iam much mistaken if there be any passage in genuine antiquity that can keep the cause in countenance, if these four will not; and I ap- prehend I have said enough in my foregoing book to con- vince impartial readers, that even these four places are not against the doctrine of the Sacrifice; and if they were, yet sure, the general concurrence of other writers will be suffi- cient to determine the judgment of an unbiassed inquirer ; JOHNSON. B b 370 ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE CHRISTIAN EUCHARIST, &c. especially when it is considered, that these very writers, all but one at least, do in other places sufficiently express their minds in favour of the Sacrifice; and that one, I mean Clemens Alexandrinus, if he do not by the Logos mean the Eucharist, yet very probably alludes to the material Sacri- fice in those very words, which are in dispute; but his way of reasoning and expression are so much upon the sublime, that I dare not be positive in my opinion concerning him. However, this is evident upon the whole, that the champion, with whom I have been arguing, has brought near fifty authorities against his own doctrine, or rather against it than for it; and near an equal number, that make neither one way nor the other; some few citations he has made, in which I cannot see what end he proposed to himself but to make a show of learning; and four citations he has produced from the writers of the four first centuries, which a writer, that could have dressed them up with the advantages of fair colours and specious words, might have made to appear plau- sible to readers that were predisposed to be misled ; but, as it has happened hitherto, the evidence and the advocates have been equally defective. BRIEF REFLECTIONS UPON A LATE BOOK ENTITLED, “ΑΝ ANSWER ἸῸ THE EXCEPTIONS MADE AGAINST THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD'S" CHARGE, XC.” SHEWING THE MISTAKES OF THE AUTHOR OF THAT BOOK, IN RELATION TO THE DOC- TRINE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. My reader will excuse me, if I do not repeat the arguments which this writer has transcribed from those that have for- merly written on the same side of the question, and the reply made to them already in the foregoing book; and therefore — I have very little to say to this gentleman; for even his calumnies are all stale. Nor can I observe anything new in all the pages he has given us on this subject, but only a few errors and misrepresentations, and some graftings and im- provements on the mistakes of those who have written before on that side. P. 24,25. He demands that we should shew reason, why the texts of Scripture, urged by us, “must be understood literally and not figuratively ;”’ and complains of the writers for the Sacrifice, that ‘‘ they wrest words and expressions to a literal meaning.” Now, certainly, all rational interpreters of Scripture and masters of controversy will agree with me, that the literal sense is to be preferred before any other, except there be some very strong and weighty reason to the contrary. And if our adversaries grant that we have the literal sense for us, as this writer seems to do, this is all we desire. For to assert, that any text is to be taken im a figu- rative sense, when there lies no just objection against the literal, is perfectly precarious. ‘To wrest words to a literal sense,’ is a phrase, which to me sounds a contradiction ; it is just as if one should say, ‘ the carpenter wrests his plummet to a straight line.’ Ibid. After having produced the words of St. Clement”, he immediately adds those of St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the ἃ [i.e. Dr. Talbot. ] ob, 6 peek Ap: Bb2 372 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE Smyrneans, c. 8. viz., “It is not lawful without the Bishop to baptize or make a love-feast.” And after five lines he goes on thus, “ These holy Fathers by the phrases, ‘ offering gifts,’ ‘performing gifts and Sacrifices,’ do intend in these places the whole Ministerial office in general.” He had mentioned no Fathers, but those two before named; and he had cited no words from the latter, but those just now rehearsed; and yet speaks of both of the holy men, as using the phrase of ‘offering gifts, &c. Certainly, there is a strange fate at- tends the adversaries of the Sacrifice as to this passage of St.Ignatius. Dr. Hancock and Dr. Wise do both cite it, as it stands in the interpolated Epistle; and so make this Apo- stolical man speak of ‘ offering, and presenting a Sacrifice’ in the Christian Church: a proof, which, if it were found in the genuine works of St. lgnatius, they would never be able to evade. But this writer, that he might in something out- do those that had gone before him, expressly cites the true Ignatius, but means the supposititious; for the latter does indeed, in the place before specified, speak of ‘ offering, but the other whose words he alleges does not. All three of these writers run their head against the same post; but this last shews himself the most hardy of the three, for he does it with open eyes. P. 25, 26. He asserts, that “these Fathers (he should have said ‘this Father,’ viz., Clement) by the phrases, ‘ offer- ing gifts, ‘performing gifts and Sacrifices,’ and the like, do intend in these places the whole Ministerial office in general, or at least the whole. service of the Church :’ but he gives no reason for this assertion; but found it necessary roundly to affirm it, as the only expedient he could invent for the defence of his cause and of the Bishop of Lincoln’s° Translation of St.Clement. It is very evident, that the phrase of ‘ offering the gifts’ does not in this Epistle mean, either ‘the Ministerial office in general,’ or ‘ the whole service of the Church.’ This very writer, in the place now under our consideration, translates St. Clement’s words thus; “ We ought to do all things in the order which Christ has com- manded us to do; to perform our offerings and services or ministrations at the appointed seasons.” By these words it ¢ [i.e. Bp. Wake’s. } OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD’S CHARGE. 378 is evident, that ‘to perform offerings’ (as he chooses to speak) was but one part of the Divine worship; the rest is expressed by ‘ Services’ or ‘ Ministrations:’ and these latter are more comprehensive words than the former. If ‘offering the Gifts, Sacrifices, &c.’ does ever signify ‘the whole service of the Church’ in the genuine remains of true antiquity, there must be some reason for this way of expression. And, I pre- sume, our adversaries themselves will not be able to assign any better than this, viz., that the name of the whole is often taken from some considerable part. Thus the vulgar, when they say that such a Clergyman ‘preached,’ do often mean, that he performed the whole office of the Priest ; and yet if there were no sermon, even the most vulgar would scarce bear with that man, who should use so very improper a way of speaking ; much less is it to be supposed, that the primi- tive Fathers would express the whole service by ‘ offering the Gifts,’ if no Gifts were offered. P. 26. This writer tells us, that “the true import of Clement’s words would have been unintelligible and not to be explained, did they not receive light from the known lan- guage and usage of the ancient Church.” On the other side, I believe, that there is not one phrase used by this holy man in this Epistle, that may more easily be under- stood by one that never had looked into any other book but the Bible, than the phrase of ‘ offering the Gifts:’ but the truth is, the Scriptural meaning of this phrase is inconsistent with the notions of these gentlemen ; for there is no mention of any gifts being offered in the Old or New Testament but what are material; and therefore upon this occasion they appeal from Scripture to antiquity, but to their own con- fusion. P. 27. “The ancients,’ says this author, “sometimes apply the word δῶρον and θυσία, to the prayers of the Christian congregation, and especially to the devotion of the Communion-Service.” Suppose that they do this “some- times,” this is not sufficient to prove this way of speaking to have been “the language of the ancient Church.” David calls the broken heart a sacrifice; but no man will from thence argue, that the word ‘ Sacrifice’ denoted contrition of spirit, in the current language of the Jews of that age. To 374: REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE prove that Prayer was the Gift offered in the primitive Church, he alleges the words of the Apostolical Constitutions, lib. ii. ce. 23, which have been particularly considered in the foregoing book, Chap. II. Sect. 2. Now giving it for granted, that the Constitutions do at one particular place use this way of expression ; it will by no means follow, that this was the usual language of the Constitutors, much less of the Christian Church; for against this one instance the reader will find thirteen or fourteen very clear examples of their using the word ‘ Offering’ or ‘ Sacrifice’ for the material Eucharist in those extracts, which I have taken from these Constitutions, in pp. 46, 47, 52, 53, of my Appendix. The writer had but this single twig to take hold of; and I am afraid, this will scarce preserve him and his cause from sinking in the eyes of equitable judges. I will further allow him his citation from Tertullian, which he took from Cotelerius’s note on this passage in St. Clement; nay, I will further grant his reference to St. Chrysostom, unsight and unseen, to say what he would have it, (for he has not produced the words); yet all these three citations prove no more than this, that three writers in 400 years’ time, did, once in their whole lives’ time, call Prayer a-‘Gift’ or ‘Sacrifice.’ Will this prove it to be the language of the Christian Church in opposition to those very many citations, even from the writings of these very Fathers and ancients themselves, with which I have presented my reader in the Unbloody Sacrifice ? He has indeed a dark fellow of a modern on his side, thus far, that he says, “ It is doubtful, whether St. Clement meant first-fruits or giving of thanks” in this place*. I call him ‘ dark,’ because Mon- sieur Le Clerc, who published this man’s Annotations on the Epistle of St. Clement, gives no other account of him than this; that he had written some notes in the margin of Cote- lerius’s edition of St. Clement, which deserved to be con- sidered, and that “he was a learned man*.” It is not improbable that Le Clerc meant himself; and that he ob- ἃ [** δῶρα. Nemo Veterum ita sine e [** Preterea nonnulla addita sunt ρ ᾽ adjecto simpliciter loquutus est; am- biguum enim velitne primitias, gra- tiarum actiones, eleemosynam, &c. Sanguis et Corpus Domini sunt dona Dei.’’—Clerici in Patres Apostolicos, p. 172.) ex maau viri docti, qui ore editionis Cotelerii, quedam adleverat, digna que diligentius expendantur ab eru- ditis.’’ |—See Le Clerce’s Preface to the Patres Apost., [p. 2. Ed. Antw. 1698. ] OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD’S CHARGE. 375 trudes some notes on the world under the person of an anonymous man of learning, which he was ashamed to pub- lish as his own. See how our present writer introduces this citation ; ‘‘ Some,” says he, “of the learned men, who have written notes on this Epistle, &c.” Thus a single modern Annotator without name, or (which is worse) Monsieur Le Clerc, the great and known enemy of primitive Christianity, is by the writer of the book which I am now considering multiplied into a company of learned men; for so this anno- tator is here styled ‘Some of the learned men.’ But even this dark annotator, as if he had a mind to recant his former crudity, immediately adds, “‘ The Body and Blood of the Lord are the Gifts of God;” which I look upon as the unwilling confession of an adversary to the Sacrifice, extorted from him by the force of Truth. P. 29. This writer observes, that προσφέρομεν signifies ‘we pray,’ three times in one Prayer, meaning that of the Clementine Liturgy’. He does well not to cite his author for this signification of the word, for he had no other but Dr. Hancock; nor can he produce one single instance from any good author, either ancient or modern, for this odd con- ceit. This very Prayer is an evidence against this sense of the word; for when the Bishop says, προσφέρομέν You τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ TO ποτήριον τοῦτο, I hope no man will render the words, ‘‘ We pray this Bread and this Cup to Thee.” We have before seen what sorry work Dr. Wise has made, when he undertook to expound this Form of Obla- tion; and we shall soon see, that this other gentleman is altogether as unfortunate in his glosses. At present I only take notice, that he is forced to give two several senses to the same word and in the same prayer; and that for no other end, but to escape the irrefragable authority of this most ancient and most excellent Liturgy. P. 29—31. But at last he is willing to allow “other Oblations beside Prayer,” p.29. But then he adds, “It was not peculiar to the Bread and Wine alone to be so offered up, but other things also that were designed for the sacred uses of the Church, as oil and frankincense for incense, and also the first-fruits of their corn and vineyards.” It is fe. pp. 03, 54. Ap. 376 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE true, by the third Apostolical Canon, or the second sentence in the second Canon (according to the division in Cotelerius), ears of corn, and grapes, and oil for the lamps, and incense, (not frankincense, as this writer would have it) were allowed to be presented or brought to the Altar. Now that the reader may be fully convinced of the false reasonings, which this gentleman is guilty of, I will here give a literal transla- tion of the whole Canon, which may be seen in my Appendix, p. 47. “If any Bishop or Priest offer anything im sacri- fice on the Altar of God, beside what the Lord hath com- manded, whether honey, or milk, or made liquor instead of wine, or birds, or animals, or pulse, over and above what is commanded, let him be deposed. Beside ears of new corn or grapes in their proper season, let it not be lawful to pre- sent or bring any thing to the Altar, but oil for the lamp, and incense for the time of the Holy Oblation. Let all other products be sent to the Bishop or Priests, as first-fruits, and not to the Altar.”’ Here are three several periods, which some divide into three several Canons, and call them the third, fourth, and fifth, as you may see in the Appendix. The first only speaks of the Oblation properly so called, of the Oblation as made by the Bishop or Priest; and charges, that he shall offer nothing “in sacrifice” but what the Lord hath commanded. If any one can doubt, what the Lord hath commanded to be offered, the twenty-fourth Canon of the third (alas sixth) Council of Carthage will resolve them, that it is “ Bread and Wine ;” see Appendix, p. 50. By this it is very evident that, if by ‘so offered’ he mean vocally offered at the Altar in the proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist by the Bishop or Priest, then it was peculiar to the Bread and Wine to be so offered; but if by ‘so offered’ he means brought to the Altar by the layman, then he says nothing to his own purpose. For though it is confessed that other things beside Bread and Wine might sometimes be placed on the Altar, yet these other things were never deemed to be any part of the Eucharistical Sacrifice ; nor are these other materials required to be offered by the Bishop or Priest, by the Apostolical Canon. And St. Clement speaks of the Bishops, who had duly made the Oblation of the Gifts; and it is concerning the meaning of St. Clement’s words, that OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD’S CHARGE. OTF our writer is now inquiring. And that, when the Aposto- lical Canons allow some other things beside Bread and Wine to be offered at the Altar, they mean no more than that lay- men may bring them to the Altar and have them solemnly placed on it by the Celebrator, appears, by comparing the two last sentences; the first of which is, ‘“‘ Let it not be lawful to present or bring anything to the Altar, beside ears of new corn, &c.;” the other is, “Let all other products be sent to the Bishop or Priests.” For I conceive it will easily be granted that the ears of corn were to be presented or brought, and the other products sent to the Bishop or Priests by the same sort of men, viz., the laity, or that the Bishops were not to provide oil for the lamps, or to bring ears of corn to Church to present at the Altar, or to send the first-fruits and products of the earth to themselves or to the Priests; but that laymen were to provide and bring to the Altar, or send to the Bishop or Priests the materials before mentioned. And therefore our Answerer must give me leave to say, that I cannot see the pertinence or consequence of what he here alleges, and that the very Canon to which he here refers is a direct evidence against him. And if any- thing more seem necessary to the clearing of this point, I must desire my reader to consult ‘the Clergyman’s Vade Mecum,’ Part II. Edition the second, on this Canon. P. 32. He would have it, that “there is a certain undeni- able difference between an Oblation and a Sacrifice, and that every thing offered to God, though at the Altar, is not a Sacrifice.” Here he had a fair opportunity of letting us know, what that certain undeniable difference is, between an Oblation made at the Altar and a Sacrifice, if it had not been a dif- ficulty beyond his power to unfold. And this is the common way of arguing with our adversaries, positively to affirm, and to leave it to others to prove. He speaks of our “ warm con- tentions to make the Bread, and Wine an Oblation to God before the Consecration.” I can see no reason, why we should so warmly contend for what our adversaries grant, particu- larly Dr. Wise and this Answerer. We have indeed asserted it; and we see no reason to repent of this assertion. Every thing brought by the layman to be offered on the Altar was 378 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE in some sense an Oblation or Sacrifice, before the Priest had performed the sacred operations ; but what we chiefly contend for is, that the material Eucharist, after the Words of Institu- tion had been repeated over it, was most solemnly and reli- giously offered to God in the primitive Church. P. 33. The Answerer observes, that “it does not appear, that the taking the Sacramental Bread and Wine out of the general offerings at the Altar was founded upon any Divine Institution.” If by ‘ Divine Institution’ he means any ex- press words of Scripture, it is true. And it is as true, that we are not, by any explicit direction of Christ Jesus or of His Apostles, informed by whom or at whose expence the Bread and Wine shall be provided, or by whom it shall be brought to the Church and placed on the Lord’s Table. Our Saviour thought it sufficient to let His disciples know, that there was to be an Altar in His Church, to which they were to ‘ bring their gifts,’ Matt. v.23. What sort of gifts they were to be and in what proportion to be offered, He nowhere declares ; only when He consecrated and offered the Eucharist, He plainly enough declares, that Bread and Wine are the ma- terials, which are principally required to be offered on His Altar. He could not suppose that any body of men, who called themselves Christians, would bring their gifts in so sparing and niggardly a measure, that there should not be a sufficient quantity of elements for the celebration of the Divine Mysteries; much less did he caution men against offering more than was absolutely necessary to this purpose. Now it is certain, the sacred symbols must either be taken out of a mass of bread and wine, or else only just so much bread and wine must be offered, as was necessary for the holy action ; and therefore, except this Answerer can prove that no more was to be offered than what was absolutely necessary, it must unavoidably follow, that the Sacramental Bread and Wine must be “taken out” of the mass of loaves and wine presented at the Altar. If by ‘the general offer- ings’ he means the ears of corn or grapes, the money or other valuable things, which were sometimes offered on the Altar, but were forbidden there to be offered by the Apo- stolical and Carthaginian Canon, then he is of an under- standing below what I take him to be; for he supposes it OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD’S CHARGE. 379 to be necessary, that other things beside Bread and Wine should be offered in order to the Eucharist by the practice of the primitive Church ;. whereas it is evident that, though other things were permitted to be presented on the Altar, yet nothing was thought necessary but ‘“ what Christ com- manded,” that is, Bread and Wine. I am apt to think that this Answerer’s meaning was, that it does not appear that the bringing the Gifts to the Altar, Matt. v. 23, has any necessary connection with the celebration of the Eu- charist ; and, indeed, I cannot say that it has by any open declaration of Christ Jesus: but it is very evident, that the whole Church of Christ in the most pure and primitive times did believe that Our Saviour intended the bringing the Gifts to the Altar to be necessarily previous to the Holy Sacrament, as their universal practice does effectually testify ; and let our Answerer, when he is at leisure, tell us, where we shall find a better comment on the words of our Saviour. The truth is, the most primitive Christians never appear to have held a solemn public assembly but for the celebration of the Eucharist, or this at least was the most essential part of their common devotions ; and if therefore they were to bring their gifts to the Altar, when should they do it but upon this occasion? And if the Bread and Wine were the most or the only necessary Oblation to be made at the Altar, as it is evident they were, it could be no question, whether the people should present them before the Eucharist or after it. P. 33, 84. Another scruple proposed by this writer is much of the same sort with the former: “St. Clement of Rome does not only say that Our Lord commanded offerings to be made, but that He commanded them to be made at certain appointed seasons, at fixed times and hours. Now would Dr. Grabe, if yet alive, contend, that Christ has by Divine command fixed the times and hours when the Sacra- ment is to be administered? I know he would ποῖ ; and again he represents St. Clement as saying, that “ Christ ap- pointed the times and hours of celebrating the Supper,” p. 52. He translates St.Clement’s words rightly enough, viz., “Christ commanded offerings to be made at certain fixed times and hours ;” but then he gives them a turn of his own, when he 880 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE varies them in this manner, viz., that “Christ hath by a Divine command fixed or appointed the times and hours.” That the reader may be convinced of the great difference be- tween the real words of St. Clement and this gentleman’s variation of them, I desire it may be observed, that it may truly be affirmed both of Christ and of the Church of Eng- land, that they have commanded the Eucharist to be cele- brated at appointed fixed times ; and yet it may as truly be denied, that either Christ or the Church of England have by any positive command fixed the precise time or hour, when it shall be done. Both Christ and the Church have com- manded the Eucharist to be solemnized at certain appointed hours, not indeed explicitly and by any express law men- tioning these hours; for there is no such law, either in the New Testament, or in the Rubrics, Canons, or other authori- tative Constitutions of the Church. The Communion is in- deed directed to be administered by our Church on certain great festival days; but at what time of those days, or whether in the forenoon or afternoon, the Church has, I conceive, no- where determined. But yet both Christ and the Church have by very strong and inevitable implication commanded the Sacrament to be administered at certain appointed hours ; be- cause the very requiring of this duty to be performed does unquestionably imply, that it should be done at certain, de- termined hours; because the nature of the duty is such, that it must be performed in this manner or not at all. Some duties may be performed at any time, because they only require an exercise of our own minds and bodies, as Private Prayer and Fasting; but, on the other side, those duties which are to be performed by a community of men, personally present and acting jointly and in concert with one another, cannot be performed otherwise than at certain hours; and whoever therefore requires any such service to be performed must by unavoidable consequence require it to be done at certain hours, though he himself has not fixed those hours ; for how can any numerous body of men meet and join in the celebrating of any solemnity, unless some determined hour be publicly known to be allotted for that purpose ? Therefore both Christ, and our Church, has appointed the Sacrament to be administered at certain hours; and yet OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD'S CHARGE. 381 these hours are not expressly determined either by our Saviour or by our Ecclesiastical legislators; and, by conse- quence, the Answerer cannot be justified, when he makes those propositions equivalent, viz., “ Christ commanded offer- ings to be made at certain hours,” and “Christ hath by a Divine command fixed those hours.” And though it does not concern my argument with this writer, yet I shall easily be pardoned by my reader, if from this I take occasion to infer, that St. Clement cannot here be understood of the Jewish sacrifices in general; for God did not either explicitly or implicitly command the majority of them to be offered at certain times or hours. None but the festival sacrifices and those on the day of expiation were limited to any precise days; none but the Passover and the continual morning and evening sacrifices had particular hours assigned for their oblation. St. Clement mentions, in this Epistle’, “the continual sacrifice, vows, offerings for sin, and _ trespass- offerings :” none of these, except the first, were appropriated to any certain hour by any express direction of the Levitical Law; nay, there was nothing in the nature of these sacri- fices, that could make any certain day or hour necessary ; for, generally speaking, they were offered by particular men, not by a numerous congregation, as the Christian Sacrifices ought to be; and therefore, though the assignment of some precise hour be necessary for the Oblation of the Eucharist, yet it was not in any measure necessary for the generality of the sacrifices offered by the Jews. The sum of our writer’s argument, which he would draw from St. Clement’s saying that ‘ Our Lord hath determined the times and hours” (as he falsely varies the words), is, that he is not to be understood properly or literally, when he speaks of ‘Oblations’ and ‘Gifts ’ but now, if this holy Father does indeed speak strictly and justly, when he only says, as he does, that ‘‘ Our Lord has commanded the oblations and services to be performed at determined times and hours,” then the argument for the reality of the Oblation, drawn from those words, stands in its full force. But let us for once suppose that St. Clement speaks with some latitude and impropriety, when he mentions “the determined times and e b. p. 1. Ap. 382 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE hours ;” yet it cannot from thence be fairly inferred that he uses the same latitude when he mentions ‘ Gifts’ and ‘ Obla- tions,’ except any man will suppose that he, who at one place expresses himself loosely, can never be allowed to write or speak properly ; and what then will become of our Answerer and his works? If St.Clement be not to be understood strictly, when he speaks of “ determined times and hours ;” yet I hope our writer will grant that he speaks strictly, when he mentions ‘ Services’ or ‘ Ministrations’ to be performed in the Christian Church. And these last words stand in con- junction with ‘the Oblations’ in the very same sentence ; and I am apt to believe that it will be very hard to shew cause, why both are not to be taken in a proper literal sense. P. 41. Whereas Dr. Hickes had cited Tertullian®, as telling us, that the Oblation of Bread and Wine was imitated in the devotions of Mithra; this Answerer cries out, ““ We are come to a fine pass, when the doctrines of the Christian Sacra- ments must be learnt from the sentiments the heathen had of them.”” Whereas it is evident, that Dr. Hickes argues not from the sentiments of the heathen but from the affirmation of Tertullian. “The devil,” says he, ‘‘ emulates the Divine Sacraments themselves in the mysteries of the idols; he baptizes some—and if I yet remember,—Mithra celebrates the oblation of bread.” ° P. 44. “Ihave shewed,” says the Answerer, “that the verb προσφέρω signifies ‘to pray for.’”” He has indeed shewed his good will to this purpose, as Dr. Hancock had done before ; but he has in reality only shewed his own insufficiency. But he adds, “If it signify ‘to pray for, then why not ‘to con- secrate?’”’ A most surprising argument, by which he may prove it signifies whatever it 15 convenient for his hypothesis to have believed. 1 deny not that ‘ to offer’ does imply Con- secration, because whatever is offered to God is thereby se- parated to a holy use; but that ever it is used to signify Consecration any otherwise than as it is included in Oblation does not appear, and I am sure our writer has said nothing toward the proof of it. In the next page he undertakes to shew, that offero has the same signification in the Latin ; h x..p. 9. Ap. OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD’S CHARGE. 383 but has nothing that looks like an argument, on this head. He cites St. Cyprian, and particularly his Epistle to Cecilius, to prove his sense of the word. I am not sure, what particu- lar passage he there aims at; but I am very certam, that this writer can never prove either of his meanings from that Epistle. I will give him one demonstration to the contrary : Christus Sacrificium Dea Patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem guod Melchisedec obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, Suum sci- licet Corpus et Sanguinem'. If offerre here signify ‘ to pray, then Cyprian’s words must be rendered: “ Christ prayed a Sacrifice to God the Father, and prayed the same that Melchisedec had prayed, that is, Bread and Wine, viz., His own Body and Blood.” ‘To pray Bread and Wine’ one would think were sufficiently absurd. If he will have it signify ‘to consecrate,’ then the Latin must be thus trans- lated: ‘Christ consecrated a Sacrifice to God the Father, and consecrated the same that Melchisedec had conse- crated, that is, Bread and Wine, viz., His own Body and Blood.” Now if Christ only consecrated His Body and Blood without offering them, then it must be said that, in St. Cy- prian’s sense, Christ was no sacrificing Priest; nor will it be possible for any man to use any words whereby to denote an oblation, if offerre Sacrificium, offerre panem et vinum, Suum Corpus et Sanguinem, will not amount to this meaning. But the truth of the matter is, this writer pleads for a cause, that he must be sensible can never be defended, until words have lost their true sense or signification. P. 45. But he has one citation from a modern writer, whose authority I truly value ; I mean the learned and worthy Regius Professor of Oxford * ; who, in his Discourse of Church Government, p. 273, has these words; “ In the Fathers of the next age”’ (after Irenzeus), ‘‘ ‘to consecrate the Lord’s Supper’ is so constantly called προσφέρειν in the Greek and offerre in the Latin, [that is, ‘to offer’ it, | that it is needless to cite any testimonies from them.” Now this testimony is, in truth, directly against our Answerer ; for the Professor turns προσ- φέρειν in the Greek, offerre in the Latin, by the English word ‘to offer ;’ whereas our Answerer would have them sig- nify ‘ to consecrate : and in order to stifle so clear an evidence i (Ep. 63.] * (i.e. Dr. Potter, afterwards Abp of Canterbury. | 384 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE and wrest it to his own meaning, the words inclosed within the hooks [ 1 are by our writer thus falsified, viz., in Latin offerre, ‘to offer.’ And it is further very apparent, that the Professor thought, by saying this, he had proved the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice in the judgment of the Fathers ; for his very next words are these: “So that it is plain, both from the design and nature of the Lord’s Supper, and from the concurrent testimony of the most primitive Fathers, who conversed with the Apostles or their disciples, that it was reckoned through the whole world a commemorative Sacrifice.” The conclu- sion, which our Answerer draws from these words, is quite contrary to that which the author intended; and 1 leave it to my reader to judge, what it is that drives our adversaries to such sorry prevarications. I beg the Professor’s pardon, if I misrepresent his thoughts, when I venture to explain the words cited from him to mean no more than this, viz. that “the familiar language of the Fathers, in using the phrase of ‘ offermg’ the Eucharist, where we now say ‘consecrate,’ or ‘administer’ it, shews that it was the received notion of antiquity, that the Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice.” So, to give a parallel instance, any Divine, who intended to prove the antiquity of the use of Chrism in Confirmation, might say, that “the Fathers do so constantly use the word ‘anoint’ for what we now express by ‘ laying on of the Bishop’s hands’ in Confirmation, that it is needless to cite any testi- monies.” Now if any eminent Divine had thus expressed himself on this subject, and some writer, to underprop a sinking cause, had from thence inferred that the Greek χρίω signified ‘to lay on hands,’ he had by this proved him- self to be a writer of the same size with our anonymous Answerer. P. 50, 51. This writer betrays so great a degree of injudi- ciousness in what he has said concerning Irenzeus, that I per- suade myself, every reader that has considered what I have cited from him in the foregoing book, or that pleases to turn his eye to my Appendix, pp. 46, and consult my trans- cripts from him, will easily discern his palpable mistakes in relation to this most primitive writer. When he would _ evade what Irenzus says! of “the Apostles’ serving the lb. pe a Ap, OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD’S CHARGE. 385 Altar,” by taking it for granted that he speaks figuratively, he does tacitly confess, that, if Irenzeus did indeed mean what he said, his words are an unanswerable proof of the Eucha- ristical Sacrifice. And if he will persist in his assertion, that they, who affirm any Divine Truth and prove it by authority either from Scripture or antiquity, are bound to demonstrate that those authorities are to be taken in a literal sense; let him withal reflect, what advantage he gives to Quakers and enthusiasts, who assert that every thing said of Water- Baptism and the Eucharist is to be understood in a spiritual sense, and not of those outward rites. Whereas on the other side, according to all rules of equity, when any man denies any authority to be literally taken, the proof of it hes upon the denier; for all writers are presumed to speak in a literal sense, until the contrary be made appear by some very de- cisive argument. The Answerer tells us, that lrenzus™, “ to shew that Chris- tians still offer mercy and good works and oblations of piety and charity, adds, ‘and (Christ) also, counselling His dis- ciples to offer unto God the first-fruits of His creatures, took the Bread which is God’s creature, and giving thanks said, This is My Body, and taught this to be the new Oblation of the New Testament.’” And can an Answerer think that he deserves a reply? By such argumentations as these the Quakers would persuade us out of both the Sacraments. And if this writer will grant that postulatum to them, upon which he builds his discourse in this place, viz., that “ the figurative sense is to be preferred to the literal,’ they may safely challenge him to answer their cavils. I have said thus much in reply to this book, not that I thought it deserved or wanted a confutation, but only to convince my reader of the poor shifts and thin palliations that our antagonists are reduced to, when they undertake to write against us. There is only one thing more I shall take notice of in our Answerer’s book; which I rather do, because so great a man as the Lord Bishop of Norwich" has seemed to countenance it in the second Edition of his Charge, p. 23, than that I esteem it worthy of my conside- ration on any other account. He would prove, p. 68, 69, mc. p. 4 Ap. ® (Dr. Charles Trimnell. ] JOHNSON. ce 386 REFLECTIONS ON THE DEFENCE that by ‘Oblations,’ in the Prayer “for the whole estate of Christ’s Church,” is meant only ‘alms,’ because the Scotch Liturgy calls the alms ‘ Oblations.’ This indeed proves that the Compilers of that Liturgy believed that alms were ob- lations; but, surely, it is far from proving that they or the Reviewers of our Liturgy in 1661-2 did not think the Bread and Wine to be Oblations also. Nay, this gentleman himself confesses, that the Scotch Liturgy directed the elements “ to be offered up;” and therefore there can no doubt remain but that they thought them proper Oblations too. And if Archbishop Laud (to whose notes on the Common Prayer Book our Reviewers “had a great regard,” as my Lord Bishop of Norwich confesses) and the other Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy did direct the elements to be “ offered up,” why may we not with reason believe that the alterations in our Liturgy at the Restoration were intended for the same purpose? “ Aye, but,” says the Answerer, ‘they left out the words ‘offer up,’ that is, they did not insert them;” but though they do not direct them to be offered up in the Rubric, they provided a clause, whereby to offer them up together with the alms in the following Prayer. And if his argument be good, that by omitting the words ‘ offer up’ in the Rubric they did not design the elements to be ‘ Obla- tions ;’ then it may as justly be argued, that by omitting the word ‘Oblations’ in the Rubric concerning the alms, their meaning was, that they did not intend that alms should pass under the name of ‘ Oblations ;’ and that, there- fore, by ‘ Oblations’ in the Prayer for the Church Militant they meant not the money given for the use of the poor. In a word, we are very sure that the universal Church for fifteen hundred years by the word ‘ Oblations’ meant princi- pally the Bread and Wine; and, I believe, our adversaries would be hard put to it to produce one instance, where the ‘Oblations’ offered by the Priest in the Eucharistical Prayers do not include the Bread and Wine. No man that is not wholly destitute of temper as well as judgment can delight in perpetuating a dispute about words. Nor is it worth while to insist, that ‘ Oblations’ here, in a prayer after the ἡ Offertory and long before the Words of Institution, signify only the Bread and Wine; it is sufficient, that those elements OF THE BISHOP OF OXFORD’S CHARGE. 387 must be comprised, if not chiefly meant, by that word. For I leave it to my reader, whether he will understand our Church according to the Liturgic language of all ages past or ac- cording to the new glosses of our adversaries. I take no notice of the citations, which this writer has produced from the modern Bishops and Doctors. He had even as good have quoted the Bishops of Oxford and Nor- wich; for their authority is as great as that of any that the Answerer has alleged, except that of Archbishop Laud, who asserted the Sacrifice of the primitive Church, and whom he therefore misrepresents, when he says that he placed the Sacrifice “in breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine,” p. 63; whereas his Grace expressly says, that “the Sacri- fice offered by the Priest is the commemorative Sacrifice of Christ’s Death, represented in Bread broken and Wine poured out ;” by which words he supposes the Bread already broken, the Wine already poured out, before the Sacrifice is offered ; and that therefore the Sacrifice does not consist in breaking or pouring out the Bread or Wine. He treats Archbishop Laud, as he has done the most ancient Fathers and the Rev. Dr. Potter; that is, he would make them con- tradict the Truth and themselves by forced and unnatural constructions. ce 2 ADVERTISEMENT. In a pamphlet lately published, entitled, “ King Charles the First’s Bishops no Puritans,” there is, by way of appendix, a comparison drawn of some modern doctrines with the doc- trines delivered by Popish writers. There are two passages in it, which I think deserve my notice. The first is p. 31, under the title of ‘the Real Presence,’ (which is a word, that I do not remember that I ever used with approbation.) Here this writer produces the following words from The Propitiatory Oblation, p. 100, viz., “ When he is receiving the Holy Eucharist, he has the price of his Re- demption in his hand or lying before his eyes.” In the op- posite column are the words of Harding in his book against Bishop Jewell, intimating “the thing received in the Sacra- ment to be the very real Body of Christ.”” With Harding’s words I am not concerned. As for my own expressions, I do not think they need any justification with those that know and believe the Church Catechism; for if “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed received by the Faithful in the Lord’s Supper,” then I suppose the price of their Re- demption is verily and indeed received by them. And as for those who do not believe their Catechism, I shall only remind them that they are guilty of an opinion, which St. Ignatius thought to be heretical; for “they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, Which suffered for us, and Which the Father raised again by His goodness,” 6. 7. ad Smyrn. | The other passage is p. 32, under the title of ‘ the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.’ The words, cited from The Propitiatory Oblation, are as follows ; “'The Bread and Wine in the Sacra- mept are by Consecration made a representation of the Great ADVERTISEMENT. 389 Sacrifice on the Cross, and on that account ‘ propitiatory’ in the most proper sense.” Now if by ‘ propitiatory in the most proper sense’ I had meant, in that sense that the original was so, and that the Papists must allow their Sacrifice to be so, if it be the very substance of Christ’s Body; then I had indeed been guilty of an inexcusable excess: but in the very sentence here produced, and which is in the fifteenth page of the Propitiatory Oblation, I only assert that it is made a “ representation of the Grand Sacrifice,” and therefore pro- pitiatory only in virtue of That. And if this writer had been pleased to have compared these words with those in p. 9, he might have seen, that by ‘ propitiatory in the most proper sense’ I mean ‘expiatory ;’ for there I explain ‘ propitiatory’ as implying, Ist, The obtaining pardon for sin; 2ndly, Ren- dering the Divine Majesty more propitious. The first I call the most proper sense, as I suppose all will allow it to be. And again, p. 26, you have these words, viz., “‘ Hitherto I have been shewing that the Holy Eucharist is an Oblation, whereby we do in general render God propitious to us; but I have before hinted that there is a more eminent sense of the word, whereby it especially denotes Expiation and Atone- ment for sin.” And in what sense the Eucharist is an expia- tory Sacrifice, I presume I have plainly enough shewed both in the Propitiatory Oblation and in the Unbloody Sacrifice. I find there is no security against such insidious adversaries, except we repeat our explanations as often as we repeat our terms, and multiply words while we are writing controversy, as if we were drawing leases or conveyances. This writer, Ῥ. 44, cites Dr. Pain for truly stating the nature of a pro- pitiatory Sacrifice, viz., that ‘it suffers a vicarious punish- ment in another’s stead ;” but then how could a Mincha be propitiatory and expiatory, as it certainly was, Lev. v. 11—138. a i .. ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO PART 11. The following additions and corrections by the Author have not been inserted in their proper places in the body of the wort. Book, p. 94, line 13, read “ sacrificer.” P. 150, line 20, after “ Sacrifice,” add, ‘“ And Josephus in this respect joins in with Philo. Ὅπως δὲ μάλιστα θύοντες σωφρονῶμεν ἐπὶ ταῖς θυσίαις, ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς εὔχεσθαι δεῖ πρῶτον σωτηρίας, εἶθ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν. Contra Apion., lib. ii. p. 1074, [Ed. Geneve, 1634; Ed. Hudson, p. 1380.]” P. 157, margin, after Part I. add, pp. 185—139. P. 277, after line 33, add this paragraph : “Tt may seem strange to some, that I have not mentioned fasting, as an exercise very proper to prepare men for the Eucharist, and to express their reverence toward it. But it is to be remembered that I take my rules of preparation from the Primitive Church. They who communicated every day could not prepare themselves for it by fasting the day before, unless they had made their whole lives one continual course of abstinence ; and they who received thrice, twice, or once a week, had no reason to doubt but by abstaining every Wednesday and Friday till three o’clock in the after- noon, (which was then the general practice,) they did what was sufficient, as to this particular. Fasting has always been thought a very proper exercise for Christians, whether they communicate or not. And of the two, they who do not communicate have the greatest reason to fast ; for they, by their own confession, are unworthy of the Sacrament, and therefore ought to look on themselves as in the state of Penitence. The Primitive Christians did for the most part celebrate the Eucharist before day-hght, and therefore most probably took it upon an empty stomach; yet there is no just cause to believe that they thought this necessary, at least I am not sensible that they tell us so. Tertullian, in his Treatise of Fasting, says not a word on this head, though he was very rigid as to the duty of fasting in general. But it is very ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO PART II, probable, that the custom of communicating before day-light brought in this other practice of receiving the Sacrament in their fasting spittle. Toward the latter end of the fourth century, it seemed a fault” to some to break one’s fast on the Communion-day before receiving the Sacrament ; and, soon after, the Priest® was forbidden to administer it after he had eat or drunk. Yet even in the 5th century, some® whole Churches chose to have their Communion in the evening, and upon a full stomach: therefore the practice of the Church was not always and everywhere the same as to this particular. It 15 well known, that our Saviour first gave it to the Apostles after Supper; therefore to take it on an empty stomach cannot be absolutely necessary. They who find that abstinence exalts their devotion, ought by all means to use it on this occasion, according to the best examples of the fourth age of Christianity and of the following times. But there are many who cannot communicate fasting with- out great uneasiness and indevotion, unless they could go directly from their bed to the Altar; and these men must indulge the cravings of an infirm nature, so far as to quiet their spirits and preserve a due attention of mind in the service of God. This I say especially in relation to those Clergymen, who have crazy bodies, and have no assistance on Communion-days. . For they who are to speak for two hours together with little intermission, will find by dear-bought experience, that they destroy their own constitutions, if they allow no supply to nature. And, indeed, we of this northern climate are vain, if we pretend to imitate the old Eastern, African, or Italian Christians in their fastings. Our air is much more severe than theirs, and preys with a much sharper edge on our spirits and vitals. But both Clergy and people ought to confine themselves to what is barely suffi- cient to keep nature from sinking, and especially to abstain from all intoxicating liquors, when they come to appear before God. a Tertullian ad Uzor., lib. ii. c. 6, ing it in public. supposes, that the woman who had b See Responsa Timothei Alexandr. earried home some of the Eucharisti- in Beveridge’s Pandects, vol. ii. p. 169. cal Bread would take it in the morn- ¢ (Concil. Carth. 3. Act 6. Can. 29. ing early, ante omnem cibum; Ὀ6- p. 51, Ap.) cause this was then the time of receiv- 4 See Socrat. Histor., lib. v. c. 22. THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART. INTRODUCTION, containing several definitions of Sacrifice, with the Author’s opinion of them, and his own description of Sacrifice - - CHAP. 1. Shewing, in what sense and degree every particular mentioned in the description of a Sacrifice are necessary properties of it - - Sect. 1. Sacrifice is some material thing, animate or inanimate. It must be mate- rial. It is not necessary that it be animate. Θύειν does not properly signify ‘to slay’ - - - - - - - We dispute not for words. Ours an unbloody Sacrifice - - - Sect. II. Sacrifice is offered for the acknowledgment of the Divine dominion, and other attributes of God, and for procuring Divine blessings, especially remission of sin - - - - - - - Sect. III. A proper Sacrifice is to be offered on a proper Altar; though the Altar be rather necessary for the outward decorum than the internal perfection of the Sacrifice - - = = = - 2 Sect. IV. That a proper Sacrifice must be offered by proper officers, and with agree- able rites - - - - em si Ἂ No rites necessary but the actions by which the Oblation is performed - Sect. V. A Sacrifice is to be consumed in such a manner as God, or the author of it, hath appointed. Consumption by burning not absolutely necessary - Manducation, a proper way of consuming sacrifice. This proved from the Passover - - - - Ξ > 5 2 Page 67 72 ib. 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 392 CONTENTS OF PART I. Page CHAP. II. Shewing, that the Eucharist has all these five properties of a Sacrifice strictly so called - - Ξ - - a = Sect. I. That material Bread and Wine, as the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, are by a solemn act of Oblation to be offered to Almighty God in the Eucharist ; and that they were so offered by Christ in the Insti- tution - - - - - - - = By Unbloody Sacrifice the ancients meant somewhat material - - Rational Sacrifice may be material - - - - - Spiritual Sacrifice may be material - - - - Ξ Ancients deny Bread and Wine to be corporeal Sacrifices - - - The language of Scripture countenances this - - - - Rational and Spiritual may be applied to immaterial Sacrifice, Unbloody to material only - - - - - - Ξ Method in proving ἃ material Sacrifice - - - - - Evidence from antiquity for a material Sacrifice in the Eucharist, first from single Fathers - - - - Ε Ξ Ξ From Councils - - - - - - From Liturgies - - - - - - A prayer in the Constitutions, lib. vii. c. 25, considered - - - Evidence for the actual Oblation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, pro- perly so called - - - - - - τ Objection from St. Chrysostom on the Hebrews considered - - The Fathers supposed that Christ offered in the Eucharist, and yet never suppose that He offered twice - - - - - That Melchisedec offered Bread and Wine - - - - St. Paul’s silence concerning it considered - - - - Melchisedec’s sacrifice, why not corporeal - - - - Our Saviour sacrificed in the Eucharist - - - = Therefore He is the High-Priest of our Homology - - - Heretics of old allowed Sacrifice and Altar - - - - Evidence for the Sacrifice from Ignatius and Clement - - - But one Oblation in the Eucharist of old - - - - Christ’s sacrificing in the Eucharist proved from the word διδόμενον - From τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, &c. - - - - - The Sacrifice proved from 1 Cor. x. 16—21. - - - - We do not offer the Eucharist precisely for the same ends that Christ did - Sacrifice in general never abolished - - = Ξ 5 Objections against the Sacrifice from Heb. ix. and x. - - - Heb. x. 18 particularly considered - - - a - That the ‘ perfecting’ Heb. x. is not exclusive of further perfecting - - The Apostle hints the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in that chapter - - Christ the High-Priest of our Homology - - = = Sub-section to Sect. 1. - - = - - - - 1, Shewing that the Body and Blood offered in the Eucharist was the Bread and Wine - - - - - - 86 10ὅ 111 114 117 121 122 123 126 133 134 139 148 150 154 160 170 172 176 ib. 177 211 218 219 221 226 228 CONTENTS OF PART I. 393 Page This, the doctrine of single Fathers - - - - - 228 Of Councils - - - - - - - 235 Of Liturgies - - - - - - - 236 2. Ancients believed the Eucharistic Bread and-Wine to be types, images, &c. - - - - - - - ib. 3. Yet not such types as those under the Law - - - 288 The pre-eminence of the Eucharist as a type - - - 245 Difference of Baptism and Eucharist in this respect - - - 248 Bread and Wine made types by a Divine power - - - 260 4, Ancients believed the types to be the very Body and Blood - 251 In what sense Ignatius asserts the Body and Blood in the Eucharist - 256 Dr, Whitby’s gloss on 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, considered - - - 269 For what cause many of late not concerned to assert the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood - - = - - 268 Ancients believed the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood in power and effect - - - - - - - 206 That the Holy Spirit is present with the symbols to render them the Body and Blood in power - - - - - 269 The Holy Spirit may operate on inanimate things - - - ib. Proofs that ancients believed the symbols to be consecrated by the Holy Spirit - - - - - - - 278 This inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church of Rome - - 284 Old heretics allowed this - - - - - = 285 On what Scripture this was grounded - S 4 - 286 Ancients believed the Eucharist to be a mystery - - - 296 What meant by ‘spiritual receiving’ - - - - - 802 And by a spiritual Sacrifice - - - - - 808 By this we can distinctly say what we offer - - - - 304 Ancient Church believed not Transubstantiation - = - 805 How near Lutherans and Calvinists come to Transubstantiation =" Sk Treaty of Poissy - - - - Ξ = - 307 State of the dispute between Papists and Protestants - - 2 S47 Primitive doctrine has the advantage of the Lutheran and Calvin- istical - > - - - - - - 314 The opinion concerning two personal Bodies of Christ considered - 316 The occasion of modern mistakes about the Eucharist - “879 The consistence of the primitive doctrine of the Eucharist - = 991 5. The stress the ancients laid on the belief of Christ’s spiritual Body and Blood in the Eucharist - - - - - 828 Primitive Church required an express belief of it - - - 325 Ancients concealed the nature of the Eucharist from all but commu- nicants - - - - - - - - 826 6. By what subordinate means the Bread was believed to be made the Body and Blovd - = Β if yj - 329 1. By the Words of Institution - - Ξ - 830 2. By the Obiation - - - - ε = 331 3. Consecration was completed by the Invocation of the Holy Ghost - - - - - - - 884 Oblation not finished till after Consecration - - - 340 The Heavenly Altar - - - - - - 841 394 CONTENTS OF PART I. It was not the faith of the receiver that was believed to render the Bread the Body - - - - - Ancients believed the Consecration permanent, and therefore reserved the Eucharist - - - - - They expected to receive no Body of Christ but the Eucharis- tical - - - - - - - Seeming excesses of the ancients considered, as to the reality of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist - - - - 1, They did not pay It Divine honour - - - 2. How they thought It Christ’s own or proper Body - 3. They did not believe a change of substance - - 4, How they believed a change of nature - - - 5. Whether they thought this change miraculous - - Dr. Grabe’s charge against Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory Nyssen considered - - - - - Sect. II. That the Sacrifice in the Eucharist is offered for the acknowledging God’s dominion, &c., and for the obtaining Divine blessings, especially pardon of sin - - - - - - - - 1. The first end of the Eucharistical Sacrifice is to acknowledge God’s dominion, &c, - - - - - - - A place in Justin Martyr considered, which seems to make the Eucharist a Sacrifice merely verbal and mental - - Ξ Ξ A place in the Constitutions to the same purpose - - - Another of Clemens Alexandrinus - - - - - Another of Gregory Nazianzen - - - - - - Of the long recitals of God’s mercies in the ancient Liturgies - - St. Clement of Rome’s Sacrifice of Praise - - - - The Scripture notion of a Sacrifice of Praise - - - - 2. The other end of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is propitiation and expiation - Of the Prayers and Oblations for the dead in the primitive Church ΄ - Heb. xiii. proves the Christian Sacrifice to be both Eucharistic and expiatory The Sacrifice of the Eucharist no diminution to that on the Cross - - The Sacrifice of the Eucharist as expiatory, not unnecessary - - Two things necessary for the application of Christ’s Satisfaction, which are in the Eucharist only - - - - - - We do no more lessen the merits of Christ’s Death than our adversaries - Application of the merits of Christ’s Death made in some cases by the Obla- tion only - - - - - - - " Private Masses censured - - Ξ τ: = 7 με Sect. ITI. The Holy Table an Altar in the judgment of the primitive Church - Called a Table but once in the three first centuries, so far as yetappears - Lord’s Table and Altar the same thing - Ξ Ξ - = Whether the Altar be so called on the account of the Lay-Offerings only - Or as it is a centre of unity = = = ~ = = - Whether the Altar be so called on account of the Sacramental Body lying on it only, though not offered - - - - - Page 341 342 344 345 346 301 352 354 895 357 360 361 367 373 ib. 375 377 379 380 384 387 389 392 393 394 398 400 401 402 405 408 409 410 411 CONTENTS OF PART I. 395 How Christians denied that they had temples and altars - - - The inconsistency of our adversaries on this head - - - Sect. IV. Bishops and Priests proper Sacrificers - - - - - According to the order of Melchisedec - - - πῆς (ἀφ στη - Deacons, and all inferior to them, denied the privilege of Oblation and Con- secration - - - - - - - - This the most honourable part of the Priest’s office - - - The objection, that Bishops and Priests are not called Sacrificers in the New Testament, considered - τ - j - κι This power of the Bishops and Priests, the foundation of Christian disci- pline - - - = - = . 5 The only essential rites, Prayer and Praise - - = Ξ The people furnished the material part, which were sometimes called ‘ Vows’ 434 Which were by this means Holy and Sacrifice - - - - 488 These offerings free - - - - - - - id. People joined in the devotions pronounced by the Priest - - - 488 This no infringement on the Priesthood = - - - =i, OD: Secr. V. That eating and drinking are the proper manner of consuming this Sacrifice 441 And the most honourable - - - - - - 442 Eucharist truly a feast on a Sacrifice ~ < = Ε - 443 Tertullian very clear both for the Sacrifice and this way of consumption - 445 Therefore it is called the Bread of God - - - - - 446 To eat this, an honour to Christian people - - - ee Wicked men externally eat the Body of Christ, but not internally or beneficially - - - - - - - 460, δο. What particulars make any thing incapable of manducation - - 455 PROOF That the context [ of] John vi. from ver. 26 to ver. 36, and from ver. 46 to ver. 64, is to be understood of Sacramental eating and drinking - - 457 The case stated - - - - - - - - ib. It is confessed that some Fathers explain John vi. of Doctrine - - 458 Various senses given to the same texts by the ancients - - - ib. The spiritual sense of John vi. - - - - - - 459 The anagogical sense of John vi. - - - - - - 460 No Father says that John vi. is not meant of the Eucharist - - ἐδ. Clemens Alexandrinus not for that sense, which Dr. Whitby supposes - 461 But against it - - - - - - - - 463 Tertullian shewed to be not against the sense for which I plead, but rather for it - - - - - - - - 464 The same is shewed concerning Origen - - - - - 467 Ancients take it for granted, that John vi. is meant of the Eucharist - 469 Dr. Whitby’s allegations from Athanasius considered and refelled - 483 His allegations from Jerome considered and refelled - - - 484 And from St. Augustine - - - - - - - 485 396 CONTENTS OF PART I. Page That John vi. was generally understood of the Eucharist in the primitive Church - - - - - - - - 491 Proofs from Τπθοάοσεὶ - - - - - - - ib. from Cyril of Alexandria, and the third general Council - - ib. and from Gaudentius - - - - - - 498 from St. Ambrose - - - - - - - ib. from Macarius, Gregory Nyss., St. Basil, Optatus, St. Hilary - 494 from Cyril of Jerusalem, Firmicus, St. Cyprian - - - 495 from St. Ireneus, and St. Ignatius - - - - - 496 Eucharist the Flesh of Christ, contrary to Dr. Whitby’s criticism - 499 The judgment of the primitive Church concerning John vi. - - 500 John vi. cannot rationally be understood of what Dr. Clagett calls ‘ spiritual actions,’ Dr. Whitby, ‘faith’ - - - - - - 501 lst argument against the sense of this context - - - - 502 2ηα argument’ - - - - - - - - 505 3rd argument - - - - - - - - δ06 John vi. cannot rationally be understood of eating Christ’s natural Body by faith - - - - - - - - 507 lst argument against this supposition - - - - - ib. 2nd argument - - - - - - - ib. Both these opinions further disproved = - - - - - 508 lst argument - - - - - - - 1b. 2nd argument - - - - - - - 510 No absurdity follows, if John vi. be understood of the Eucharist - - 811 By ‘ Flesh’ in John vi., and ‘ Body,’ Matt. xxvi. 26, is meant the same thing 512 Positive proof that John vi. is meant of the Eucharist - - - 514 This is the most obvious sense - - - - - - 515 Ist argument for this sense - - - - - - ib. 2nd argument - - - - - - - 516 3rd argument - - - - - - - - 517 4th argument - - - - - - - - ib. The objection, that Eternal Life is annexed to Christ’s Flesh, is of no force - 519 What is our Saviour’s meaning, when He says, “ Take, eat,’’ in the Insti- tution - - - - - - - - 520 Eating Christ’s Flesh can import no more in John vi. - - - 521 Other objections considered - - - - - - δ28 Testimony of the Bohemians - - - - - - 524 Paraphrase on John vi. - - - - - - - 529 THE CONTENTS OF THE SECOND PART. INTRODUCTION Shewing, that Christ in the Eucharist offered or sacrificed Himself under the symbols of Bread and Wine - - - - - Christ was a real Sacrifice - - - - - - A tradition that He was sacrificed only on the Cross - - - Bloody sacrifices always offered while alive - - - - - Christ offered Himself before His Crucifixion - - - - Before He went into the ρατάθῃ - - ᾿ - - - And upon His instituting the Eucharist - - - - - And then ordained His Apostles to be Priests of this Sacrifice - - The Sacrifice of Christ no Jewish sacrifice - - Ξ - The Jews had no such representative sacrifice as the Eucharist > - The time and company, in which Christ offered Himself, most proper - We are to do what Christ did in the Eucharist - ΒΕ a x 1 Cor. x. 16 proves the Eucharist a Sacrifice - = - = And Heb. xiii. 10. = ΒΞ = = “ Ξ Ξ And 1 Tim. vi. 19..18.. - - - - = - bs How Christ was but once offered - - - Ξ Ξ Ξ The Sacrifice of the Eucharist does not render the Personal Sacrifice less : perfect - - - - - - - Ε: That there are sacrifices without blood - - - - - That the Eucharist is in effect called a Sacrifice in Scripture - - PART II. CHAP. I. In which the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacri- fices of the ancients is considered, with an intention to shew that the Eucharist is not the less a Sacrifice, because in some respects it differs from the sacrifices of the ancients; and that it is indeed a more excel- lent Sacrifice than theirs were. Sect. I. The Eucharist agrees with the most solemn sacrifices of the ancients in this, that it is attended with a feast upon the things therein offered to God. The Eucharist is a feast on a Sacrifice - - - - - Page 43 398 CONTENTS OF PART II. The practice of Jacob and Jethro - - - - - The Jewish sacrifices attended with a feast - - - - No part of the Passover was burnt - - - - - Jews’ festivals consisted of sacrifices and feasts - - - - All the flesh they eat in the desert first sacrificed - - - - Gentiles feasted on sacrifices very early - - - - - This custom continued among them - - - = Ξ And even to the Apostles’ time - - - - - - Feasting was sometimes the chief end of sacrifice - - - - The Gentiles in this not to be blamed - - - - - Not the whole sacrifice, but part of it, generally eaten of old - - Eucharist wholly eaten, as being wholly for our benefit - - - As being too worthy to be burnt - - - - - - It is a sober feast - - - - - - - And strengthens the soul - - - - - - - Sect. II. The Eucharist agrees in the main with the most solemn sacrifices of the ancients, as to the ends for which it is offered. The ends and design of men in offering sacrifice have always been the same in all ages and nations; these are of two sorts, First, particular, 1, Particular end of Sacrifice is to render a prayer the more acceptable - The Gentiles had this notion of a sacrifice - - - - 2. Particular end, to express thanks - - - = Ε Sacrifices of thanksgiving were substantial things - - - 3. Particular end, was to expiate guilt, whether the Sacrifice were bloody or unbloody - - - - - - - Secondly, general, 1, General end, the owning God’s dominion - - - - Gentiles had this notion - - - - - - 2. General end, to procure the Divine favour - - - - Whether the beast died instead of the owner - - - - Heathen thought all Sacrifice propitiatory - - - - Extravagance of the heathen in this point - - - Ξ The Eucharist serves all these ends - - = - - Though it be but one Sacrifice - - - - - - Sect. III. One, and that the principal end in offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is, to make a commemoration and representation of a greater Sacrifice: in this it differs from the generality of the ancient sacrifices. First end of the Eucharist is a commemoration - - - - All the virtue of it flows from this - - - - - Ancient sacrifices received their value from that of Christ - - Passover the only sacrifice of commemoration to Jews - - - Many Gentile sacrifices commemorations, not representations - - _Yet they had a sort of representative sacrifices - - - = Ancients had no notion of a sacrifice, whose merits proceeded from another ib. CONTENTS OF PART II. 399 Bloody sacrifices can no more be an atonement by their own virtue than unbloody ones - - = = = = νι All acceptable sacrifices ever received their virtue from that of Christ - Eucharist is clearly discerned to be what it is - > - - And was first and principally designed to θ6 5 - - - - In which the Sacrifice of Christ is represented as already offered - - And which is the Sacrifice of Christ in effect - - - - Sect. IV. Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of the ancients, as to the substance therein offered, Bread and fruit a most ancient Sacrifice - - - - - Of Noah’s offering cakes - - - Ξ = Ε More unbloody than bloody sacrifices among the Jews - - - And Gentiles - - - - = Ξ Ξ Ξ Drink-offerings used by Jews and Gentiles, and probably of mixed liquors - Ancients, though they differed in the substances offered, yet agreed that they were all sacrifices - - - - - - They who deny bread to be a Sacrifice, contradict the ancients and even Christ - - - - - - - - Meal-offerings a type of the Eucharist - - - - - Difference between Meal-offering and Eucharist - - - - Meal-offering a type of the Eucharist, as most holy - - - Wine offered in the heathen sacrifice, and some reserved for the feast - Wine mixed with water ofold in the Eucharist - - - Ξ The simplicity of the gross substances in the Eucharist - - - The dignity of the mysterious substance - - - - - Sect. V. Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of the ancients, as to the commendable qualities of the Sacrifice itself. In treating of the qualities, I first shew, 1. What qualities have always been thought most excellent in Sacrifice. And 1. Sacrifice ought to be of the best we have - - - - This was the opinion of the heathen - - - - - A ‘Sacrifice of Righteousness’ is a ‘large Sacrifice’ - - - 2. That best, which is most agreeable to the will of God - - - The care of the Gentiles in that point - - - - - Their uncertainty in this matter - - - - - And their superstition - - - - - - - The qualities of Bread and Wine render them a pure Sacrifice - - Especially as a representation of the great Sacrifice - - - The Sacrifice of Christ pure, though bloody - - - - The slaying of Him impure, therefore not performed by Himself - - How our Saviour laid down His life - - - - - Page 4.00 CONTENTS OF PART II. Page Secr. VI. Of the agreement and disagreement of the Eucharist with the sacrifices of the ancients, as to the manner in which it is offered. No certain rite necessary to make a sacrifice - - - - 97 Slaying was not an act of oblation among the Jews - - - 98 Nor among the heathen - - - - - - - ib. Sprinkling blood no essential rite of sacrifice - - - - 99 Burning, not necessary to make a sacrifice, according to the notion of the Gentiles - - - - - - - - 100 Burning considered as an act of acceptance, or an act of oblation - - 102 No sacrifice consumed by being offered - - - - - ib. Heathen looked on the burning, as the Divine acceptance - - - 108 Neither burning nor laying on the altar absolutely necessary - - 104 Cain and Abel’s and Abraham’s sacrifice, not offered by burning - - ib. Nor the wave-loaves, nor scape-goat - - - - - 105 Waving, not a necessary rite of sacrifice - - - - - ib, Nor scattering the salted cakes or corn’ - - - - - 106 The great stress laid on meal- and drink-offerings by the Law - - ib. Prayer was a rite of sacrifice used by Patriarchs, taught by Nature - - 107 Prayer used in sacrifice by the Jews - - - - - 108 Jewish priests implicitly required to offer sacrifice by prayer - - 109 Why there was no occasion for an express command - - 110 Gentiles always offered by prayer - - - - - - 1} Prayer the proper way of offering Sacrifice - - - - 118 Christ did so offer the great Sacrifice - - - - - 114 We are to offer the Eucharist by prayer openly pronounced - - 115 This best fits the nature of the Eucharist - - - - - 117 CHAP.+IL Of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist: First, in general, 1. As an express institution of Christ - - = 2 2418 Though it is not an eternal duty, yet a necessary one_~ - - - 119 The great stress which Christ lays on this duty, John vi. - - 120 2. As it is the only public proper Christian worship, and praying in Christ’s Name - - - - - - - 121 The most primitive Church made this their constant principal worship - 123 A daily Eucharist during the Apostolical age - - - - 124 No public worship properly Christian but in the Eucharist - - 125 All of old obliged to receive every Lord’s Day - - a = 126 They who may receive and do not, a new sort of Christians, and no true Christian worshippers - - - - - - ib. Commemoration of Christ’s Death deserves to be the principal worship of His Church - - - - - - - 127 3. As it is the most proper or only way for Christians to covenant and communicate with God - - - - - - 128 Covenanting and communicating the same - - - =. δ: CONTENTS OF PART II. 401 Page These privileges, not personal, but belong to us as members of the Church - - - - - - - - 129 In the Eucharist only, the Church covenants and communicates with y God - - - - διὰ - - 180 Pardon sealed to Christians in the Eucharist - - - - 182 Grace assured and given in the Eucharist, - - - - 133 The Eucharist, an assurance of a happy resurrection - - - 135 Obedience on our part necessary to be promised, asit is in the Eucharist 139 And charity, which is necessary for communion with each other - - 140 Sect. II. Of the great moment and necessity of the Eucharist, 2. In particular, considered as a Sacrifice: and 1. What is instituted as a Sacrifice, to be used as sacrificed - - 141 Divine institutions not to be altered by us - - - - 142 2. What is the principal worship of the Church has always been Sacrifice 143 (1.) Sacrifice was instituted by Divine authority - - - ib. Perhaps by the light of nature - - - - - - 144 Men might reason themselves into Sacrifice - - - - ib. (2.) Others think it a positive Divine institution - - - 146 These two suppositions more probable than that it was invented by rude men - - - - - - - - 146 (8.) If it were of human invention, yet it was established by Divine authority - - ᾿ 2 τ 2 - Se ibe: And that before the Law of Moses - - - - - 148 God intended it to be the most excellent worship - - - 160 1. As implying prayer and praise - - - - - - ib. . As adding force toit - - - - - - - 151 Prayer and praise absurdly preferred to Sacrifice - - - 154 God never abolished Sacrifice - - - - - - 156 , Not Psalm xl. 6; Heb. x. 5, 6. - - - - - ἐν. Not Psalm 1]. 9—13. - - - = - - - 157 Not Psalm li. 16. - Ξ - - - - - 158 bo Not Isaiah i. 11—15, - - - - - - 159 Not Isaiah Ixvi. 3. nor Jer. vi. 19, 20. nor Jer. vii. 22. - 160, 61 Not Hosea vi. 6. nor Amos υ. 21. - - - - - 1602 Not Micah vi. 6—8. - - - - - - eb Obedience better than Sacrifice - - - - - - 163 Obedience better than prayer - - - - - - 164 Better not to sacrifice than to offer what is forbidden or not commanded -ὀ ibd. All Sacrifice but the Eucharist abolished - - - - 165 Or made useless - - - - - - - 166 A recapitulation - - - - - - - ἐδ. Sacrifice necessary as well as obedience - - - - 167 Praying in Christ’s Name without the Eucharist, not so available as with it - - - - - - - - ib, 3. If Sacrifice was always the most proper way of covenanting and com- municating with God, then it is so still - - - - 168 God ever communicated with His Church by Sacrifice - - - ib, JOHNSON. pd 402 CONTENTS OF PART 11. The Eucharist intended as a means of communicating with God, and therefore made a Sacrifice - - - - - - Sacrifice in itself the most proper means of communicating with God - This applied to the Eucharist - - -- - - - Communion between Christians exercised in the Eucharist - - Christ by the Eucharist designed a most perfect union among Christians 4. Whether Oblation-be necessary to the consecration of the Eucharist - Grotius’s fancy, that Christ kept the Passover asa feast only - - This Sacrifice of the Eucharist does not impair the merits of Christ’s Blood Sect. ill. Of the necessity of a frequent Eucharist. Pastors bound often to administer it - - - - - Spiritual eating of Christ’s extra Ccenam, a false notion, as commonly under- stood - = . εἶ - 2 Ξ ὩΣ Christ designed frequent communion - - - - = Frequent communion necessary, because this is the most proper Christian worship - - ~ Ξ - Ξ Ξ 2 Christians obliged to be more frequent in their Sacrifice than the Jews were Especially because here we commemorate Christ’s Death according to His will - - - - - - - - =. Frequent communion necessary, as a means of covenanting and commu- nicating with Gods - - - - - - - And with each other - - - - - - - As itis ἃ 568] οὗ ρατάοῃ - - - - - - - And a means of grace - - - - - - - And of a happy resurrection - - - - - - As itis an obligation to holiness - - - - - - And the most proper way to prevent relapses into sin - - - The objection, That familiarity breeds contempt, considered - - Low notions of the Eucharist, one cause of unfruitfulness in the use of it - CHAP. III. Of the Unity of the Eucharist. I. The Eucharist One, as it represents One Body of Christ - - II. As sanctified by the same Spirit - - - Ξ - III. As the effects are the same in worthy receivers - - - IV. As the manner ought to be the same in the main - - - Kiss of charity, mixed Cup, Oblation of elements by communicants, com- mendable rites - - - - - - - More necessary rites, Priests’ placing Bread and Wine on the Altar, Sursum corda, Trisagium, &c. Rehearsing Words of Institution - - - - - Breaking Bread, pouring out Wine - - - - - Offering the symbols in commemoration of Christ’s Death - - Τηγοοδίϊοη of the Holy Ghost - - - - - Ξ' Intercession for all Christians and men - - - - Lord’s Prayer not necessary to consecration - - - * 199 201 ib. 202 ib. 206 207 208 ib. 209 210 212 CONTENTS OF PART II. Nor the Creed, Confession, and Absolution Nor Psalms and Hymns - - Distribution, a necessary rite - - V. As the Priests are, or ought to be, One by commission Presbyterians are schismatics, though Presbyters had power to ordain Orthodox people are One with the Priest But not heretics - = 5 Nor schismatics - - - The Eucharist of such is null - - Vi. In what sense the place for the Eucharist is One CHAP. IV. Of Excommunication. What it is Ξ Ξ a Ξ Instituted by Christ - i Ξ Administered by Bishops - - - Passed on none but communicants of old - Inflicted for none but gross errors in faith or practice The error must be attended with obstinacy What men lost by excommunication - It was always passed in the assembly for worship What share the people had in this censure Bishop, Clergy, and people, sufficient to inflict excommunication Pastors chiefly concerned to see it inflicted The meaning of ‘ delivering to Satan’ - Not inflicting diseases - - - The severity of this sentence of excommunication - Deserters under the effect of an excommunication And such as were bred in heresy and schism Who were finally cut off or excommunicated Common offenders, how reconciled - Deferring repentance increased the weight of the censure Penitents, not forbid the company of the Faithful Ancient penance, what - - Δ Heretics and schismatics admitted without penance The Absolution of the Priest, what - How they were perfectly and finally absolved Giving the Sacrament once upon a death-bed, not a perfect Absolution = - To the Church excommunication necessary for the discouragement of vice and evil - Ξ - = [ Civil punishments of Christian magistrates do not make it unnecessary Excommunication intended to be a guard and fence to the Eucharist The regard paid of old to the Eucharist best explains the munication - = = = The benefit intended to the offender by excommunication Especially in regard to the world to come Eucharist, no benefit to evil men - - The long penances, very beneficial - - Excommunication necessary to preserve men from the infection of vice pd2 nature of excom- 404. CONTENTS OF PART II. Page Great prudence necessary to the administration of it - - - 254 Excommunication corrupted by new Ecclesiastical courts - - 255 By extravagant penances - | - - = 2 - ἃ- οἶδ᾽ By commutations of penance - - - - - - ib. By absolving before penance was begun - - - - - ib. By communicating men under penance - - - - - 266 By repetition of excommunication and penance - - - - ib. By Bishops’ leaving this business to oth ers - set, - - ib. By turning excommunication into a curse - - - - ib In order to recover discipline we should first endeavour to rectify our doc- trine - - Ε - - - - - 10. cual... Of Preparation for the Communion - - - - - 208 Perfumes and other proper additions to the ancient sacrifices rendered them more acceptable - - - - - - - I. Necessary preparation for the Eucharist is Baptism - - - 259 II. Necessary preparation is either, I. To have preserved Baptism undefiled, which is best, and that 1. As to faith - - - - - - - 200 2. As to practice - - - - - - - 261 Sins of necessary infirmity do not defile Baptism - - - ib. Nor all lesser known sins, as causeless anger - - - - δ. Nor lesser injuries, which proceed not from malice - - - 262 But apostasy defiles Baptism, and for ever excludes from Communion - 263 Presumptuous acts of sin defile Baptism, aud make us unfit for the Eucharist - . - - - - - - - 264 And so do all habits of sin - - - - - - ib Danger of receiving the Sacrament in these cases - - - 268 All wilful sin does for a while render men unfit for the Eucharist - ib. II. Or else to have cleansed ourselves by repentance from these defilements. Repentance only can restore men to the use of the Eucharist - - 266 Repentance of old attended with fasting and alms - - - 267 With public confession in the face of the Church - - - 268 And it was very long - - - - - - - 269 This was the only long preparation for the Eucharist - - - 270 This repentance not unnecessary - - - - - 271 Because in the Eucharist we profess a pure whaian - - - ib. And to be in covenant and communion with God - - - - ib. And to present ourselves to God - - - - - ib. The nature of Sacrifice requires purity - - - - - ib. Primitive Christians publicly confessed their private sins - - 272 Danger of receiving unworthily no excuse for wilfully abstaining - 218 Il]. Resolving against sin for the future necessary to fit us for the Eucha- rist as a covenant - - - - - - 214 Sins after receiving not unpardonable’ - - - : - 275 LV. Inward and outward reverence necessary to make us worthy commu- nicants. Inward reverence proved necessary - - - - - ib. CONTENTS OF PART II. 405 Page And outward reverence - Ξ Ξ - - - 277 Particularly in our bodily posture - - - - - ἐδ. V. A competent knowledge of the nature of the Eucharist necessary to make us worthy communicants: Particularly, what is the meaning of the Eucharist or of Blessing the Bread and Cup~ - - - - - - - ib, The true method of administering the Eucharist - - - 280 The benefit of worthy receiving - - - - - ib. VI. Self-examination on the foregoing heads is necessary to render our. selves worthy communicants - - - - - 281 Devotions for the Altar - - - - - - 282 [Bishop Poynet’s testimony - - - - - - 808 Animadversions on Dr. Wise’s book, called The Christian Eucharist rightly stated - - - - - - - 321 Reflections on the Answer to the exceptions against the Bishop of Oxford’s Charge - - - - - - - - 37] Advertisement in relation to a pamphlet, entitled, King Charles’s Bishops no Puritans | - - - - - - - 888 [The bracketted portion of the Contents has been reserved from the First Part of the First Ed. of Johnson. ] ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER. Whenever I cite the Fathers, or any ancient monument of the Church con- tained in the Appendix to the First Part, I do it in the same manner as in the for- mer volume; and therefore refer my reader to the advertisement immediately before the introduction to Part the First: thus, for instance, in page 62, line 3, of this Second Part, I cite St. Augustine, and add in the text (I. p. 36. Ap.) that is to say, at the letter I in the 36th page of my Appendix to the First Part, and there accordingly you will find the Latin words of St. Augustine. AN INDEX ‘OF THE SCRIPTURES EXPLAINED OR CITED IN BOTH PARTS OF THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE: @ DENOTES THE FIRST PART, 0 THE SECOND, * THE EPISTLE PREFATORY TO THE FIRST PART, + THE PREFACE TO THE SECOND. [As the Prefaces to both Parts are paged uniformly with the volume in the present Edition, this distinction becomes obviously unnecessary ; but it has been found convenient to retain it. | iv. Viii. ΙΧ. ΧΙ], Xiil. Xiv. XV. ΧΧΙ. Xxii. XXVi. XXXi- ΧΙ]. xlvii. xl viii. xiil. XViii. Kix. ° xx. GENESIS. 8---ὅ. α 70 ib. b73 ‘6 δ 145 21, b 27, 64 20, 22. b 57 8, 9. a 194 8. b 107 4. a 413, ὃ 107 18. a 122,675 11, 16, 24. a 125 9—18. a 124, ὃ 104, 148 33. b 107 9. a 79, 124 25. b 107 45—54 b 172 δ4. b 44 26. a 348 226 α 81 14. 6 110 EXODUS. 12—18. b 148 23. b 61 I—3. b 44 3. ὃ 61 8, 20, 26. b79 25, 26. ὃ 148 i ὃ 104 8, 9. b 46 9. α 84 22. a 80 27. a 84 26, 27. a91,b70 (misprinted xiii. ) 48. b 259 2. ὦ 149 12, b 44 6. ὁ 83 24. b 149 Sau, . 19% a 84, b 52 XXiv. 4, 5. a195 5, 6. b 85 5—8. b 148 xxv. 40. + 16 Xxviii. 38. a 187 XXix. 1, 9. a 183 9, 29, 89. a ib. 10. b 29 36. a 185 42 b 187 xxeu, — 6; a 94, b 37 15. b 48 xxxii. 30. a 396, b 109 xxxiv. 15. b 48 25. a 84, b 52 χει, 1, 2. ὁ 149 LEVITICUS. i. 2---ῦ. ὃ 28 4. b 63 4, 15. 6110 5, TE a 448 9. b 27 9, 13. b 64 i. li. 111, chapters per totum. b 76 ii. 1—4. a 432 2—12. b 64 2,13, 14. b 82 3. b 83 5. a 531 5, 10. b 82 9. a171 11. (misprinted 17.) ὃ 104 11. b 79 13. b 65, 74, 77 iii. ΤΣ b 28 2, 8. a 448 δ. b 21, 45, 64 6, 8. b 357 9, 10. a 83 ili. iv. Vi. XVi. XVil. AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. δ 110 a 334, 531 5110 a 390 b 46 a 395 a 438 ᾧ 358 628 | a 191 a 83 ὃ 35 ib. ὃ 76 _a 437 b71 a 188 ὁ 109 661 b 102 a 85 b 27 a 445 a 531 a333 ! a 85 a83 a 332, 531 a 380 b 82 b 59 ὃ 318 b 272 6 121 ὃ 83 ὃ 29 6110 6 318 a 183 6 109 ὃ 153 ὃ 68, 102, 104 a 124 a 204 b 271 a 188 a 185 a 208 a 188 ὃ 272 6110 a 205 a 184 a 196 a 189 ὁ 29 ὃ 46 ὃ 99 6 105 ὃ 27 b 47 ὃ 221 | XVil. βαρ a448 | XXi. XXil. XXiii. | XXiv. | XXVii. XXVlil. XXViil. XXix. XXii. 407 11. a 390, 392, ὃ 63 ὅ, 8. a 85 9, 17. a. 188 8. a 445, 531 0, a 334, 531 10. a 183 6—21. a 334 22. a 446, b 83 18, 19 a 139 23. ὃ 88 25. a 531 29. a 380, b.59 1, 8,16. α 438, per tot. ὃ 59 ; ὁ 82 16, 17. 6105 6, 7. a 171, 432 9. a 435 NUMBERS. © 3 a 183 13—87. a 76 10. ὁ 90 2—12. b75 47. 5 109 1. α 187 17. ὃ 149 13, 20. a 191 13. ὃ 271 22 ὃ 164 9. a 130 1—30. ὃ 50 24. a 468 2: ὃ 48 4 ὃ 187 δ a 437 per tot. b 59 2, 3, 5, &c ὃ 106 15—50. b 224 DEUTERONOMY. 8. a 194 8. ὃ 153 16. b 360 Geis. a 435, 139 26. a 435 27. a 438 19, 20. b 149 11, 14. b 55 δ. ὃ 153 88. ὃ 64 19, (misprinted 12.) b 89 9. 6 110 JOSHUA, 19—27. a 406, ἡ 172 408 Xili, li. 111. Vi. vii. ix. xiii. XV. XVi. XXVi. vi. ΧΙ]. XV. XXiv. 111. Viii. XViii. iii. XVi. XXi. XXilL Xxili, vil. ΧΧΙΧ, XXX. AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS, JUDGES. 20. a 79 1 SAMUEL. 25. ὃ 109 14. b 60 5—17, (misprinted 57.) 6 80 a. b 107 12, 13. δ 47 13. b 278 9, b 97 ἢ, 15. b 164 12. b 57 15 ὁ 88 22 b 164 5—11. b 46 19 b 60 2 SAMUEL 17..19 ὃ 47 18. α 186, 390 7—12. b 89 17—25. b 57 28. ὃ 158 1 KINGS. 15. b 47 22—54. ὃ 152 64, 65. b 47 24, ὃ 102, 151 2 KINGS. 27. b 162 1 CHRONICLES. 4—41. a 381 26. a 374, 381 ib. b 104, 107 17. ὃ 57 28. b 159 Σ ὃ 159 13. ὃ 153 2 CHRONICLES. 1, b 63, 102, 104 12. ὁ 150 31. a 380, ὁ 30, 59 26, 28. ὁ 108 18, 19. b177 27. b 153 ἘΧΧΊΙ.. 10: a 380, ὁ 59 XXXV. 7---9. b 51 ΤΣ a 80, b 104 EZRA. Vi. 9, 10. b 58 NEHEMIAH. δ 84. b 258 xiii. 31. ib. JOB. xlii. 7—9. ὃ 57 8. ὃ 148 PSALMS. iv. δ. ὃ 89 xvill, 23. b 269 ΣῈ, 4. b 102 xxii. 25,26 b 56 XXiii. 5. a 475 XXVi. 6, 7. ὁ 152 xxvii. (misprinted xxxii.) 6. b 90 ΧΙ. 6. a 205 ΞΕ b 114, 156 xiii. 4. b 152 1. ὃ. b 64 9—13. ὃ 157 14, Ὁ 158 14, 23. a 379 li. 16—19 ὃ 158 17: a 374 18, 19 : 5 89 lviii. δ. b 350 xi. 5. a 373 lxix,. -81. 32 a 384 --- 6154 ixxiy. 8: b 187 cl. Ze b 159 cvi. 30. ὃ 109 cvii. 22. a 380 Cx. 4. [a 99.] ὃ 80 cxvi, 17. . a 380 exli. 2. ὃ 362, 151 ISAIAH. i. (misprinted 1.) 12. b 246 11—16. : b 159 vi. he a 186 xliii, 28. b 61, 258 lili. 10. b 114 lvi. 7. b 150 lvii. ce b 48 Ixvi. 3. b 161 vi. AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 4.09 JEREMIAH. 19, 20 b 161 20. b 258 22, 23 δ 101 26. ὃ 41 88, 35 α 209-10 28. a 223, 140 EZEKIEL. ΤΊ. b 48 40, 41. b 48 22. a 408 26. b 30 16. a 408 15. 17, ὃ 63 12. a 141, ὁ 41 DANIEL. 7 b 84 HOSEA. 8 a 532 6 b 162 2 a 382 JOEL. 14. b 278 AMOS. 5. a 380, 141, ὃ 41 25. Sb 13, 76 Zi: b 162 JONAH. 8, 9. a 381 MICAH. 6, 8. b 162 d< ὃ 60 ZECHARIAH. 4. a 186 17. ; α 457 MALACHI. 12. a 408 10, 11, a [(87,] 371, ὃ 351 11. b 82, 221 14. ὑ 88 2, a b 278 3. ὁ 90 APOCRYPHA. 1 ESDRAS. Vi. 29—31. ὃ 58 -2 ESDRAS. li. 38, 40. ὃ 260 JUDITH. ix Ἰ- b 152 ESTHER. xiv. ΙΣ b 84 WISDOM. ix. 8. + 16 XViil. 9. b 149 Fi; b 109 ECCLESIASTICUS. Skyy. 2. a 391 ὃ, 4. a 396 1. (misprinted i.) 11—19. δ 108 14—19. b 152 20,21. 6153 BARUCH. i. 6, 13. ὃ 57 1 MACCABEES. iv. 56. a 380 62, 56. a 358 2 MACCABEES. τὰ 23—30. b 108 ST. MATTHEW. v. 20—22. ¢ 15 23 : a 373, 409, 354, 378, Ἶ ὃ 140, 204, 268. vi. 6. b 212 19, 20. α 298 xs 20. ib. xili. 47, 48 a 471 xiv. 19. ὃ 278 XV. 36. ib. xvi. 2A. a 810 XVili. 1, 19, 20 6121 15, 16. ὃ 227 18. ὃ 225 xix. 15. 6110 ΧΕΙ; 25. a 524 9. . a 294 410 Xxiil. XXVi. XXVIlii, XV. Xvi. AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 19. «19 8. b 262 a 21. b 277 20, 9. b 277, 278 ib. a160, 286, 473, 474, 485 28. a 161 ib. b 131, 132 29. b 84 31. b 36 34. b 275 19, 20. b 259 ST. MARK. 23. b 110 40. b 277 ὃ. b 110 41. b 278 6,7. ib. 49. b 74, 76, 121 39. ὃ 163 aoe b 278 22, 23 a 286 24. α 101 ΣῈ ὃ 84 ib. ὃ 32,131 44. b 96 18. b 110 ST. LUKE. 4. +22 10. a 439, ὃ 152 17. b 312 16. b 278 4, δ. a 294 12, 13 ib. 18. b 84 19, 20. a 161, 167 —— a 286 — b 32 ~— ὃ 131 ib. b 208, 278 ST. JOHN. 19. a 130 14. ib. 20, 21s b 221 9. a 294 91; 32. ib. 15. a 530 27—63 a 457, 528. -- + 18 11, b 345, 278 11,28. a 339 33. a 448 41. ὃ 278 47. a 532, b 185 48, 49. a 532, b 135 vl. iil. 54, 58. a 533, b 136, 281 56. b 131, 191 63 a 287 — ὃ 133, 280 16 a 294 56 a 133 9. a 182 17, 18 ὃ 98 ἣν a 184 6. a 182 ib. b 132 16—29. b 122 S, a4. b 215 9, 26. b 123 AT. b 215 17,.18 6121 19. a 184 20. 630 iF b 32 26. b 36 34, 35 +6 9}: b 215 23. b 225 ACTS. 14. b 124. 23. b 94 41. b 221 42. b 123, 208 15. ὃ 94 4. b 221 14. ib. 30. b 94: 42. ὁ 73, 76 19. 6110. 4, a 341 9—16. a 469 89. b 94 L b 66 14; b 233 29. ὃ 50, 79 25. + 12 ct ib. 6 b 110 : ὃ 128 28. b 129, 208 ri a 436 di b 187 ROMANS. 95. a 394 2. a18sl 10. a 202 16, 18 b 132 16. ὃ 208 17. ὃ 235 1 CORINTHIANS. ie a 129 8. b 216 iv. ΣΝ SERN τοῦ ST ἘΝ Θ bo est δὴ Ἠ --- 008 AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. b 248 b 229 b 226 ὃ 248 6 229 b 233 b 247 26. a 356 a 95, 242 a 275 a 320 a [95,] 530 a [95, | 464 a 174 b 37 b 83 b 208 a 172, 259 ὃ 130, 191 6170 b 37 a 339 a 408, 449 b 53 b 124 b 276 ib. 2b. a 161, 82 a 286 b 278 a 170, + 18, ὃ 208 ὃ 118, 128 b 246, 277 a 452 +12 a 287, 464 b 55, 133, 191 a 440 a 202 a 94, 292 b 203 b 250 2 CORINTHIANS. ΤῈ 17. 21. b 249 a 292 a 369 b 27 b 248 ὃ 249 ὁ 269 b 267 a 389 a 222 b 267 b 216 b 230, 252 b 232 b 203 iv. ii. iii. iii. iil. 411 GALATIANS. 4. b 27 20. ib, 22.—_ al13l 26. a 198 15. a 181 EPHESIANS. 3. a 198 23. b 129 6. a 196 18. a 181 11: 22: a 304, 466 19. a 181 a a 160, b 27 25, 30. b 129 26-27. 6 130, 261 PHILIPPIANS. 4, b 37 18. a 436 COLOSSIANS. Ve b 165 15. b 129 1 THESSALONIANS. 25. b 2038 2 THESSALONIANS. 14. ὃ 235 1 TIMOTHY. 20 ὃ 233 1:9 b 66 14. b 218 22. b 110, 218 12, 13 a 223 ib. b 38 12—20. + 20 2 TIMOTHY. 13, 14. + 20 2. + ib. 19. b 271 14. + 20 4.12 AN INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. TITUS. xiii. 9. a 389 10. a 193, b 38 ii. 14. b 27 15. a 381, 391 iii. 11. b 288 ST. JAMES. sae as ibe vB a 225 ii. δ. a 190 = b268 10. a 183 11: α 184 1 ST. PETER. iii. Γ a 189, 39 iv. 14, 16. a 182, 222 | ii. 5. a 304, b 350 v. 1. a 1238 9. b 83 12, 13. a 129 24. a 163 vi. 2. 6110 | ν. Ἢ b 275 4. ὁ 252 8. a 190, ὃ 235 5, 6. b 236 2 ST. PETER. ae a vias [i 8, b 276 27. a 184, [202] | 2 2. t 10 ib. a 202 3. a 123 1 ST. JOHN. ix. 7. a 164]. 14. 5114 | 6. b 275 14, 26. b 27 | 11. 16. b 95 16. ὁ 360 | Y- 16. ὃ 235 19. a 85, 133 22. ὃ 72 2 ST. JOHN. 23. +6 25, 26. a 163 10. b 241 28. ib. ix. and x. per tot. a 177, 226 7 1b a: δὶ 39 ST. JUDE. 5—9. ae is 3. a 201, ὃ 129 6 7 166 12. b 252, 276 10. a 207 23. b 259 ib. ὁ 88 18. α 202 APOCALYPSE. 22. b 128,271 | . ὶ 28. b 39 1- 10. ὃ 252 26. δ 235 | ue 14. b51 xi. 4. a76, 674, 76, 87,146 | 111. 4. ὃ 259 17: a 456 | V1. 15. ὃ ib. 28. $17 | σχῇ. 1,2, 14. ὁ 260 xii. 24. B75 | Xvili. 12. b 258 i ΝΑ͂Ι SS ΟΌΥΓ ΞΡ: ; INDEX RERUM. N. B. ἃ DENOTES THE FIRST PART, ὃ THE SECOND PART; * THE EPISTLE PRE- FATORY TO THE FIRST PART, +| THE PREFACE TO THE SECOND PART. A. Abel’s sacrifice, whether bloody, b 74. —— whether offered by fire, ὁ 104. whether offered by light of na- ture, ὃ 144, 148. — his sacrifice spake, α 371. Absolution, how misused by Papists, ὃ, 188, 192. not necessary before the Com- munion, ὁ 213. of old only prayer, ὁ 241. Adam, not immortal without the fruit of the tree of life, b 136. Adoration of the Sacrament unlawful, b 315, 316. Ainsworth asserts unbloody Sacrifices, ὃ 41. Allegorical sense of Scripture, a 461, 467 — taken for the true, by some moderns, a 517. ; Alone, often to be supplied in Scripture, a 293, 294. Altars, the several sorts of them, a 79. in what degree necessary to Sacri- fice, a 80, 402-3. Nazianzen’s mystic Altar, a 100-1. Communion-Table, properly so called, a 402-5. sometimes of old without fire, ὃ 52, 53. commonly imports Sacrifice, a 406-7. Altar Christian, was not only for re- ceiving lay-Oblations, a 409. not so called as a centre of unity only, α 410-11. not only as a bier of the Body of Christ, a 411. not only for offering prayer and praise, a 412. in what sense One, ὃ 222-4. its place in the primitive Church, a 447-8. Altar heavenly, a 341. Altar heavenly, does not disprove Altar on earth, + 16. Amen, the import of it at receiving the Eucharist, a 325-6. Anathema, the import of it, b 235. Andronicus, Prefect of Ptolemais, how dealt with, b 229-233. Apostate has no offering for sin, @ 214-15. cannot be received to Com- munion, ὦ 236. Apostles, when consecrated, ὦ 30, 31. the most proper witnesses of Christ’s Sacrifice, 6 36. forbade Christians to eat heathen sacrifices, ὁ 50. did not celebrate the Communion before the descent of the Holy Ghost, b 123, 4. Arminianism imputed to Archbishop Laud, * 21. Arminians’ notion of the Eucharist, a 312-13. Athenians first offered only unbloody sacrifices, b 77. their doubts, what sacrifice to offer, b 91, 2. Atonement implies prayer, ὃ 108, 9. B. Baptism, how it purges from dead works, a 192. called Salvation, a 490. the effects of it, a 248-9. how kept pure, how defil ed, ὁ 257, 266. why previously necessary to the Eucharist, a 265, ὁ 130, 258. how God had regard to the hea- then in the institution of it, ὃ 52. Barclay, (Robert,) his notion of Christ’s Flesh, a 320. Belief of Christ’s Sacramental Body, necessary of old, a 3238-6. Believing, without Sacraments, makes not a perfect Christian, a 490. 414. Bennet, (now Dr.,) mentioned with honour, a 156. Beryllus, why not excommunicated, b 228. Beveridge, (Bp.,) his sense of offering first-fruits, { 22, 23. Bezxa gravelled by the 307-9. Bier, see Altar. Bishops and Priests proper Sacrificers, ~ a 418-25. One by commission, ὁ 215, 17. guardians of the Altar and Sacri- fice, * 1, a 431. have the power of excommunica- tion, a 431, ὃ 227, 232. Bishops how ordained of old, b 34. principally concerned to restore frequent Communion, ὁ 180, 181. their greatest difficulty was disci- pline, 6 235, 241, 255. laid hands on Penitents, ὃ 241. Blessing grounded on Sacrifice, a 124, b 152, 3. how it made atonement, b 63. therefore Communion must end with a blessing, ὃ 215. Bread and Wine, what it means, ¢ 17, b 207, 277, 9. Blood, the sprinkling of it, whether necessary to sacrifice, 6 99, 100. Body and Blood of Christ, their sub- stantial Presence confuted, a 344. See Transubstantiation. difference between natural and Sacramental, ὁ 309, 310. two Bodies of Christ are not in the Sacrament, a 344, 510. yet Lutherans and Calvinists must allow two Bodies, a 313,,510, 14. own proper Body, what it means, a 351, how taken, or not taken, by the wicked, a 488, 450-7. separated from the Blood, not offered in substance by Christ, + 5. called Sacrifices, + 6. and Blood in Eucharist are Bread and Wine, a 228-36, + 14. the improbability of this, the cause of error, a 319-20. many not concerned to assert the Body and Blood in the Eucharist, a 263. Christ has but one Personal Body, a 316-8. mystical, the Eucharist so called, a 482. spiritual, in the language of the ancients, a 94. —— the Eucharistical Bread, such a Body, a 302. Papists, a INDEX RERUM. Bohemians assert John vi. to be meant of the Eucharist, a 524. Bread of God, a 151, 333-4, 446-8, 497-8, 530, b 83. from Heaven, the Eucharist so called, a 524. and Wine, the only necessary Altar-Oblations, Ὁ 342-3, 375-378. by whom furnished, a 434, ὃ 377, ὃ 204. when to be placed on the Altar, * 41. by whom, * 41-2, ὃ 206. how they are incorporeal, rational, a 94, 133, 303-4. in what sense the very Body and Blood, a 251-9, 266, ὃ 311. not made so by the faith of the receiver, a 341-2. Breaking the Bread, a necessary rite, b 208, 9. Burning, not necessary to sacrifice, ὁ 100-104. not taught by light of nature, b 144. Burnt-offerings rare among the heathen, ὁ 50. attended with peace-offerings among the Jews, ὃ 51. C. Cain, the fault of his sacrifice accord- ing to LXX, ὃ 87, 145. want of faith, Ὁ 74. Calvin’s opinion of communicating once a year, b 184. his saying, that Christ made a libation with the Cup, a 167. his notion of a sacrifice, a 67-8. © and of the Eucharist, a 309. Calvinists come too near to Transub- stantiation, a 305-14, + 4. may either affirm or deny the Real Presence, a 310. must make three Bodies in Eu- charist, a 510. Carnal eating, what meant by it, ὃ 311. Carthage, the number of Christians there, b 222. Catechumens, their Sacrament, a 443. kept in ignorance of the Eucha- rist, a 327, 490. censured, though not liable to excommunication, b 227. Change in the elements without Tran- substantiation, a 352-4. of nature, in what sense, a 354-5, —— in a particular manner asserted by Nyssen, a 357. of natural qualities, denied by this writer, ¢ 20, 21. — not miraculous, a 888. INDEX RERUM. Christ, whether He twice offered His Body and Blood, a 122. offered Himself in the Eucharist, a 134-175, b 30-36. how He consecrated Himself, b 30-31. never concealed His intention of dying, a 510. calls meal-offering, sacrifice, ὃ 73, 4. did in no sense offer for His own sins, a 184-5. how He was once offered, a 200-2. how He was offered by the Spirit, b 114. He offered ‘the delightful thing’ in the Eucharist, a 135-6, 206-7. instructed His disciples in the nature of the Eucharist, before He instituted it, α 515. His merits not lessened by Sacri- fice of the Eucharist, a 392-401, b 178, 179. how He laid down His life, ὃ 95. —— without slaying Himself, ὁ 94, 95. — without shortening His own life, ὃ 95, 96. His offering Himself, the most memorable thing that ever was, ὃ 68. Chrysostem’s Memory of a sacrifice, α 12]. he refuses to condemn Origen, a 270. Church, its consecration for ever by the Sacrifice of Christ, a 209-10, 218. offers Sacrifice, a 438. union with her, necessary for Communion with God, ὃ 129. of England has not determined the manner of Christ’s Body being in the Sacrament, a 314. — who are her most formidable enemies, * 18, 19. Cicero’s omen, ὃ 103. Clagett, (Dr.,) his mistakes concerning John vi., a 460, 1, 501-10. concerning the sense of St. Augustine, a 485-7. Clere’s Le dark annotations, ὃ 374-5. Clergy should encourage frequent Com- munion, ὁ 187, 188. Commemoration of Christ’s Sacrifice ; the reason of it, ὁ 67-69. deserves to be the principal wor- ship, 6 127, 128. and frequently repeated, ὁ 189. Communion with God, the most proper notion of it, ὃ 37. one end of sacrificing, } 63-65. the same with covenanting, ὁ 63, 128, 129. \ 415 Communion with God, maintained prin- cipally by the Eucharist, ὁ 130, 131. and by the Eucharist as a Sacri- fice, b 168-172. and as frequently celebrated, ὁ 186, 187. —— between Christians, ὃ 140, 172. Table. See Altar. Confession of sin, how made in primi- tive Church, ὃ 268, 272. Consecration of the Apostles performed by Christ in the Eucharist, ὃ 33, a 207. of Eucharist, in what posture, * 42-4. of Eucharist, how performed, a 331-45, ὃ 279, 280. by the Spirit, α 266, 304. — whether it can be done without Oblation, 6 175, 179. esteemed permanent in primitive Church, a 342-3, + 14, 18. a fairly supposed prayer of Con- secration, a 118. Consistency of the primitive doctrine of the Eucharist, a 321-2, ὃ 390. of understanding John vi. of the Eucharist, a 511-21. Constitutions of the Apostles, what, 7 10. second, what, + 11-13. Consubstantiation, a 312-15. how explained or denied by Lu- therans, ¢ 13. Consumption of Sacrifice, whether only by fire, a 83-4, distinct from Oblation, ὁ 103. —— always performed chiefly by man- ducation, a 85, 441-2. which is most honourable, a 442-3. Covenant renewed with God in Eucha- rist only, ὃ 130. See Communion. Creed shortest, thought the best, * 20. no essential part of the Com- munion-service, ὃ 213. Creesus’s sacrifice, ὦ 80. Cross of Christ, an Altar, a 80. whether meant by St. Paul, Heb. xiii. 10, ὃ 38. whether the Personal Sacrifice was offered there only, t 3-6, ὃ 28. Cudworth, (Dr.,) his notion of the Eu- charist, a 444. his mistake, + 5-6. Cup denied or fraudulently given to the people in the Church of Rome, a 441. must have been offered by Christ, a 170, ¢ 18. whether mixed with water, ὃ 77, 78, 84, 85, 203-205. 416 D. Daily Eucharists in primitive Church, b 124, 126, 186. corrupted in Church of Rome, b 180. David did not renounce sacrifice, 6 156, 159. Deacon, not to offer to God, a 425, 8. how to offer to the people, a 426. one part of his office, to warn offenders, ὁ 272. Definitions of Sacrifice, a 67-9. Delivering to Satan, what, b 232. Destruction of the flesh, what, ὃ 248, 249. Devotions for the Altar, b 282. Disciple, a child may be one, { 11. Discipline, the foundation of it, how to be restored, b 258, 263. Dissenters, on what terms peace with them desirable, * 18. Distribution of Eucharist. Consumption, &c. Divisions concerning the Eucharist, by whom caused, * 19-21. Doctrine of Christ properly received in Eucharist, a 458. See Word. Docete, their error, a 257-8. Drink-offerings, b 77, 78. whether wholly poured out at the Altar, ὃ 83, 84. Duties, their degrees of obligation, b 118-120. moral and positive, 6 118-119. external and internal, ὁ 119, See Feast, 120. E. Eating Christ’s Flesh, whether it sig- nify faith, &c., only, a 505-6. cannot be a mere metaphor, a 508-9. Effects of Christ’s Death various, and variously applied, a 213. Ends of Sacrifice, a 70, 78. of Christ’s offering and ours, not the same, a 206-7, ὁ 115. of Sacrifice, attained in the Eu- charist, a 360-401, ὁ 56-67, Ephesus, the General Council there, understands John vi. of the Eucha- rist, a 490, Epiphanius condemns Origen, a 270. Episcopacy, why thought burdensome, * 20. ἐσθιόντων, how to be turned, ὃ 209, 278. Eternal Life, John vi., what meant by it, a 622, Etymologies not allowed for proof, * 48, a73 INDEX RERUM. Eucharist, the meaning of the name according to Clemens Alexandrinus, a 285-6, 389. the proper Christian worship, b 121-127. a sacrifice of thanksgiving, a 360- 384, b 66, 67. -- ἃ rational account of it, + 4. whether called a Sacrifice in Scripture, ὃ 41. necessity of it, as an institution, 6121. as a tie to obedience, ὁ 139. as a tie to charity, ὃ 140. as the Christian worship, 6 121. as it is praying in Christ’s Name, δ 121, 122. —— the foundation of discipline, ὁ 256. not celebrated by the Apostles before Pentecost, b 122. whether consecrated without Ob- lation, ὁ 175, 178. the rareness of it, blameable, ὃ 180, 181. One, as being Christ’s Body, ὁ 199, 200. a perfect Absolution, ὃ 242. —— yet not, when received once only, b 242. ought to be guarded from profa- nation, & 245. dangerous to unworthy receivers, ὁ 250. the neglect of it, damnable, α 500, 523. not to be administered to the ignorant, a 618. all baptized Christians bound to receive it, b 126, 127. except they are Penitents, ὃ 126, 127. how it is the Bread from Heaven, a 524. called a Divine Substance, a 276. a spiritual Body, a 276, 311, 312. converted to the nourishment of the body, a 443. a spiritual Sacrifice, a 302-3. -—— the raising power of It, a 280, b 135-139. benefits of It, ὃ 280. of old reserved, a 342-3, 1 18. had not Divine honour in the primitive Church, a 346-51. as beneficial as Christ’s natural Body, a 344. in what case consumed by fire, a 318. to be taken both internally and externally. See Feast, Consumption, Sacrifice, Communion, Covenant. = L_——— O_O — Ύς-σΥυ ———_— Ὸ-" INDEX RERUM. 417 Eucharistized Bread, a 279, 285-6, 339. Eulogy, the same with Eucharist, a 339, 377, 8. Examination, what necessary for the Communion, ὃ 280, 281. Excommunication, if final, made so by the offender, a 216, b 237. instituted by Christ, ὁ 225. grounded on the dignity of the Eucharist, ὃ 247. —— who have power to pass it, b 226, for what inflicted, ὁ 227. a check to vice and heresy, ὑ 243, 244. passed only on obstinate, ὁ 228. —— on none but communicants, ὃ 228. in what the punishment con- sisted, b 228, 229. manner of it, ὁ 229. form of it, b 229, 230. the full import of it, ὁ 225. ends of it, b 248-250. but once passed on the same per- son, b 236. few continued long under it, ὁ 237. how men were gradually loosed from it, b 238, 242. one part of the sentence presently removed upon repentance, ὃ 239. a great terror to vice, b 254. civil punishments of Christian magistrates do not render it un- necessary, b 244. how it was a curse, ὁ 250, 251. a cursing form, ὁ 250. the corruptions of it, b 255-257. —— it took place in all Churches, b 230, 231. Exemplifications in law, an illustration of Eucharist, a 241, 322. Expiation, one end of Sacrifice, ὁ 60. Expiatory nature of the Eucharist ex- plained, a 393-401, ὃ 66. therefore propitiatory in the most proper sense, ὃ 386, 387. ἘΝ Facere, to offer, b 353, + 17, 18. Faith cannot make bread the Body of Christ, a 841-4, 450, 507. alone is not eating Christ’s Flesh, a 506. not sufficient to apply the merits of Christ, a 394, 400, 485. necessary to fit us for Eucharist, a 323-4. Fast, whether broken by receiving Eucharist, a 445. Fathers did not take John vi. to be properly meant of doctrine, a 461-91. Fathers, proper use of them, a 134-149, ὁ 306. the authority of a single one in fourth century of small weight, * 31-2, α 250. their integrity, a 416-17. assert nothing so harsh as Cal- vinists and Lutherans do, a 310. how they denied Altars and Sacrifices, a 413-17. of the first and second century, of great authority, a 306. Feast on a Sacrifice, the Eucharist so, a 443-5. — yet not in Dr. Cudworth’s sense, +5 the disagreement of our adver- saries here, a 444. Papists for most part set aside the feast, a 441, ὃ 180, 214. Feasting and Sacrificing went together of old, 6 27-41. Feast religious, the Eucharist most excellent, ὁ 53. Fire, what used in sacrifice, ὃ 63. not necessary to sacrifice, ὁ 51, 52, 100-104. First-fruits were a Mosaical sacrifice, ¢ 21, 22. —— what to be offered at Eucharist, + 15, 16. Flesh of Christ, what Ignatius meant by it, a 497-8. the same with Body, a 499, 512- 13, 515, 520-1. does not signify Doctrine, a 506. natural, cannot be eaten, a 507-8. in the Sacrament, separated from the Blood, a 507. Eternal Life, how the reward of feeding on It, a 519-20. not only to be eaten, but fed upon, a 530, b 184. Frequent Communion, Pastors to pro- mote it, ὁ 180, 187. people to join in it, ὁ 182. — Lutherans encourage it, ὁ 180. Council of Trent pretends to wish it, ὃ 180. Popish Divines discourage it, 182 required by Christ, Ὁ 184. practised by primitive Church, ὃ 181. —— the gross vulgar neglect of it, b 186. the scandal of this neglect, ὃ 187, 188. necessary for the pardon of sin, ὃ 191, 242, 243. and for obtaining grace, ὁ 192. and for ensuring Eternal Life, b 192, 193. JOHNSON, Ee 418 Frequent Communion, necessary for keeping ourselves strict to our duty, b 194, 195. objections against it,. answered, b 195, 196. the true reason, why it is not practised, ὁ 197, 198. α. Gentiles. See Heathen. Ghost Holy, consecrates the Bread and Wine, a 266, 305. this of old believed even by heretics, a 285-6. may operate on inanimate things, a 269-70. - the Divine representative of Christ, a 272. this contrary to Popery, a 284, * 13. Prayer for descent of Holy Ghost used in Edw. VIth’s Liturgy, ὁ 209, 210. never believed to be hypostati- cally united to the Bread and Wine, a 349. God ; His dominion owned in Sacrifice, a 361-77, Ὁ 61, 62. how he accepts Sacrifice, ὁ 64, 65. Good things to come, what, a 189, 203. Gold offered in sacrifice, b 80. Gothic Missal, how without Oblation, b 176, 177 margin. Grace may signify Eucharistical ele- ments, a 389. before and after meat properly applied to the Eucharist, a 324, 345, 346. received in Eucharist, ὁ 189, 190. Greek Christians communicate rarely, b 188. pray for descent of Holy Ghost, ὁ 209, 210. Gregory Nyssen, whether a Transub- stantiator, a 358-9. Grotius’s notion of Abel’s sacrifice, b 74, 75. of the imperfect Passover of Christ, b 75. of the Hymn after the Eucharist, ὃ 214. H. Habits of Grace not inspired, a 248. Heathen, their practice in sacrifice, why considered, b 47, 48, 51. offered their sacrifice by prayer, 6 111, 113. ——— their sacrifices truly such, ὃ 80. —— their faults in sacrificing, ὃ 47, 48, 51, 61, 62, 64, 65. INDEX RERUM. Heathen, their odd choice of sacrifices, 6-90, 91, ‘* Heavenly things” signifies the Chris- tian economy, a 198. Hickes’s (Dr.) the seasonableness of his book, a 22, 23. High-Priest. See Priest. Homology, a 139, 221-26, b 40, 42. of our faith, a 226, ὃ 128. Honey sacrificed by Heathen, not by Jews, ὁ 79. [ ; Hours. See Times. Hunger and thirst, their signification, John vi., a 531. Hymns and Psalms, not necessary at the Eucharist, ὁ 213, 214, " Immolation, what, ὃ 106. Impartial Hand’s mistakes, { 18, 19, b 217, 218. Inconsistency of those who oppose the Sacrifice, a 416-17. Incense, a figure of Christian Prayer, a 433. -— no Gospel Sacrifice, b 337, 338. Infants, whether capable of the Eucha- rist, a 523-4, Iniquity. See Sin. Institution ; the history of it contributes to the Consecration, a 330-1, + 15, b 207. allegorized by Origen, a 475. Intention of the Priest, not to be de- pended on, ὦ 116. < Intercessions necessary in the Eucha- rist, a 384-8, 6 210, 211. Invocation of the Holy Ghost in order to Consecration, a 334-40, ὃ 209, 210. Josephus’s notion of husbandry, b 74. of Noah’s sacrifice, ὁ 44, 45, 107. Trenaus’s fragment published by Mons. Pfaft, + 16, 17. —— his ἔγερσις Πνεύματος, a 279, 280, ¢ 14, margin. Justin Martyr’s ἀνάμνησις, a 370. his praying with all might, + 19. K. Kiss of charity, ὃ 202, 203. whether necessary, b 205, Kneeling, improper for Priest at Con- secration, * 42. Ι,. Laud, (Abp.,) for what murdered, * 21. Laurence, the meaning of his words to Sixtus, a 427. SS a ἢ ἐν, INDEX RERUM. 419 Laymen may not make the Priestly Oblation, a 428-9. yet not to communicate without an offering, ὁ 207. they are to furnish the Bread and Wine, a 434, ὃ 203, 204. in what sense they offer Sacrifice, a 438, ὃ 358. several ranks of them, ὁ 130. under the Law, might kill the sacrifice, a 448, ὁ 114. the Lay-Christian more honoured than the Jew, a 446-7, ὃ 187. their share in excommunication, b 229. Libation. See Drink-offering. Life, the name of the Eucharist in Africa, a 490. Eternal depends on duly receiving the Eucharist, ὃ 136, 137. Literal sense of Scripture to be pre- ferred c@ieris paribus, ὃ 371, 372, 385, 517. Liturgies of old in the mother tongue, a 440. Clementine, of greatest authority, * 32, α 118. Lord's Day Service in prim. Church, b 125, 126. the Eucharist, a 330, ὃ 214, 215. Table and Altar, the same, a 402-8. Tove-feast, a 498. Lucian offered the Eucharist on his own breast, a 402. Luther retained at first the mixed Cup, ὃ 203. Lutherans come too near to Transub- stantiation, a 305, { 4. they hold an ubiquity of Christ’s Body, ἐ 13. the frequency of their Commu- nion, 4 180. M. Mactation, no proper priestly action, a 448. Manna, how a type of the Eucharist, a 356. Manner of Christ’s Body being in the Sacrament, proper to be determined, a 518. Marcus the heretic’s legerdemain, a 285, b 220, 1. Mass private, censured, a 401, ὁ 213. Matter of Sacrifice, what may be, 6 73- 86. Meal-offering prefigured the Eucharist, a 432, ὃ 82, 3. emphatically called Sacrifice, ὃ 106, 107, 73, 4, 75, 362. Prayer not sufficient to consecrate ~ Meal-offering oftener offered than a beast, ὃ 75. Mede, (Joseph,) his character, a 10. declares for a material Sacrifice, * 10-11, Melchisedec offered Bread and Wine, a 122-33. Christ on the cross could not act as a Priest of Melchisedec’s order, ὃ 355. how Christian Priests are of this order, a 420-1. Memorial, a 171. Merits of Christ not lessened by Sacri- fice of Eucharist, α 398-401, ὃ 177, 178. Milk of old offered in sacrifice, b 74. Mincha, the nature of it, a 437, ὃ 82. See Meal-offering. Miraculous exchange. More, (Dr.Henry,) his notion of Christ’s two Bodies, a 320. Mystery; the Eucharist thought one by ancients, a 296-7, 323. therefore a secret to all but bap- tized Christians, a 326. whether so in the Apostles’ time, a 128-9, + 12. Mystical sense of Scripture, α 459. Body of Christ, a 482. N. Nature; the various significations of that word, a 354-5, b 313. Jelson, (Robert,) Esq., mentioned with honour, 6 363, 195, 196. his answer to an objection against frequent Communion, ὁ 198, 196. Noah; whether he feasted on sacrifice, ὃ 75. or offered unbloody sacrifice, ὃ 45. whether he sacrificed by light of nature, ὁ 144. Nomades, their sacrifices, ὁ 75. Novatian’s schism, ὁ 217, 219. Numa and his people offered unbloody sacrifice, ὁ 76. O. Oblation of the Laymen, called Sacri- fice, a 435. was free, a 435-6, b 204-206. — human, of St. Barnabas, a 438. —— true import of the word, * 39. whether it signifies alms only, * 50-51, ὁ 385, 286. at the Altar, is Sacrifice, 6 377. alone does not constitute a Sacri- fice, + 21, 22. of the Sacramental Body and Blood, but one, * 33-4. — this Ublation proved, a 117-20. 4.20 Oblation has no dependence on the new notions of Real Presence, a 228. the Eucharist passes under the name ‘ Oblation,’ a 107. and is therefore called Bread of God, a 334. of Christ was performed in Eu- charist, a 134-75, b 28-36. contributes to the Consecration, a 551. not finished till after Consecra- tion, a 340. Oblation without receiving, when sufficient, a 400. not to be learned from Scripture without attention, + 13. how it is made before Consecra- tion, b 176, margin. whether necessary to, b 208, 209. ——— how wanting in the Gothic Missal, 6175, 176, margin. See Homology. (Ecolampadius, a 321. Ofer; whether it signify to pray, ὃ 375. what is offered in Eucharist, a 305. ---- whether ‘to offer,’ signifies the whole ministerial Office, ὁ 372, 373. Offering for sin, what, a 211-12. yet remains for Christians, not apostates, a 214-5. the true meaning of that word, * 41-6, 52. Once; how Christ was once offered, a 200-2. One Eucharist, b 199, 200. as One Body of Christ, b 199, 200. as sanctified by One Spirit, ὁ 201. as attended with the efficacy, b 201. to be celebrated in the same manner, ἢ 202-215. as the officers are One by com- mission, 6 215, 220. as to the place in which it is offered, ὃ 221-224. Only, often to be supplied in Scrip- ture, a 293-4. Origen condemned for denying opera- tion of the Spirit on senseless things, a 269-70. his allegorical interpretation of Scripture, a 467-9. and even of the history of Insti- tution, a 475. Outram, (Dr.,) his notion of Christ’s offering Himself, ὁ 30. P: Papists, using the same texts that we do, a mere cayil, * 30. INDEX RERUM. Papisis and Protestants, their difference concerning the Sacrament, a 309-15. Paraphrase on John vi., a 529. Passion; the Eucharist so called, a 143-4. Passover, a true sacrifice, a 84-5. consumed by eating, a 84, ὁ 46. a representative sacrifice, ὁ 70, a, not defectively kept by Christ, b 177. cannot now properly be kept by Jews, b 178. Patrick, (Bp.,) how far he asserted the Sacrifice, * 37. Pelling, (Dr.,) his opinion considered, a 316-21. Penances in prim. Church, ὦ 240, 241. the very least, b 241. not enjoined for heresies tr: schism, ὃ 241. very beneficial to souls of men, b 251-253. People; how to be One with Bishops, Priests, b 219, 220. See Laymen. Perfecting, what, a 179-95. Persians, their way of sacrificing, a 81, ὁ 49, 52, 100. Pfafty, (Mons.,) an account of his late book, + 7-19. he supposes, Apostles prayed ex- tempore, { 18. his observations on Gothie Mis- sal, δι 176. of the Oblation of the Eucharist before Consecration, ὃ 177. Philo’s mistake concerning the Jews’ priesthood, a 448. his assertion, that Melchisedec sacrificed, a 125. Phenix mentioned by Clement, ὃ 350, 351. Phrases; the same, have the same sense, a 518. Pilate had no reason to wonder that Christ died so soon, b 96. Plato; the best sacrifice in his judg- ment, ὁ 90. ποιεῖν, to offer, a 170. Politics not to be considered in Divinity, + 22. Popery unjustly imputed to the Sacri- fice of Eucharist, * 5-14. Porphyry’s notion of Sacrifice, ὁ 81. his notion of spiritual worship, b 155. Posture in consecrating to be used by Priest, * 42. in receiving by all, b 202. Potter (Bp.) favours the doctrine of the Sacrifice, b 383. denies water mixed with wine in Sacrifice, ὦ 78. ψι ae INDEX RERUM. 421 Poynet, (Bp.,) his testimony to the doc- trine of Eucharist, ὁ 303, ὅτ. and that John vi. is meant of Eucharist, 6 310. Praise signifies a material Sacrifice of praise, * 12, a 368-71, 380-1. See Prayer before the Trisagium, α 377, b 206. Pray, does never signify ‘ offer,’ b 375, or ‘ consecrate,’ ὁ 382. Prayer implied in Sacrifice, ὁ 150. of Invocation, the moment of it, a 334-40, b 209, 210. this not used in Church of Rome, * 13, ὁ 209. inconsistent with Popery, a 284. their palliations on this occasion, a 340. Prayers of the Sacrifice, what, a 434. for the dead, a 387, 8. —— sometimes implies a material Sacrifice, a 373, 434. therefore called ‘a gift,’ ὃ 373, 374. and praise, the only Sacrifice that God demands from us, a 375. the only medium for offering Eucharist, a 432, 4. private, in Church on Station- Days, ὁ 125. praying in Christ’s Name, what, ὃ 121, 122, 168, 169. used by Jews and Gentiles in sacrifice, ὁ 108, 115. the only necessary mode of Ob- lation, ὃ 110, 117. by form, not extempore, used in the Apostolic age, ¢ 18, 19. never in Scripture called Sacri- fice, ὃ 155. enforced by Sacrifice, ἡ 56, 57, 151, 153. was not the Oblation of the an- cients, a 109. Prelacy, a fatal word, * 40. Priest, Πρεσβύτερος, ought so to be rendered, ὁ 252. how Priests may excommunicate, b 226. they are proper Sacrificers, a 206, 418-25. —v-— under their Melchisedec, a 420. that their not being called so in Scripture is no objection, a 430, 1. they are to bless after Sacrifice, ὃ 56-58. forty-six in Rome, in the third century, ὃ 217. celebrating the Eucharist, their greatest privilege, a 428-9. their Absolution, what of old, ὁ 241. ought themselves to place Bread and Wine on Altar, 4 206. Priests, their authority dependent on the Bishop, a 431. Priests Aaronical, consecrated by enter- ing on their office, ὁ 31. both Jewish and Christian have no special share but officiating, b 359. Priesthood of Christian people, 4447, b 83. Preparation for Eucharist, what was of old the only painful one, ὃ 258. reasons why it should be very strict, 6 270, 272. Propitiatory, all sacrifices so, a 392, 3, b 61-64. that the Eucharist is so, a 384-7. Psalms and Hymns, not essential to Eucharist, ὃ 213, 214. Purging. See Perfecting, and Sanctify- wg. Pythagoras ; how he sacrificed, ὃ 52, 71, 76. Q. Quakers serve themselves by our fanci- ful glosses on Scripture. See Por- phyry, a 518, 385, b 145. Qualities of Sacrifice, b 86-97. R. Reconciliation of the Tabernacle, what, a 189. Relapsers irreconcileable in primitive Church, ὁ 236. Repentance ; what so called in primitive Church, ὁ 251-253, 264, 271. —— but one, ὃ 236, long, 269, 270. severe, b 239, 267. how aggravated, ὃ 238. Representation ; the Eucharist a most perfect one, a 272. Jews had none, strictly so, ὁ 35. how the Passover was such, ὃ 70, 71. Reservation of Eucharist, practised of old, a 342-6, ὃ 317, 318. even by private Christians, a 445, b 124, 225, 226. Resolution against sin, necessary to fit men for Eucharist, ὁ 274. Resurrection. See Life eternal. Reverence internal, necessary to fit men for Eucharist, ὃ 275. external, necessary to be used in receiving, ὃ 276, 277, 202. Rites what necessary to Sacrifice, a 82, 432, 347, 361. —— what not essential to Eucharist, b 97. Roman Gentiles first offered unbloody sacrifices, ὁ 76. 4.22 INDEX RERUM. Roman Gentiles afterwards thought a sheep the greatest sacrifice, ὁ 90. Rubric, who interpreters of it, * 44. S. Sacrament, and Virtue of Sacrament, a 453, 432. Ἵ οἵ Catechumens, a 448. whether concealed by Apostle, a_128, 9, ¢ 12. Sacramentarians who, b 355. Sacraments, Eucharist so called, a 338, 468. Sacrifice, the definition and nature of it, a 65-85. several sorts of it, a 66, 360. —- attended with feasts, ὃ 42-48. one that is material may be un- bloody, rational, &c., a 86-93. any substance not forbid may be a sacrifice, b 73-86. the vaiue of them, how to be stated, ὃ 86-91. implies Consecration, a 271. — must be offered to God Alone, b 61, 62. enforces prayer, ὁ 56-58. never abolished, a 176, 7, b 156- 163. —— what made it despised, b 54, 55, of righteousness and of shout- ing, what, b 89, 90. was to be of the best men had, b 87, 88. —— whether taught by nature or by revelation, b 144, 148. not invented by rude people, b 146. — God’s acceptance of it, ὃ 147. —— God’s establishing of it, before the Law, ὁ 148, 149. it implies prayer, 6 150. to be preferred before bare prayer, bh 150-154. in what sense God desires it not, b 156. no more abolished than prayer, b 160. : not accepted from wicked hands, b 161, 164. how obedience is preferred to it, b 164-166. Saul’s, why rejected, ὃ 165. Jewish, how aholished, 6 165, 166. all but the Eucharist, how un- necessary, b 166. a means of covenanting and com- municating, b 169-174. of thanksgiving, material, a 360- 84, b 60, 157. —— bloody, type of Christ, ὁ 72. Sacrifice, impure, ὁ 94, 95. in itself most valuable, ὁ 93. offered, while alive, ὁ 28. —— by prayer, Ὁ 109-111. was thought to die instead of the offender, b 60, 61. yet not as satisfactory or equiva- lent, ὁ 73. unbloody, real, and perfect, a 72, ὃ 39, 73-83. antiquity of it, b 74-77. frequency of it under the Law, ὃ 75, 76. the stress laid on it, ὁ 120, 121. —— the purity of it, a 94. expiatory nature of it, b 60-70. of Christ, Personal, the most memorable, ὁ 68. though bloody yet in itself pure, b 94, 95. yet attended with a gross im- purity, ὁ 95. ——- how it for ever perfects, a 136, 137. the ends of it various, and vari- ously applied, a 212, 13. it was offered by prayer, ὁ 114, 115. and while He was alive, ὃ 31-33. ——- it was no Jewish sacrifice, ὁ 34. the time and company most proper, ὦ 36. at His instituting the Eucharist, a 160-71, b 82. it was a real Sacrifice, b 27, called Sacrifices, { 6. but offered representatively, b 28- 30. not by fire, ὁ 65, 66. of the Eucharist, unbloody, a 78, b 40. asserted in some measure in the Great Rebellion, * 14. why Papists deny it to be taught in Scripture, ὁ 350. of what weight the practice of primitive Church is here, * 25, 6. the obscurity of it, no proof against it, * 26, 8. asserted in three first centuries as Clearly as in fourth, * 31. disagreement of assertors no proof against it, * 34. not to be valued by outward ele- ments, a 78. —— seeming newness, real antiquity of it, { 6, 7. —— materiality of it proved, a 96-115. —— not offered for the same ends by Christ and us, a 176. if it were not a Sacrifice for sin, yet would be a Sacrifice of Thanks- giving, a 176, 7. a seit ὑἷ᾽ a INDEX RERUM. 423 Sacrifice, propitiatory and expiatory, how, a 384-401, ὃ 67. why not offered by burning, ὃ 54. offered of old for deceased souls, a 387, 8. asserted or allowed to be a Sacri- fice by Bishop Poynet, 6 307, 309. all ends of Sacrifice served by it, b 67, 68. whether necessary to be practised as such, ὦ 141-179. —w— the excellency of it, ὃ 53-86. no diminution to the Grand Sacri- fice, a 392, 398, 9, b 178. but exalts the dignity of It, ὁ 179. Salt always an ingredient of sacrifice, b 58, 65, 76. Sanctifying, what meant by it, Heb. ix. 10, a 184, 5, 191, 196, 7. Schismalics, who the greatest, b 218, 219. Scythians, their sacrifice, ὁ 100, 113. Scripture sometimes has a double _ meaning, a 457, 8. LXX Translators’ sense of a Sacrifice, a 76. Senes and Seniores, Bishops, 6 217, 218. Serapion’s case, b 237, 243. Shew-bread prefigured the Eucharist, a 452. Sin, and taking it away, what it signi- fies, Heb. ix. x., a 186, 188-99, 211, 12. what does, or does not, defile Baptism, b 257, 266. after communicating, not un- pardonable, ὁ 274, 275. . presumptuous and habitual, unfit us for Communion, b 264, 265. resolution against them, necessary preparative for Eucharist, ὁ 274. —— remitted in Eucharist, ὁ 132. often signifies a Sacrifice for sin, a 368, 9. Slaying and offering, two things, ὁ 113. —w— not always performed by priest, b 98 —— Christ did not, could not, slay Himself, b 34, 95, 96, 98. scape-goat, a sacrifice, though not slain, 6 105. Socinians’ notion of the Eucharist, a 312, 13, 321. Spartans ; their sacrifices, b 88. Species, what Irenzus meant by it, a 437. Spencer, (Dr.,) his notion of Sacrifice, a 68, 83. —w— asserts water mixed with wine in sacrifice, b 78. Spirit, John vi. 63. the variation of Divines upon it, a 289, 291. Spirit, how Christ was offered by the, b 114. Spiritual Communion (chosen) eatra Ceenam, censured, a 453. —— worship, the wrong notion of it, b 154. Spiritualizing Scripture, the danger of it, a 411, 500. See Quakers. Sprinkling. See Blood. Substance, how Bishop Poynet allowed Bread to be the substance of Christ’s Body, ὁ 3138-320. Synagogue. See Worship. Synesius’s proceeding against An- dronicus, ὁ 229-233. ἜΣ Tabernacle not made with hands, the Church, a 190. ‘able, the Altar so called, a 405, 7. Tertullian’s opinion of Lay-Sacrificers, a 429. Theophilus of Alexandria condemns Origen, a 269, 70. Throne of Grace, what, α 222. Θύω; the proper signification of it, a 72-8, ὃ 99. Time, present not put for future, in the Institution, a 160-163. most proper for Christ to offer Himself, ὁ 77. Times for Eucharist, in what sense fixed, ὁ 378-382. Timothy’s Oblation of the good Ho- mology, a 223, 4. Tradition, that Christ made the Priestly Oblation upon the Cross, ὁ 28. the great uncertainty of all Tra- dition, ὃ 91. Torre’s opinion concerning John vi., ὃ 183. Transubstantiation confuted or re- nounced, * 10, a 70, 78, 88, 261, 277, 305, 6, 310, 313,315, 470, 507, 8, 510, 517, ὃ 330, 331, 347, 348, { 3. Translators English, may lead into an error concerning Sacrifice, b 40. Treaty of Poissy, a 307-9. Trent, the doctrine of that Council con- cerning frequent and spiritual Com- munion, 6 180-184. Trisagium, a 377, ὃ 206. Tynes, several degrees thereof, a 241- 8. Manna and water, how types, a 356. —— excellency of the Eucharistical type, a 238-41. Turner, (Dr.,) his mistakes and falsi- fications, a 371-387, + 20-23. 424 Us. Vv; Value of Sacrifice, as to its outward qualities, b 86, 87. Ubiquity of Christ’s Body asserted by Lutherans, + 13. Unbloody. See Sacrifice. Unworthy communicating what, b 263- 266. —— does not justify non-communi- cants, b 273, 274. Vow. See Prayer. Vows, the reason of them, 4 153. Ww. Water in Baptism, not a type but sign of the Spirit, a 248, 9. mixed with wine in ancient Sacri- fices, b 78. of old mixed with Wine in Eucha- rist, b 84, 85, 203. whether this mixture be neces- sary, 6 205. See Cup, and Drink- offering. INDEX RERUM. Wave-loaves a sacrifice, b 105. Whitby, (Dr.,) his notes commended, a 184, 387. —— his mistakes, a 194, 461, 467, 501-505, 200, 209, 259, 260. Williams, Abp., how an enemy to the Sacrifice, * 2, Wise, (Dr.,) his buffoonery and fictions, + 24, 26. Wood-offering, b 256. Word or doctrine most perfectly re- ceived in Eucharist, a 456, 458, 463, 477. Words, the fascination of them, * 40. —w— the same, sense the same, a 517, 18. Worship of the Synagogue inferior to that of the Temple, b 156, 187. Ζ. Zeal, not for a sacrifice of mere Bread and Wine, a 78. Zuinglius, a 321. OXFORD: PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON. DATE DUE 33 as bS3 =>) A πως. Ww) tT ΡΝ * ae ἘΞ = ω ke © ΞΕ Peete tea ee ‘ aera? ee oot ane πο aye ae may te ayy sees een Sg ee στ ENN Seated that ieee ined ae ta RPE ONE Se se i Ae a Salt en, Sata Se ὐσσων ee a" ον Sao Seer OO SE ry coer te ΝΣ ae ; ᾿ Ute Μ “ἪΝ πα Μὴ Reese αὐ πέτα ν᾿, " Ag * ’ a iv Ἢ Μὴν ; τὸ wear win ΟΝ μα ἿΝ τ ” At ὦ wires ay τ ΔΝ ΠΣΗΝΝ posit or we DAR ἡνᾺ re ee ea ae owe τῶνδ᾽ »α σάφα φιφιῚ