YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY The EDWIN J. BEINECKE, '07 FREDERICK W. BEINECKE, '09 S WALTER BEINECKE, '10 FUND A TRUE Scripture Account O F T H E Nature and Benefits O F T H E HOLY EUCHARIST, In ANSWER to a BOOK, Intituled, A Plain Jcfiount of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lor d's Supper. By Tho. Brett, LL.D. Siquis non jhrlium, fed veritatis Chrijliana^ et Ca- tholiae, fi.udio ducatur', ne nimium privatis inter- ¦pretationibh, fedcEcclefiie, fed Patrum Authori- tati feipfum addicat, eorumque iht'erpretationibus adhxreat immotus. \ 'fcVotton Prefat. Epift. S. Clement, p. 2. L 0 ND O.N: Printed for J. Roberts, near the Oxford Arms in Warwick-Lane, MDCCXXXVI. (Price Two Shillings.) THE PREFACE- IN the Weekly Mifcellany of O&ober 2f. we are told that " With regard to the plain Account of the Sacra- " ment, thatwe\theClcrgy\are reproached for intending " to anfwer it, and then for not anfwering immediatey." So that it feems, whether we anfwer ornot anfwer we muji expe<5 to be reproached. However we need not be much trm- bled about fuch unjufl Treatment, and ought to be always prepared for it. Our Saviour himfelf has foretold as. Mat. x. aa. That we (hall be hated ot all Men for his Name's lake. He was himfelf treated in the like manner. And the Difciple is not above his Mafter, nor the Servant above his Lord. And if they have called the Mafter of the Houfe Beelzebub, how much more fhall they call them of theHoufhold? Therefore in fuch an Age of Infi delity as this, we need not be at all furprized at being re viled and reproached for doing what in Duty we are obli- ged ts do, and what we Jolemnly promifed to do when we were ordained to the Priefibood. That is to be ready with all faithful Diligence tobanifli and drive away all errone ous and ftrange Do&rines, contrary to God's Word. Therefore I need make no Excufe for writing and publijh- ing the following Anfwer to a Book containing erroneous and ftrange Doctrines, contrary to God's Word. And the Reafon why I did not anfwer itfooner, or immediately as it was publifhed, was becaufe as I live in an obfcure Corner of the World, the Book had been publifhed fome Jjtfonths before I faw or heard of it. WHEN I was Jirjt informed of this Book, I was alfo told that it was written by a certain Right Reverend Father ,of this Church, but upon reading the Book I was foon con- > ii'mced that as in other Cafes, fo particularly in tbirt com mon* the PREFACE. rnon Fame was a Liar. For I well remember that Right Reverend Father near twenty Tears ago, very Jlrenuoujly maintained SINCERITY, was that which altine made ut acceptable to God. And I believe it it generally allowed thai without Sincerity no.~M.an can do what is acceptable *» Cod. But this Author maintains the direct contrary; For ¦he teaches, p. 177, 178. That we may receive the Sacrament ©f, the Lord's Supper worthily, when by the Vicioufnefs in the Courfe of our Lives we contradict the Profefiions of Our folemn Devotions. Now it is certain no Man can re ceive this Sacrament worthily but he that performs it in fuch manner ai is acceptable to God. Therefore to fay that a Man may receive this Sacrament worthily while the Vici oufnefs of his Life contradicts the Profeffions of his folemtt Devotions, is to fay that he may do what is acceptable to God without Sincerity. For what is Insincerity or HYPOCRISY- but when our Lives and Anions are not cor- refpondent to our folemn Profeffions ? This is therefore a Demonflration that this Right Reverend Father , tbeflrenu- ous Maintainer of Sincerity, cannot be the Author of this Book which fo apparently allows of Insinceri TY, and teaches that a Man may do what is acceptable to God even at the veryTime that he acls hypocritically and theVicioufnefs of his Life contradiits his moft folemn Profeffions. far be it that anyBiJhop of this Church Jhould recommend Hypo- crify and Infincerity. That he Jhould teach Men that they may be worthy Guefis at\God's Holy Table without true and fincere Repentance, and that their prof effing themfelves to be his faithful Servants Jbail be performing a Duty acceptable to him at the fame Time that they ail direitly contrary ta fuch their folemn Profeffions. I know not whether his Lor dpip has heard of the Injury common Fame has done him in Lying this Book to his Charge. (For he of whom a Story is raifed, is commonly the laft that hears of it.) And I hope if he has he will vindicate his Inte grity, and let the World know, that he is flili as great a Friend to SINCERITY as he was twenty Tears ago ; and that he difclaims the INSINCERITY and HYPOCRISY reconr- mended in the Book I have here anfwer ed. SOME I3> SOME REMARKS, &c. ^»«»«*^KHKHHK»^&M©M<»M«»'«&ii The introduction: IT is a very juft Obfervation which this Ano nymous Author of A Plain Account, &c. makes in his Preface, when he fays, " Ic " ought certainly to be far from the Thoughts «' of every Chriftian to leflfen any Privileges, or " undervalue any Promifes annexed by Cbrifi tp c' any Duty or Inftitution of his Religion. It is «' an inexcufable Fault wilfully to attempt it ; «' and an inexcufable Carelefnefs to do it for «< want of due Confideration. It is indeed a «' Fault, to which no Chriftian can have the « leaft Temptation: all fuch Privileges and Pro- a mifes being of equal Comfort, and of equal A 2 "Tmpor- (4 ) *' Importance, to All ; and the Nature of therfi " fuch, as that no one can be fo much his own ) which I fuppdfe, he then was and ftill is a Prieft, though now perhaps remov'dto fome richer Cure in the Country, he would not then have taught his Parijhioners, nor now have endeavour'd to teach the Nation, that it is of fmall Importance ta Chriftians, to know what the many Writers upon this Subjetl, fince the time of the Evangeiifts and Apoftles, have affirmed. Thereby modeftly inti mating that they might depend upon his Interpre tation of Scripture, though it was intirely different from that of the moft learned, whether Ancient or Modern. However it is to be hoped there will not be found many Priefts of the Church of Eng land, who like tbis unknown Prieft think they know and underftand the Scripture fo much bet ter than all others, as to tell the People that they need not regard what other Writers have affirmed, it is fufficient if you will but underftand the Scripture according to my Interpretation. Sure I am that the moft confiderable Divines of this Church, frdm the beginning of the Reformation to this Time* have taught, that in this divided Stale of the Church (which is almoft overwhelmed by Jo many Setls and Parties all pretending equaUy to Scripture) the fafeft bottom for a good Confidence to reft upon in ambiguous Controverfies, is to enquire of former Ages, and pre pare our felves to the fearch of the Fathers, to exa mine what was taught from the beginning. This I am able to prove by an hundred Teftirrionies. For ' the learned Bifhop Bull has faid * That he had learned from many Experiments -That no one can contraditl Catholick Confent ; but (howfoever fome * Non paucis experiments monitus didicerant <—Nerrtinern catholico confenfui repugnare poffe, quiri is (utcunque ipli ad- blandiri videantur Sacrae Seriptura loca nonnulla perperam in- tellefla & levicdarum ratiuncularum phantafmata) tandem & Divinis Oraculis & fans rationi repugnafle deprehendicuM Sul. Apol- fro Harm. Edit. Grab. 1703. pag. 7. B pfads ( ">) places of Scripture mifunderftoed and a fancied Opinion of fome fmall Jhew of Reafons might feem to flatter him) he will at laft be found to have oppbfed both the Divine Oracles and found Reafon alfo. But to go on with this unknown Author, he tells us Number 6. " The Paffages in the New " Teftament, which relate to this Duty, and they " alone, are the Original Accounts of the Nature " and End bi this Inftitution ; and the only " Authentic Declarations upon which we of later " Ages can fafely depend : Being written by the " immediate Followers of our Lord ; thofe who *' were Witneffes themfelves to the Inftitution, or " who were inftructed by thofe who were fo ; " and join with them in delivering down one and " the fame Account of this Religious Duty." But though we have no other Authentick Declara tion of this Inftitution befide the Pajfages to be found in the New Teftament, may not thofe Paffa ges need an Interpreter ? Are all Places of Scripture fo plain that every one that reads them, or hears them read, can underftand them without a Guide or Inftructor. If this be the Cafe, why did God (Mai. ii. 6.) appoint Priefts whofe Lips Jhould keep Knowledge, and they Jhould feekthe Law at his Mouth ? Why did the Apoftles (A£Is xiv. 23.) 'ordain Presbyters in every Church ? Why have thefe Presbyters or Priefts continued in the Church ever fince ? Or why are they appointed to preach to the People and inftruct them in the true meaning of the Scriptures ? Why did this Gentle man preach to his Parifh in London P Why did he not content himfelf with reading the Scriptures for thelnftruction of fuch as could not read them themfelves ? Why did he write this Book ? The People have the Scriptures in their Hands, and have had them, God be praifed, in their own Vulgar Language near 200 Years, And thofe ( II ) thofe who can read this Book can read the Scrip" tures, where are the only authentick Declarations*' upon which we of later Ages can fafely depend with regard to the Inftitution of the Lord's Supper. But I fuppofe he will grant they may need a little Di-' rection the better to underftand what they read, and therefore he has given them fuch Directions and explain'd the Matter to them from the Scrip tures. And have the Ancient Fathers, or the Church of England from them done any Thing more than explain'd the Inftitution of the Lord's- Supper from the Scriptures ? Have they added any Thing to the Inftitution ? He has not proved it in any one particular. What Reafon had he then to differ from them ? He pretends indeed to do this with a great Concern on his own Part, and a great Refpetl towards them ; and that he is Jo far from being inclined, to it or pleafed with it, that it would have been a Pleafure to him not to have found a Neceffity for doing it. What good Chriftian that reads his Book but muft be forry that he fhould have mifs'd this Pleafure, that lb we might not have feen the Benefit of the moft facred Inftitution of our Holy Religion fo openly leffened and un dervalued. Let us fee then what Neceflaty he lay under of explaining the Inftitution of the Lord's- Supper fo differently from thofe for whom he ex- preffes fuch a Refpect. Number 7. He enumerates the Paffages where " The Writerof the New Teftament gives *' an Account of the Inftitution of the Lord's- " Supper, viz. Mat. xxvi. 26, &V. Mark xiv. "¦ 22, &c. Luke xxii. 19, &c. 1 Cor. xi. 23, &c." I hope I may be excufed from writing down all thefe Texts at length. Every one that can read, I hope, has a Bible they can confult upon Occafion. The firft Remark he makes is on " The Words V. of St. Matthew, in which it is faid of our B * Lord ( ra) «c Lord — -He took the Bread and blejfed it, the " Word it, fays he, (which perhaps may have «' been the occafion of fome groundlefs Notions) " is added by our Tranftators, without any " Thing in the Original to anfwer to it or re- *' quire it." But why is not it required after blejfed as well as after brake znd gave, it is not in the Original.. after thefe two Words any more than after the other ? He fays " The Word ufed ** by St. Paul and St. Luke can fignify nothing but *¦' havinggiven Thanks to God. And the Word ufed " by St. Matthew and St. Mark naturally and *' eafily fignifies the fame. And fince both Words *' (ivKoytjo-xs and ev^«§jf«V«f) are applied and de- ** figndd to, fignify one and the fame particular; " Action of our Saviour ; it follows that the V Word ufed by St. Matthew and St. Mark, muft " fignify having blejfed God in the Senfe of giving " Thanks and Praife to him •, and not having *' bleffed the Bread in any other Senfe, but that *' of fpeaking over it Words of Praife and " Thankfgiving to God." But why can iu%ac ^i^sa.q, the Word ufed by St. Paul and St. Luke, fignify nothing but giving Thanks to God ? It is, I believe, generally agreed that lyAoj^caf and &%<&- £i?*jV«s have both the fame Signification in the Hiftory of the Inftitution of the Holy Eucharift. And fo they have likewife in other places of the New Teftament, where it is certain and beyond all Contradiction that su;£«gis'iji- net) sW XotSav, a'lw *«i $o\c/,t rS^XTfl rm oha* &i& ra in fhcvrcq rS via, x.al rS ¦Xnu^ia.xo^ tS a'yia, a.itvx'aj.'Xii- *«i Iviiecfifittv vatf %£ jcxTtifyatrSxi tutui sr«f avrS, im noKii Koiit- Tttr u F Lions in France) fays * " The Bread which iV "" from the Earth receiving the Invocation of «' for being a Man, he even bleffied Wine, when " he faid, lake, drink, this is m^ Blood, theBlbod <« of the Vine." I might produce a great many later Teftimo nies than thefe for the Bleffing of the Bread and the Cup, even of the whole Chriftian Church down to our own Times* but I think thefe fufficient. For if the Bleffing of the Elements was the Prac tice of thofe who were the immediate Succeffors and Difciples of the Apoftles as thefe Teftimonies demonftrably prove it to have been, then nO doubt but the Apoftles and our Saviour alfo bleffed them, and we need defire no better Authority, efpecially fince this Author at the * ' Afros frpotr^aiJtifimofAevo; t»i» ixxMi-i) ts ©£»i sx/ri »elv)( Bf ro5 ef« aWi' «^«pis-ia. Lib. 4. C. 34. •f- "Ev yap "ft, jk/£t/Pi«£h oii'S xj aVro;- x} yuy a'vfyawo; xj dvrif *} Ivhoyvb ti rev wet, ttnav, AuQin, ti'uti, tSt!> u,a fri» ">* Zip*, «. 29. num. <). he fays, " Whoever therefore in a ferious and religious " Senfe of his Relation to Chrift, as his Difciple, " performs thefe Acts of eating Bread and drink- " ing Wine in Remembrance of Chrift, as of a Per- *' fon corporally abfent from his Difciples, moft '' certainly performs them agreeably to the End " of the Inftitution declared by Chrift himfelf " and his immediate Difciples." I have laid all this together, becaufe it feems to be an Abridgment of his whole Book, and I have done it in his own Words, that he may have no Reafon to complain of Mifreprefentation. And here we fee the plain Reafon why this Gen tleman endeavoured to prove that Chrift in the Inftitution did not blefs the Bread and the Cup, be caufe if he did blefs them he communicated fome Vertue to them which they had not before, and that he really made them what he himfelf called them, that is his Body and Blood, not indeed his Natural Body and Blood, as the Romanifts hold in their abfurd Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, but his Body and Blood in a vertual energetical Senfe in Spirit and in Power. I have already,- 1 think, proved that Chrift did blefs the Bread and the Cup from Teftimonies which I think cannot reafonably be excepted againft. But before I proceed fur ther in my Remarks, I think it proper to give a further Proof of Chrift's bleffing the Cup, and that I fhall take from a moft unexceptionable Evidence, St. Paul himfelf, who teftifies for the Bleffing of the Cup as exprefly as Words can do C 2' it. (ao) it. For, i Cor, x. 16. he fays, The Cup of Blef> fing, which wi bless, is, it not the Communion of the Blood of Chrift ? The Bread which we break, is- it not the Communion of the Body of Chrift ? And if the Apoftles, when they celebrated the Holy Communion, bleffied the Cup, we haVe no Reafon to queftion but they blefTed the Bread alfo. And Jf they bleffied the Bread and the Cup, moil certainly Chrift did fo too. This Qentleman* ¦ p, 33. en deavours to make this Text infignificant as to the point of Bleffing, by recurring to his former Argument, and telling us that Bleffing here figni- fies bare Thankfgiving, : and that this. Cup in the iLord's Supper anfwered to the ,Cup folemnly drunk at the Pafchal Supper, and called by the Jews the Cup of Thankfgiving or ^Thankfgiving Cup. And thus St.. Chryfbftom and Theophylact (why loth lived after much Ceremony and high Language were brought into this Inftitution) interpret thefe Words of St. Paul to fignify " The Cup over which *' we praife and glorify Qod for all his Mercies, " and particularly for the Blood of Chrill Jhed for " us" as the Wine in. this Cup is called. This is the Argument by which he would have us believe that the Cup of Bleffing which St. Paul exprefly fays, They the Apoftles blejfed, was only a Cup over which they barely gave Thanks, without pray ing for any Bleffing at all. What can fatisfy fuch an Author as this ? The Hiftpry of the Inftitution does not' teach us that Chrift blejfed the Bread and the Cup becaufe the Word it, which our Tranflators have added, is not in the Original, as neither is it in the Original after the Words brake znd gave, yet he makes no Objection to the Addition of it after thofe two Words. TI>; Proteftantshave urged thefe Words of the Inftitution againft the Doctrine of Tranfub ftantiation, in this manner. What Chrift gave was wha\ (21 ) what he brake, what he brake was what he bleffied, what he bleffied was what he took, and what he took the Text exprefty tells us was Brea,d. But now ac cording to this Gentleman's arguing, a Papift may eafily anfwer this and fay, you are miftaken, though Chrifl indeed took Bread, yet that is not what he bleffied, for it is not faid he bleffied it, that little Word i t is your Addition, no he took Bread, which having traniubftantiated into his natural Body, he bleffied God, and brake his Body, and gave his Body to his Difciples. I fee not what reply (if this Author's reafoning here be juft) a Man could make to a Papift who. fhould return this Anfwer. For if the Bleffing has no regard to the Bread, how come the Words following to be concerned with it ? Has not the Papijl as much liberty to add Body to the Words brake and gave, as he has to add the Word God to bleffied ?-' And has he not as good Authority to, put in the Word Body, fince Chrift called it his Body when he gave it ? But in the Text now under Confideration, here needs no Supply of the Word it, or of any other Word to make the Senfe clear, The Cup of Blef fing which we blefs, fays the Apoftle. Was it poffible to ufe plainer Words in the Cafe ? Had he diretStly faid, We blefs the Cup, he could not have taught more clearly that the Cup was blef- fed, and to be blejfed when the Lord's Supper was adminiftred. But, fays our Author, " The Cup " of Bleffing, that is the Thankfgiving Cup, the Cup " over which we fpeak good Words of Praife " and Thankfgiving to God. This Cup in the " Lord's Supper anfwered to the Cup folemnly *' drunk at the Pafchal Supper, and called by the " Jews the Cup of Thankfgiving, or the Thankf- " giving Cup." But it appears from St. Luke's Gofpel, ch. xxii. 17. that this Cup of the Lord's Supper did not anfwer to the Cup of Thankfgiving felemnly ( 22 ) iblemnly drunk z% the Pafcbal Supper. For our Saviour had given Thanks over that Cup, and given it to his Difciples before he began the In ftitution of the Holy Eucharift . For thus the Evan- gelift tells us, He took the Cup and gave Thanks and faid,, take ibis and divide it among your felves, For I fay unto you, ' I will not drink the Fruit cf the Vine, until the Kingdom ef God fhall tome. This was plainly the Thanfgiving Cup folemnly drunk at the Pafcal Supper- And it was not till after the Difciples had received this Cup from him, and; divided it among them that he began the Inftitu tion of the Lord's Supper. For in the' Verfe imme diately following it is written, And be took Bread, and gave Thanks and brake it, and gave unto them faying, this is my Body which is given for you % this da in Remembrance of me. Likewife alfo the Cup after Supper, faying, this Cup is the New Teftament in my Blood, which is Jhed for you. This Cup therefore which belongs to the Inftitution apparently was dif ferent from the Pafcbal Thankfgiving Cup which had |>een given and drunk before the Inftitution began. But 4t SuCbryJbftom and Theopbylatl (who botH "• lived after much Ceremony and high Language " were brought into this Inftitution, interpret " thefe Words of St. Paul to fignify, the Cup ^s ever which we praife and glorify God for all bis " Mercies, and particularly for the Blood of Chrift. l.s fhed for us, as the Wine in this Cup is called." And I confefs St. Cbryfeftom does fay, (and Theo pbylatl was but the Abridger of St. Cbryfeftom) thai, he called it the Cup of Bleffing, becaufe having it, in our Hands we fing Hymns of Praife, admiring and being amazed ai the unfpeakable Gift, becaufe Christ, poured out bis Blood that we might not continue in Error, and not only poured it out, but has imparled- it to us. But though St. Chryfoftom (and Theopby latl from him) fays it waj called the Cup of Bleffing,becaufe ( 23 ) becaufe God was praifed while the Prieft held tlie1 Cup in his Hands, yet -he does not fay that the Cup it felf was not bleffied. Had St. Paul only called it the Cup of Bleffing, and not alfo added which we blefs, it might be thought that it received its Name only from the Bleffing or Praifes given to God over it. But thofe Words which we Blefs can never fignify Thanks and Praife, they plainly terminate on the Bread. Let us put the Words into this Gentleman's Language, and put Thanks and Praife inftead of Bleffing, and then we fhall make St. Paul fay, the Cup of Thanks and Praife which weThankand Praife. Yet thus wc muft in terpret it if the Original Word {tvKoy*(M.v) fignify in this place to give Thanks or Praife as he fays it does. And therefore to avoid this abfurd Tranf- lationj he puts in the Word over,, and fays ever which we fpeak good Words of Praife and ibankf- giving to God. But if we will take this Liberty of adding what Words wc pleafe co any Text, we may make the Scripture fpeak whatever we have a Mind it fhould- Indeed fometimes a Tranflator is obliged to put a Word into the Text, which though it be not in the Original is yet apparently underftood, becaufe our Language will not bear fuch Omiflions as are frequent in the Languages of the Holy Scripture. But in this Text there is no want of any Word whatfoever to compleat the Senfe. Which we blefs is literally the Englifh of the Greek Words oivKoy^^tv, and the Senfe is clear and plain, and to put in the Word over is a ma tt ifell Addition to the Apoftle's Wotds. This Gentleman Page 5. intimates as if fome Perfons taught their own Imaginations concerning this^ Duty. It is evident he here teaches his own Imaginations, and adds to the Text of the Apoftle, that he may perfuade his Readers to believe that neither Chrift hor his Apoftles bleffied the Bread or the Cup, when St. ( 24 ) St. Paul here fo exprefly teaches that he did blefs the Cup and confequently the Bread. And though St. Chryfoftom fays it was called the Cup of Bleffing becaufe they bleffied or praifed God while they held it in their Hands, yet he elfewhere teaches us that the Bread and confequently the Cup was fantlified tor bleffied. For thus he writes in the famous Epiftle to Cafarius, which Peter Martyr firft re trieved and publifhed, . and which the Proteftants have ever fince carefully preferved as a very ftrong Teftimony* of that Holy Father againft the Doc trine of Tranfubftantiation; * Before the Bread is fantlified. i. e. bleffied ("for blefs and fantlify are in this Senfe fynonymousl we indeed call it Bread, but when the Divine Grace has fantlified it, at the Mediation or Prayer of the Prieft, it is freed from that Name, although theNature of Bread remains in it-. However I know there was a Thanfgiving always ufed at the Corifecration of the Bread and Wine in the Primitive Church, and I doubt not alfo but a like Thanfgiving was ufed by the Apoftles when they celebrated this Holy Sacrament, and alfo by our Lord himfelf when he inftituted it, where a Com memoration was made of all that God had done for Man from the Foundation of the World, and more particularly in the great Myftery of our Redemption : In which there was always a noble and folemn Glorification of God, in which was included the Seraphical Hymn, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hofts. But to this Thankfgiving there was always joined a Prayer to God to look gracioufty on the Gifts fet before him, and to accept them fa vourably, and to fend down his Holy Spirit on the * Antequam fanftificetur panis, panem quidera nominamus, Divina autem ilium fan&ificante Gratia, mediance Sacerdote, li- beratus eft quidem appellatione, etiamfi natura panis in illo per- manferit. Petr. Mart. Loc. Commun. pag. 854. Edit. Lond. 1583. Sacrifice^ Sacrifice, and to make the Bread become the Body, and the Gup the Blood of Chrift, that they who par take of it, may be confirmed in Godlinefs, obtain Remiffion of Sin, &c. Such a Thankfgiving joined with a Prayer for a Bleffing on the Bread and Wine, we find in the moft ancient Liturgies of the Church, particularly the Liturgies of St. Mark and St. James, which though not written by that Evangelift or that Apoftle, were neverthelefs, as the prefent * moft Reverend and Learned Arch- bifhop Wake obferves, the ancient Liturgies of the Church of Alexandria of which St. Mark was the firft Bifhop, and of Jerufalem where St. James was the firft Bifhop. And we may be fatif- fied that thefe Liturgies, efpecially that of St. James as to the main Parts of it, fuch as is the Thankfgiving and Prayer for a Bleffing on the Ele ments, is elder than the Council of Nice; becaufe Cyril whow as Bifhop of Jerufalem in his y Cate chetical Lectures gives us an Account how this Holy Sacrament was then adminiftred, and his Ac count is very agreeable to the Form in that Li turgy which is called the Liturgy of St. James, and particularly as to the Thankfgiving and Prayer for. a Bleffing on the Bread and Wine, that the Holy Gboft may make them the Body and Blood of Chrift. The Council of Nice was affembled but a little above 200 Years after the Death of all the Apoftles, and St. Cyril lived at the Time of that Council. Therefore the Liturgy he gives fuch an Account of muft be elder than that Council ; confequently. was the Liturgy ufed there during the long.Perfecutions of the Church by the Roman Emperors, which Perfecutions ceafed but a very few Years before the Council of Nice was held. * Preliminary Difcourfe to his Tranflatitn of the Apojlolical fathers, pag. 102. f Catechef. Myftag. §. 3, 4, 5, D And (26) And before the Time of the Council of Nice the Church cannot juftly be accufed of admitting any Error either into her Doctrine or Worfhip. And I have before proved from Juftin Martyr and Ire- naus who lived in the very next Age after the Apoftles, that the Bifhop when he celebrated the holy Eucharift, ufed a Prayer as well as a Thankf giving, which together were of a more than or dinary Length : and Irenceus teaches that this Prayer was an Invocation of the Holy Ghoft to blefs the Elements that they might be no longer common Bread, but the Eucharift. And that Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived but a little after thefe two, fays exprefly, that our Saviour bleffied the Wine. And indeed as St. Matthew and St. Mark tell us that Chnft bleffied, and St. Luke and St. Paul fay that he gave Thanks, we have all the Reafon imaginable to believe that he did both ; only as both were joined in one continued Prayer, thofe who mentioned the one thought it not ne ceffary to mention the other, the one including the other. And the continued Practice of the Church, which we can trace up to the Time of Juftirt Martyr and Irenceus, (two eminent Men and Martyrs, both probably born before the Death of the Apoftle St. John) amounts to a full Demonftration that our Bleffed Lord, when he inftituted the Holy Eucharift, did both give Thanks and Praife to God, and alfo bleffied both the Bread and the Cup. This Gentleman afferts that he gave Thanks and Praife to God, and I doubt not but he did fo. St. Paul exprefly fays, that we (that is, he and the other Apoftles) bleffied the Cup; and we cannot fuppofe, nor can this Au thor offer t'o fay, that if the Apoftles bleffied the Cup, they left the Bread unbleffied : therefore they bleffied both. To all thefe Teftimonies he has no thing to oppofe but his own Conjecture ; for how boldly < 27 ) boldly foever he afferts and pretends to prove all* that he fays on this Occafion, amounts to no more than Conjecture and Surmife. In the next place I cannot but obferve how induf- trioufly he diminifhes the Merit of Chrift's Death, when he tells us that Chrift called the Bread his Body as atlually given, broken, and deprived of Life for our Good, and his Blood fhed for our Good. And ordered the Wine which he called his Blood of the New Covenant to be drunk hereafter in Remembrance of his Blood Jhed, in Teftimony to the Truth of all that he had declared as the Will or Covenant of God. Who can read thefe Words, and not ftand amazed to fee the Vertue of the Blood of Chrift fo lejfened and under valued by one that pretends to be a Chriftian, nay to be a Chriftian Prieft, who once had the Care of a Parifh in London, and perhaps has now the Care of fome Parifh in the Country ? If he had faid that Chrift's Body was broken and his Blood Jhed to purchafe the greateft Good for us that Mankind could receive, this had been well, and becoming a Prieft of the Church of England, or of any xrtk&^'Ghriftian Church. But to teach barely that he fhed his Blood for our Good in fuch an indefinite manner, is fuch a leffiening and under valuing of the Blood of Chrift, as ill becomes the Pen of one that pretends to be a Chriftian, much . lefs a Chriftian Prieft. It looks rather like the Language of a Difciple of Toland, Collins, or of Tindal, than of one to whom any Bifhop would commit a Cure of Souls. Codrus the laft King of Athens, and the Roman Decii, might have faid as much to their Countrymen when they devoted themfelves to Death, in order to procure a Vic tory for their Friends. They might each of them haye faid, Do fome folemn Act in Remembrance of me, for I fhed my Blood for your Good. But he fays, Chrift Jhed his Blood in Teftimony to the. D 2 Truth (a8 ) Truth of all that he had declared as the Will or Covenant of God. And did not the Apoftles do the fame ? Did not they publifh and declare the, Will and Covenant of God, the very fame Will and Covenant which Chrift himfelf declared, and alfo Jhed their Blood in Teftimony to the Truth of" it? All the Difference, according to this Gen tleman's Account of the Matter, between Chrift and his Apoftles was, that he was the Mafter and they his Servants. I can find no other Difference: between them in all his Book. He firft publifhed the Gofpel in the little Country of Judea; and laid down his Life as a Teftimony to the Truth of what he had taught, and fent his Difciples to • do the fame in all the World. They went accor dingly into all the known Parts of the World, preached and taught the very fame Gofpel which he had done, and then fhed their Blood to teftify that they had taught nothing but the Truth.- Wherein then did Chrift exceed them, or how was his Blood more valuable than theirs, that the fhedding of it ought in fo folemn a manner to be had in Remembrance ? According to this Gen tleman's Account of the Matter the Difference appears to be no more than between a Mafter and a Servant, who being both but meer Men, the real Value - of their Blood is pretty equal : and if the Servant appears to be honeft and cre ditable, as the Apoftles were, the Teftimony of the Servant is as good as that of the Mafter, and his Blood as good a Seal for the Confirmation of the Truth he teaches as his Matter's Blood. Indeed according' as: this Author reprefents the Matter,: • there appears to be no Difference, or but very little, between the Blood of Chrift and the Blood of his Saints. He pretends to have written this Book to give a plain Account of the Nature and End of. the Sacrament Op) of the Lord's Supper, in which all the Texts relating U it are produced and explained, and the whole Dotlrini about it, drawn from them alone. Yet here in the main Point of all, the Virtue of Chrift's Blood, he runs off from his Texts and tells us what his Texts do not fay. In which of his Texts does he find it is faid that Chrift died for our Good? If he fays this is implied in the Words, this is my Body broken, this is my Blood ffied for you : I anfwer his altering the Phrafe does by no means explain the Text, which is what he pretends to do, it rather obfcures it. And that perhaps was his Defign ; for he feems to have written this Book for no other End, but to perfuade People that this Sacrament was a Kind of infignificant Ceremony in which we are in a ferious manner to eat Bread and drink Wine in Remembrance of a Good honeft Man who fhed his Blood for our Good, and if you would know what that good was, He declared the Will or Cove nant of God to us, that is, what God promifes on his Part, and what he requires all Believers to undertake on their Part. Kn&he fhed his Blood as a Teftimony that all he had taught on this Occafion was true. Now though all this be true, that Chrift did de clare the Will of God and bear Teftimony to the Truth of what he had declared by his Death, yet there is not a Word of this in the Account which the Scripture gives us in the Hiftory of the Inftitution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. All this was what the Apofiles and other Holy Martyrs did afterward as well as he.' In the Inftitution of this Holy Sacrament, which is what this Author pre tends to explain, Chrift fays, this is my Body given or broken for you, that is, given or broken to pur chafe for you that Salvation, that Heavenly King dom which you cannot obtain except I die to make an Atonement for your Sins. This Cup is the New Teftament or Covenant in my Blood, which is Jhed for you (30 ) you for the Remiffiion of Sins : That is, my Blood, which according to the New Covenant which I have made with God the Father in your behalf, is now decreed to be fhed for the Remiffion or Forgivenefs of your Sins, and unlefs I do fhed my Blood your Sins will not be forgiven. This is the plain and natural Explanation of what he fays in the Inftitution concerning the breaking of his Body and the fhedding of his Blood. That this was the End and Defign for which Chrift.died for us, and for which he fhed his moft precious Blood . is taught in feveral Parts of the Holy Scripture. Ifaiah prophetically fays, He bath born our Griefs and carried our Sorrows : He was wounded for our Tranfgreffions, he was bruifed for our Iniquities ; the Chaftifement of our Peace was upon him, and with his Stripes we are healed. AH we like Sheep have gone aftray ; we have turned every one to his own Way, and the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all. He was oppreffied and he was affiitled ; He was taken from Prifon and from Judge ment ; He was cut off out of the Land of the Liv ing :, For the Tranfgreffion of my People was he. ftricken. If. liii. 4. 8. That this Prophecy re lates to Chrift, and forefhewed what he fhould do and fuffer for us, we are affured from the Difcourfe between St. Philip and the Mthiopian Eunuch. Atlsvni. 29, &c. as well as by comparing, this. Prophecy with the Hiftory of our Saviour's Suf ferings. Here therefore we learn that Chrift did not die barely to give Teftimony to the Truth of what he taught, but he died and fhed his Blood tp procure a Pardon for our Sins. He was wounded for our Tranfgreffions, he was bruifed for our Iniqui ties, with his Stripes we are healed. In like man ner St. Paul fays, he was delivered, that is fas ap pears from the Context,) he was put to Death for tur Offences. Rom. iv. 25. And a little after the fame (3i V fame Apoftle fays, When we were yet without Strength, in due time Chrift died for the Ungodly And God commendeth his Love towards us, in that while we were yet Sinners Chrift died for us. Much more then being now juftified by his Blood, we fhall be favedfrom the Wrath to come. For if when we were Enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of bis Son, much more being reconciled, we fhall befaved by his Life. Rom. v. 6. 8, 9, 10. Here we fee that Chrift died not fo much to teftify the Truth of what he taught, for that others might have done and did fo afterwards, but to obtain Pardon. for our Sins, and to reconcile us to God, who would not be reconciled to us being his Enemies upon other Terms. And St. John tells us, that the Blood of Jefus Chrift his, that is God's, Son cleanfeth from all Sin. 1 Joh. i. 7. Here we fee the Reafon why the Blood of Jefus Chrift which he fhed for us is of Power to make us clean from Sin is, be caufe he is the Son of God : And is himfelf alfo God as well as Man. And therefore his Blood is exprefly filled the Blood of God by St. Paul, in his Vifitation Charge fas I may call it) to the Elders of Ephefus, to whom he fays, Take heed to yourfelves, and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghofi hath made you Overfeers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchafed with his own Blood. Atls xx. 28. If that Flock in London which was fo unhap py as to have this Elder or Presbyter for their Overfeer did any of them confider whofe Blood it was which he leffened and undervalued when he preached to them the -Subftance of this Book ; they could but lament their own Unhappinefs to live under the Care of z.Paftor who fed them with fuch pernicious Food. I might produce many other Texts to prove that the Perfon who fhed this Blood for us was GWas well as Man, having united the Godhead to the Manhood in one Perfon, (32 ) Perfon, and that it was upon that very Account that his Blood was fo precious in the Eyes of God the Father as to 'atone for the Sins of all Mankind : But this is an Article of our Faith which teaches u, that Jefus Chrift the Perfon who died for us, and fhed his Blood on the Crofs, is God of God, Light of Light, very .God of very God, begotten, not made, .being of one Subftance with the Father, by whom all. Things were made ; who for us Men, ai'id our Salvation came down from Heaven, and was incar nate by the Holy Ghoft of. the Virgin, Mary , and was made Man, and was crucified for us. This great Article of our Faith has this Author fubfcribed and given Affent and Confent to it. . Yet now re- prefents Jefus Chrift . to us, as no more than a Man, .who Jhed his Blood in Teftimony to the Truth cf all that he had declared as the Will or Covenant of God. : ,, ,.,. . , t ¦ Our Author however proceeds and fays in his Paraphrafe, I fiyle this Cup or this Wine, the New Teftament in my Blood ; becaufe you are hereafter thus to drink Wine in a Religious Remem brance of my Blood, in or through which after it JhaU be Jhed, this New Covenant will be confirmed, as by a Seal or Teftimony tp the Truth of it ; in order to affiure you more undoubtedly of the Remiffion of your Sins, ftipulated in that Covenant, upon true Repentance and Amendment. Still Chrift's Blood is no more than a Sval or Teftimony, though St. Paul exprefly tells us we are bought with a Price, i Cor. vi. 20. And that Price was the Blood of Chrift, who as I but now obferved is God who pur chafed. us with hisswn Blood. And St. Peter fays, ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible- Things, as ¦Silver or Gold, but with the precious Blood of Chrift. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. It is therefore depreciating and undervaluing the Blood of Chrift, to call it barely the Seal or Teftimony of that Covenant by which Remiffion ( 33 ) Remiffion of Sins is ftipulated upon true Repen tance and. Amendment, for it is the Purchafe of that Covenant, Repentance and Amendment are not fufficient to obtain Salvation but through him, He is the Author of eternal Salvation to all that obey him, Heb. v. 9. Neither is there Salva tion in any other : For there is none other Name un der Heaven given among Men whereby we muft be faved, Acts iv, j2. Anc^ we muft enter, into the Helieft by the Blood of Jefus. And the Saints iri Heaven fing the Praifes of him that was ftain, and has redeemed us to God by his Blood, out of every Kindred and People and Nation, Rev. v. 9. And is all this no more than a bare Seal or Tefti mony of the New Covenant ? But though this Gen tleman thinks Covenant the moft proper Word by which the. Original Aia8m<.n ought to be tranflated ih the Hiftory of the Inftitution of the Lord's- Supper, becaufe that beft fitted his Purpofe of depreciating the Value of Chrift's Blood, and that Word fignifies both a Covenant and a. Teftament, yet I conceive. our Tranflators had better Reafon tp tranflate it Teftament than Covenant, becaufe the Benefits there mentioned as given were to be the Purchafe of his Death. Therefore the Apoftle fays, . for this Caufe he is the Mediator of the New Teftament, that by means of De,ath for the Redemption of the Tranfgreffions that were under the firft Teftament, they which are called might receive the Promife of eternal Inheritance. Fot where a Teftdinent is, (4u«6wti^ tjievery fame Word ufed in the Inftitution of the Lord's Supper) there muft alfo of Neceffity be the- Death of the Teftatan For a Teftament is of Force after Men are dead; otherwife it is of no Strength atoll whilft the Teft ator liveth, Heb. ix. 15, 16, , if. As therefore the Inftitution of the Lord's- Supper neceffarily required the Death of Chrift, our Tranflators certainly did well to tranflate Ai*8wrf E by- ('34 ) by the Word Teftament rather than Covenant. Fof Chrift by his Death purchafed Salvation for us, fhed his Blood to cleanfe us from all Sin, and gave himfelf for us that he might redeem us from all Ini quity, and purify to himfelf a peculiar People zea lous of good Works, Tit. ii. 14. Salvation then,' eternal Salvation in Heaven was the Legacy he left us by his Teftament, and which We fhall cer tainly obtain if we do not forfeit our Title to it, by Infidelity and Difobedience. For the Holy Scriptures require a right and true Faith no left than fincere Obedience. And Infidelity will as furely deprive us of eternal Happinefs as a wicked Life. In the next place this Gentleman makes the Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharift no more than bare Memorandums to put us in Mind that once upon a Time there was a Man called Jefus ChripJ who came and told us God's Will ; that God made a Covenant with us, containing Promifes on his Part, requiring fome Things to be done on our Part, and in Teftimony to the 'truth of all that he had declared as the Will or Covenant of God, he gave his Body to be broken and his Blood 'to be Jhed. We are not to believe that he infufed any Virtue into this Bread and Wine, or that any Benefit, is to be obtained by our eating the one and drinking the other j any further than as it is obeying a Command of our Mafter or Teacher who' came to inftruct us how to ferve God. He called the Bread indeed his Body given or broken, and the PPinetixs Blood fhed for us ; but as we cannot be-" lieve the Bread and Wine to be his Natural Bodf and Blood, fo we muft not believe that they are" his Body and Blood in any Senfe whatfoever. He called them fo indeed when he inftituted this Sa crament, but he meant no more by it than that we fhould call to mind that he died for our Good.Thai ( 3S) That is, that he laid down his Life to teftify that all he had taught was the Truth. Thus he repre- fents this higheft and moft folemn Part of Chrif tian Worjhip as no better than (what the Author of a Book falfely called the Rights of the Chriftian Church ftyles it) a Grace Cup. How ftrangely has the whole Chriftian Church been deceived for fo many Ages, Ancients and Moderns, Greeks and Barbarians, Papifts and Pro- teflants in believing that Chrift when he called the Bread his iWyand the Cup his Blood, intended they fhould fignify his Body and Blood in fome Senfe or other. But it feems none of them, not even the 'mofti!»«fli( Fathers of the Church who were Dis ciples to the Apoftles or to their immediate Succef- fors, underftood what Chrift intended when he faid, Take, eat, this is my Body, Drink ye all of this, ¦for this is my Blood, 'till Socinus a little above 150 Years ago explained it, and from him and his Followers has this Gentleman copied. However as we have no Reafon to believe that one who lived not 'till above i40oYearsafter the Death of all the Apoftles could underftand their Writings and Doctrines fo well as their immediate Succeflbrs, and as the beft way to underftand any Law or Rule is to know how it was underftood by thofe who lived at the Time or fo,on after fuch Law was made, and knew in what manner it was obferved and underftood by thofe who could not but know how to uqderftand and who would not fail toobferve it accordingly, we may be well affured that the Primitive Fathers who lived neareft to the Apof tles Times have given us a true and faithful Ac count of what we are to believe and do in relation to this Sacrament. And they all believed the Bread and Wine to be in fome Senfe the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift, and that there was fomething more in the Celebration of this Sacrament than a E a bare ( 3*) bare Memorial or Remembrance of a Man who laid down his Life as a Teftimony to the Truth. I fhall content my felf with giving Inftances front three or four of the eldeft Fathers, whofe Au thority and Teftimony muft in this Matter be the leaft liable to Exception! I will begin with St. Cyprian, Bifhop of Car thage, who lived within 150 Years of the Apofto,- lical Age, at a Time when the Church was un der a fevere Perfccution, and he and others ex pected to be every Day Martyrs, at which Time we may reafonably believe they were more thah ordinarily careful to preferve the Faith and Doc^ trine of Chrift (the Truth of which they every Day • expected to confirm, and many of them, parti cularly this Saint and Martyr Cyprian, did confirm with their Blood) pure and entire, without adding to or diminifhirig from what was taught by Chrift. Now he treating of the Lapfed, that is of. thofe Chriftians who out of Fear and to avoid fuffering having facrificed to Idols, neverthelefs would come to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, writes thus. * " Returning from the Altars of *' the Devil they come to the Holy of the Lord " with filthy Hands, and infected with the Scent " of thofe Sacrifices : Even while the Tafte of the " deadly Meat of the Idols is yet frefh in their " Mouths, and thefr Breath tainted with ijts per- " nicious Exhalations, they feize upon the Lord's " Body." Then he cites Levit. vii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. x- 21. and xi. 27. After which he proceeds and fays, " All thefe Admonitions being defpifed * A DiaboJi Aris rcvertentes ad Sanftum Domini fordidis & infeftis nidore Tjianibus accedunt. Mortiferos Idolorum cibps adhuc pene ruftantea exhalantibus etiam nunc fcclus fijum fau- cibus, & contagia funefta redolentibus, Domini Corpus inva- dunt Spretis his omnibus & contemptis vis infcrtur Corpori ejus h Sanguini. Cyfx, de Lapfis, §. 10. "and (37 ) '* and contemned, they offer Violence to his Body, «' and Blood." The Lord's Body and the Body and Blood he here fpeaks of can be nothing elfe. but the Bread and Wine in the Holy Communion ; for the natural Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift is out of the reach of all kinds of Violence. Ori gen who lived fome Years before St. Cyprian fays, y li When you receive the Body of the Lord *¦* you keep it with the utmoft Care and Venera- " tion, left fome fmall Piece fhould fall from it, " left fomething of the confecrated Gift fhould " flip from you." Now except they believed the Bread to be the Body of Chrift why fhould they take care of it? There was no other thing ever called the Body of Chrift winch they could receive or had it in their Power to take care of- ^ TertuUian who flourifhed fome Years before Ori gen, and within an hundred Years of the Apofto- iical Age, " fays exprefly that Chrift made the " Bread which he took and diftributed to his te Difciples his Body, faying, This is my Body, " that is, the Figure of my Body." Here this Ancient Father plainly fays not that Chrift called the Bread his Body, but that he made it his Body, not indeed his Natural Body but the Figure or Reprefentation of his Body. Irenaus who flou rifhed fome Time before TertuUian, not much above fifty Years after the Death of St. John the Apoftle fays, § " The Lord taking fuch Bread y" as we ufe, confeffed it to be his Body, and af- •f Cum fufcipitis Corpus Domini, cum omni cautela & vene- ratione fervatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne confecrati mune- ris aliquid dilabatur. In Exed. Jiomit. 13. * Acceptum Panem & diftributuni Difcipulis Corpus fuum fe cit, hoc eft Corpus me'urh dicendo, hoc eft, Figura Corporis. Adverf. Marci. lib. 4. § Dominus qui eft fecundum nos accipiens panem, fuum Corpus effe confitebatur, & temperamentura calicis fuum fan> g.'.inem confirmavit. • Lib. 4. cap. 57. " ferted (38) <* ferted the Temperature of the Cup to be his *' Blood." And again he fays, " t They area I- ' ** together vain who defpife the whole Difpofition *' of God, and deny the Salvation of the Fleffi, M and contemn the Regeneration, faying, that?% " uncipable of Incorruption : So that'accordiftg " to this Fancy, neither does the Lord redeem us " with his Btood, neither is the Cup of the Eu- ** charift the Communication of his Blood, nor " the Bread which we break the Communication " of his Body." ' Here he plainly intimates that St. Paul's Words, which I fhall confider prefently, teach that the Body and Blood of Chrift are com* muriicated to us in the Holy Eucharift, Juftin Martyr, who was fomething elder than Irenaus^ fays, " * We do not take thefe Things as com- " mon Bread or common Drink : But as Jefus ** Chrift our Saviour was made Flefh by the *' 'Logos of God, and had real Flefh and Blood '* for our Salvation, fo we are taught that this ** Food, which the very fame Logos bleffed by *c Prayer and Thankfgiving, is turned into the *' Nourifhment and Subftance of our Flejh and *c Blood, and is tht Flefh and Blood oi the incar- *c nate Jefus. For the Apofiles in their Com- •f- Vani autem omni modo [qui univerlam Difpofnionem Dei "contemnunt, & carnis falutem negant, & regenerationem ejus fpetnum, dicentes, non earn capacem effe incorruptibilitatis : fe autem hase videlicet, nee Dominus - Sanguine iuo redimit nos, rjeque Calix Euchariftiae commuhicatio Sanguinis ejus ^ ne que panis, quern frangimus, cQmmunicatio- Corporis, ejus eft. l>ib. <;•> cap. 2. ¦ '-' 'Ov ai( Ktuit a'fTov, idi Komi ¦xiihtt, txStcc >Mji,Qdiofi,tf aM' if t^utcci oik Ao'ys ©ss «"«f kotomjAb? 'lvrS( Xf (5-05 0 a-urif r'/&Jr, xj e=*'f*« K7 in/A* Cxif owmpt'ot »"j*2u i%«, aV«j xj t»» Si lv%is toyi» ts nae dvrS lv%apmSiiip iyfipfv it a* aimaf- y«TS; tH) papist ra* ©«a wtjrrStris dTttAtfia-xaa. Xvukpsfw « avrai ny*x2ir u&juii &mf£ri>.. Epift. ad Smyr. §.7. " which '(*>¦) £c which the Father, of his Goodnefs, ralfed a- ''< gain. Thefe therefore contradicting the Gift " of God dye in their Difputes. But much better " were it for them to love it, that they might " rife again." Thus we fee that the moft an tient Fathers of the Chriftian Church believed the Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharift to be in. fome Senfe the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift, and taught that bur Lord" did not only call the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood, but actually made them fo, as Juftin Martyr expreffes it. All that thefe Holy Fathers have faid, which I have here cited from them, is perfectly , agreeable to our Saviour's own Words in the Inftitution; When he faid, Take, eat, this is my Body, Drink ye all of this, for 'this is my Blood. Did he call them his Body and Blood, and yet have no other Defign in doing fo, than that they fhould be eat and drank barely as a Remembrance of him, in fuch manner as we drink a Health to an abfent Friend ? For this Author fays, '* Whoever " in a religious Senfe of his Relation to Chrift " as his Difciple,' ** performs thefe Actions of eating Bread and ** drinking Wine in Remembrance of Chrift, as of a *' Perfon corporally abfent from his Difciples, per- l' forms them agreeably to the ehd declared by " Chrift himfelf. and his immediate Difciples." Then it feems our Saviour and his Difciples did and received nothing that had any prefent Signi fication at the Time of the Inftitution.. He fo- lemnly took Bread, bleffied it, brake it, gave it to them, faying, Take, eat, this is my Body: And he took the Cup and gave Thanks, and gave it to them,faying,Drinkye all of it: for this is my Blood of tbe New Tejlameht, which is fied for many for the Remiffion of Sins. All this, according to this Author, was faid and done, by our Saviour, not that it was of any Benefit to' therrt (4i ) them at that time, but only to let them know what they were to do hereafter. He gave them Bread and Wine, and told them that one was his Body and the other his Blood, but they could not eat the one and drink the other at that time in Remembrance of him as abfent. The Author himfelf makes this Obfervation, pag. 30. and fays, " They could not do the Actions here named vi« ufed " by the Apoftle, and the Word Communion, *' which is Latin, both fignify a Joint-partaking, *' or a partaking of fomething in common with " others of the fame Society. And this Joint- " partaking of Chrift's Body and of Chrift's Blood, " can fignify no more than eating his Body and *' drinking his Blood as a Society of his Difciples." Well then it is granted, that when we receive this Holy Communion, we do partake of the Body and Blood of Chrift. Our being Joint-Partakers or Par takers of it as a Society of Chrift's Difciples, does not render it lefs a Participation, than if we had been ordered to have partaken of it fingly each one in private by himfelf, and not in a Company or Society together. And what is the partaking of the Body and Blood of Chrift, but partaking of all the Benefits of Chrift's Body broken and his Blood Jhed P We can't partake of his Natural Body that is abfent from us as far as Heaven is from the Earth* But his vertual Body, his Body in Spirit, and in Power, which may procure us all the Benefits of his Paflion, Death and Refurrec- tion, is the Body he may give and has given to be. eaten and drunk by us in the Holy Commu nion. This is what St. Paul plainly meant, and he acknowledges it is fo interpreted by many learned Men ; I may fay by all learned Men except Pa* ¦pifts, who interpret them of the Natural Body ^nd Blood of Chrift ; and Socinians, and their Fol lowers (. 43 ) lowers (of which this Gentleman fhews himfelf to be one in this particular, whatever he may be in others) who interpret the Bread and Wine to be nothing but bare Memorials, or like a folemn religious Grace-Cup, as I obferved before. How ever, he pretends to prove his own Interpretation by faying, " If St. Paul had here made ufe of " the very Expreffions which our Lord ufed in. " the Inftitution of this Rite, they would have " appeared thus : When we Chriftians, affembled " in a Body, drink Wine at the Lord's Supper, " do we not drink the Blood of Chrift ? And " when we eat Bread, do we not eat the Body of " Chrift P" Well; and if St. Paul had faid this, I think the Interpretation learned Men have gi ven of his Words, as they now'ftand, would have been perfeftly agreeable to them. They would have laid, when we eat Bread at the Lord's Supper, we eat that which Chrift by his Inftitu tion has made to 'beveirtually his Body, his Body in Spirit and in Power : we drink that which he has made to be vertually his Blood, his Blood in Spirip and in Power, which, if we do not obftruct the Bleffing, by wilful Impenitence or Infidelity, will make us Partakers of all the Benefits of Chrift's Body broken . and Blood fhed. No, fays this Author, " The Meaning of this would plainly have been, that, in the Lord's Supper, we do not eat and drink Bread and' Wine, as at an ordinary Meal ; but as Memorials of the Body and- Blood of Chrift ; in Honour to him as the Head of that Body of which we are all Members." But how comes St. Paul then in this Place to fay not one Word of Memorial or Re membrance P Nevertheleis, he fays^, " The Senfe " he has given it feems the only Senfe in which the " Communion or joint partaking of his Body znd '* Blood can reafpnably here be underftood." It F 2 is (44) is very ftrange that if this be the only Senfe cm reafonably be put upon St. Paul's Words that fo many learned Men, (fome of which I fuppofe were as reafonable as this Author) fhould all mis take it. The Text does not appear fo difficult as that among fo many learned Men Ancient and Modern, no one could hit upon the only reafon able Senfe of }t before this Author, unlefs per haps fome of the Followers pr Favourers of Socinus and his Polonian, Dutch or Englijh Brethren. I cannot perfuade my felf but that St. Chryfofiom ha$ given the Senfe of this Text full as reafonable, and I cannot but think more agreeable to Truth than this Qentleman has given it us. This Gentlemari has been pleafed to tell us a part of what this Father fays upon the former Part of the Text concerning the Bleffing of the Cup, of which I jiave already taken notice. It may now therefore be proper to obferve what he fays when he comes to the End of the Verfe, + " The Bread which. 3 *e mention the Practice of the Church with rt* " gard to this Rite, in which the Faithful are " exhorted by the Deacons when they come to " the Holy Eucharift, that they come not to the " Altar in Enmity or Drfcord, which Exhorta- w tion is founded on this Precept of our Saviour. a And indeed as thefe Words are contained in ** that excellent Sermon, in which he promulged M a new Law, or renewed the old to be obferved *' by the Faithful, he feems chiefly to have had ReA « fpect and Regard, not fo much to the Mofaie ** Oblations with the Altar and Temple which « were fhortly to be abolifhed, but to the Altar " and Sacrifice of the Church which were then tt ready to be inftituted : Which to have been in tt the Chriftian Congregations not only Ireneeus " .and Ignatius before him, but even the Apoftle <* himfelf tcftifies, writing Heb. xiii. 10. We ** have an Altar, whereof they have no right to eat " who ferve theTabernacle. Therefore in the Church ** without the Jewifh Temple there was an Altar^ a and by confequence a Sacrifice alfo, not only ** rational of Praife and Prayer, but material alfq' tc of Bread and Wine, which the Apoftle clearly .** fignifies by the Word eating'' The late reverend and learned Mr. Johnfpn is another Man of great Note who has fo interpreted) tiiis Text. I am fure no one aught to be looked 'B' Altari & Templo brevi abolendus, fed Altare ac Sacrificium Ec* trlefiae jamjam inftimendum prjecipue refpexiffe, ac tale fuppo-" f^iiffe videtur : quare etiam in Chrifiianorum ccetibus fuiffe, non folum Irenaeus & antiquior Ignatius, fed & ipfe Apoftolus tefta- t'ur, Heb. xiii. 10. fcribens, Habemus Altare, ex quo edendi run habent potejlatem qui Ta'birnaculo ' defermunt. Extra Judaeoroni ir;vque Templum in Ecclefia erat Srvtsia^mior Altare, & per ^onfequens etiam Ovoid, Sacrificium, non folum rationale tiu-dis & prsecum, fed Sc materiale panis & vini, quod verba idendi clare fignificat Apoftolus. Irenoe. lib. 4. cap. 34. not. J. t"&> 3H- Edit. Crab, Oxon. fjoz. i ss) upon of greater Note with regard to this Subject? for he was a Man who had long ftudied it Andc as he was a Perfon of a clear Head and found Judgment, and a perfect Mafter of the two ori ginal Languages, the Hebrew and the Greek, in which the Old and New Teftament were written, and fo well verfed in the original Text of the whole Scripture, that if in Converfation he was asked his Opinion upon any Verfe, he would rea dily tell what the Words were in the Original* He was alfo well read in the Fathers, and no Stranger to the modern Writers, as may be feen in his Works. And in his Propitiatory Oblation and two Volumes of the Unbloody Sacrifice ; and in his three Difcourfes, intitled, the Primitive Communicant, which he had prepared for the Prefs, but which were not publifhed till fince his Death, when they were printed, together with fome other excellent Difcourfes, all which well deferve to be read by the Clergy as well as by o- thers •, he has almoft exhaufted the Subject, if fa fublime a Subject could be exhaufted. The Paf fage I have already quoted from him fhews how -he underftood this Text. But I fhall have Occa fion to quote more from him, when I come to confider this Author's Objections to this Interpre tation. But I have yet another, whom even this Author, I believe, cannot deny to be a Perfon defervedly of great Note, who has thus interpreted it : And that is the prefent Right Reverend and learned Bifhop of Oxford in his Diftourfe of Church Government, where he fays, pag. 270. " The ." Apoftle declares that the Jews, who are not *' within the Chriftian Covenant, and confe- " quently not in Communion with Chrift and his " Church, have no Right to partake of the ** Chriftian Altar. We have an Altar, fays he, ** whereof they have no Right to partake who ferve " the *« the TdbernacU. Heb. xiii. 10. Hence it is ma-^ rt nifeft that to eat the Lord's Supper, is to partake " of the Sacrifice of Chrift, which is there com- " memorated and reprefented. For which Reafori " the moft primitive Fathers fpeak of eating at *' the Chriftian Altar." As to the Ancients, if Theophylatl and Oecume- nius quoted before from Dr. Hickes may not be ac counted Ancients, becaufe they flourifhed not till the tenth or eleventh Century, yet they have been efteemed Interpreters of Note. And as they were Greeks and Matters of the Language of the New Teftament, their Comments are often cited and referred to as of Value. However Theodoret, cited alfo by Dr. Hickes on this Occafion, was certainly an Ancient, living at the Beginning of the fifth Century, not much above three hundred Years from the Apoftolical Age, and while the original Language of the New Teftament was yet a living Language, and therefore better underftood that Language than we can do fince it ceafed to be fo : And when many Books of the more ancient Fa thers were extant, which are now loft, fo that he had better Helps for the Interpretation of Scrip ture than we have. However though among the Works of the moft ancient Fathers which have been tranfmitted to us, we may not perhaps find the •Altar in this Text exprefsly interpreted to fignify the Communion Table, yet I believe this Author cannot find any amongft them who gives it ano* ther Interpretation, as having hot, it may be, any particular Occafion to interpret it. Before the Time of the Council of Nice, that is, till within an hundred Years of Theodoret's writing, we have no intire Commentary upon the whole Scripture now remaining-, or upon the Epiftle to the He brews in particular. Origen indeed did write Com*' mentaries upon moft Parts, if not upon the whol« Scripture, ( 57 ) Scripture. But we have not his Commentary or any of his Homilies upon the Epiftle to the He brews, only fome Fragments preferved by Eufebius, and perhaps by fome others. And as till that Time and for above a thoufand Years following, no body fo much as made it a Queftion whether the Communion Table was an Altar, all Catholick or Orthodox Chriftians being fully fatisfied that it was fo, they had no Occafion in their Sermons or Writings to cite and interpret this Text to prove what no body doubted of. However we find them conftantly calling the Communion Table by the Name of the Altar, even from the Apoftles Days downward : Infomuch that Mr. Johnfon (p. 303.) tells us, " That it does not appear to him that the " Holy Board is ever called a Table in the three firft: *' Centuries but once, and that is by Dionvfius of *' Alexandria in his Letter to Xyftus of Rome. " Yet Mr. Johnfon, as we may be fatisfied from the Collections he has made, fearched the Fathers very diligently for this Purpofe, to fee what they had taught concerning the Holy Eucharift. The nume rous Inftances of this Appellation may be feen iii his Book, to which I refer thofe who defire fur ther Satisfaction. I fhall only take Notice that he obferves further, that though " in the fourth Cen- " tury it was frequently called a Table ; yet to fhew " that this was an Innovation, Athanafius thought " himfelf obliged to explain his own Word, and " to let the Reader know, that by Table he meant " Altar, becaufe the latter was the moft known *' and familiar Name." And the learned Bifhop Potter tells us alfo in his Book before mentioned, " That the moft primitive Fathers fpeak of eat- *' ing at the Chriftian Altar" Can it be then fup-, pofed that thefe moft primitive Fathers, St. Igna tius particularly, who for many Years lived and ?onverfed with fome of the Apoftles, and is citcdj '•'"¦ ' H bv < vSS ) ¦fe^ Bifhop Potter as well as Mr. Johnfon, would fb ponftantly have called the Communion Table an Altar if they had not been taught to call it fo by the Apoftles ? And can it be fuppofed that thofe who always called the Communion Table by the Name of ¦Altar, would not interpret St. Paul to mean that Table, when he faid We have an Altar whereof, or from which, they have no Right to eat. who ferve the Ta bernacle P This Author therefore is guilty of a great Miftake when he fays, " There is not one Interpret " ter ancientor modern of great, Note who interprets " this, obfcure .Paffage,'^ (made obfcqre only by fuch Interpreters as himfelf) '.' of the Lord's Table.'* But when a Man knows not how to give a clear fatif- factory Anfwer to a Paffage that makes againft him, it is very proper for him to call it obfcure. But this Author pretends the whole Scope and Tenor of the Writer of this Epiftle is againft this Interpretation. For, fays he, " The main End *' which the Author of this Epiftle had in View, ¦?' was to fhew that the Difpenfation of the Gofpel *' did more than anfwer to all that the Mofaick " Difpenfation profeffed to hold forth to the Jews. "¦ And this end he purfues by fhewing that the " Author . of it was far greater than the Angels, \l whp affifted at the Delivery of the Law to Mofes.; " and far greater than Mofes to whom this Law " was delivered: That he is, to his Difciples, of " far greater Importance, in all Refpects, than <-' the Jewijh High-prjeft was to the Jews ; that his t' Death more than anfwered all the legal Sacrifices ; " and that his Difpenfation was fully fufficient to " bring Sinners to the Favour of God. Through- " out his whofe Difcourfe, Chrift himfelf is the \ ' High-Prieft, the Offerer, the Sacrificer of him.- '.' felf: And therefore nothing but the real Crofs, " upon which Chrift offered. himfelf, can be the: *c Chriftian Altar, in his Language," But where does ( S9 ) does he nii,d in Scripture or in any Father of th£ three firft Centuries that Chrift offered himfelf upon the Crofs ¦? That Chrift offered himfelf is certain, the Author of this Epiftle teaches us fo very plains iy, but that this Offering was made upon the Crofs he no where fays. But he tells us, chap. ix. 28^ That Chrift was once offered to bear the Sins of ma ny. Now if he was offered tO bear, then the Offer ing muft precede the Bearing ; for we can't fay he was offered to bear at the very Tinle he dcJual- ly was bearing. Now it was upon the Crofs that he 4id bettr our Sins, for Sn Peter fays, His own felf bare our Sins in his 'own Body on the Tree, therefore the. QHation or actual offering himfelf as a Prieft muft precede his fuffering On the Crofs, for he offer ed himftlf TO hear, therefore offered before he did bear, confequently before he was put upon the Crofs. When then could he offer himfelf? Can we find any other Tirhe for it than when he adriiihiftred and inftituted the Holy Eucharift? For as Mr; johnfon ¦ hat well obferved on this Occafion, * " Chtift, when he adminiftred the Bread to the *' Apoftles, did exprefly declare, this Bread to be *' his Bodygwenor offered for them : Arid when he * ' adminiftred the Cup, . that was his Blood Jhed for " them.. He fays as etfprefly and ftrongly as *' Words can well exprefs it, that he then gave •* his Body IO God, and fhed his Blood as a Rari- " fom for the Sins of Meri. Neither Chrift nor " his Apoftles have declared, that he did at any • *'. other Time or Place, as a Prieft.; Offer his Bd- " dy and Blood tO thfc Father here on Eatth. It " deferv.es Our particular Nefcice; That not only i£ St. -Luke reprcfents Our Saviour as faying, This " is my Mody given for you-; but Sc; Matthew in- " forms us, that our Saviour faid concerning the "..Cup,: This is my Blood- of the New Teftament p| * tfnbloody Sacrifice, Tart ii. pag. 6. 7. 9. "10. H 2 '_' which ( 6o ) *e which is fhed for you, and for many ; St. Mark ** alfo fpeaks of the Time then prefent, which is " ffied for many; and St. Paul, in relating this " facred Inftitution, fpeaks of our Saviour as ufing " thefe Words, This is my Body which is broken " for you.. Nothing can be more harfh than to " fuppofe, that we may not rely upon the Report " of four holy Writers, when they agree as to the " Circumftance of Time. All Writers do indeed " fometimes fpeak of what is to be done as now al- " ready done ; but then the Reader is from the Na- " ture and Method of the Facts by them related " fet right as to the certain Time •, but we Gannot " from any of the four Gofpels, or any other Paf- " fage in the New Teftament inform our felves, that " Chrift did at any other certain Time, here on " Earth as a Prieft, offer his Body and Blood *' to God •, therefore fince four of thefe Writers " do affure us, that Chrift declared his Body to be *' given, and his Blood to be poured out in the *' Eucharift; we may from thence fafely conclude, " that he did then offer himfelf, while he was alive, " efpecially fince Sacrifices of Expiation and Con- f l fecration were of old thus offered by the Prieft, ." before they were flain. And the Fancy that " our Saviour ufed the Time prefent, for the Time *' to come, has no other Foundation, but that of «' the Popifh Mafs-Book, and the old Latin Tranf- ** lation of the Gofpels, in which the Words run *c thus •, This is my Body which Jhall be given, This " is my -Blood which Jhall be Jhed.— —As it feems *' fufficiently evident, that Chrift did offer the cc Sacrifice of his Body and Blood under theFi- u gures of Bread and Wine ; fo if we con- " fider the Time and Company, in which it was *c done, we fhall find them to have been the moft " prober and agreeable for the moft facred tt Actiori. As to the Time, it was before he " was {61 ) ** was under Cuftody or Confinement, while hei *c was even to the Eye of Men intirely at his own* " Difpofal : This was a proper Seafon to make? K the Oblation of himfelf irioft perfectly available " to the Ends for which it was performed : For* " by doing it now, it appeared to be wholly his " own Act and Deed, flowing from the free Mo- " tion of his own Will. If he had delayed the1 *' doing it till he had been faftned to the Crofs, " or feized by the Officers and Soldiers, it might " have been faid by his Enemies, that he offered " himfelf to God, to wipe off the Reproach of *' that fhameful Death, from which he was not " able to deliver himfelf; and to fet the beft Glofs " he could on his prefent Sufferings, when he *' found them to be unavoidable ; but by doing it ** while he was yet at perfect Liberty, he preven* '* ted the Mif- conftruction of the moft generous *' and beneficial Action he performed. As to the «« Company, in which he did it, none could be '« more agreeable: They were his Apoftles, who « were beforehand chofen of God to be Wit- «' neffes of his moft glorious Actions, and Stew- «« ards of his Myfteries. And if it were proper «( for all other Matters of Moment to be tranf- " acted in their Prefence, it might juftly -be " thought ftrange, if he had chofe to perform the *' principal Action of all in their Abfence. Chrift « knew full well, that his Apoftles would fbrfakes " him, before he was crucified ; that not one " of them, except St. John, would be a Witnefs «' of what he fhould do or fay, while he was «* hanging on the Crofs. And certainly that «' Multitude of bloody Jews, with the Band' of " Roman Soldiers, who furrounded our bleffed «' Lord, during the whole Time of his Cruci- " fixion, were the moft improper and difagree-* fi able Affembly, to be Witncffes of the moft " facred ec facred and folemn Action, that ever was dbnex « upon Earth, I mean the Prieftly Oblation of '• the Son of God for the Sins of Men." ..As therefore it does not appear either from thi* Epiftle to the Hebrews or from any Other Part of the Scripture that Chrift offered himfelf upon- the Crofs, only that, he was offered, or offered hinafelf to b-ear the Sins of many, which implies that he was offered, before be did bear, it evidently follows1 that he was offered before he was crucified, fince it was upon the Crofs that he bore our Sins to. ac- eompjifn the. End for which he offered himfelf, alt1 that this Gentleman argues from Chrift's facrifiang pr offering himfelf on the Crofs falls of Courfe;' But. it proves that he offered or facrificed himfelf in the Holy Eucharift Which immediately preceded,' his Crucifixion, To offer is to perform an Action; but, to bear is to be paffive. Now Chrift wa* atjhe, performed a folemn Action when he cele* forated the Ettcbarift, but perfectly -paffive whert he was crucified, and we and all Chriftians have for that Reafon always called it his paffidn. It was the Jews who brought falfe Accusations againft him, and Pilate,, who moved by their Clamors condemned him, and the Soldiers who nailed hint to. the Crofs that were the AQors and Chrift the1 Patient with regard to what was done in that Matter. For having offered himfelf in the Eucha* rift to bear, he then (though if he had pleafedihg could have called more than twelve Legionsi of Angels to his Affiftance) voluntarily furrendrei himfelf to the Guard which was fent to apprehend him, that fo he might bear what he had voluntas fily offered himfelf to bear. '-.-.* ' Mr.. Johnfon alfo has proved in his Propitiakfj Oblation, &c. p. 46. That when the Apoftle fay* we have an Altar, from which they have no Right $ eat who ferve the Tabernacle, " It. is tobeuhder- ,/j'i.... «« flood ( «J ) i)v flvm'dv *<*3-swrf|i 4 'A^Sgeu?, «AA* tijv olvnjv «a) 7T6iS[AtV ^e«Mou Js «v«jwvi)\St. Dial. «jim Tryph. p. 260. Edit. Par. p. 120. Edit.Jeb. " Bread " Bread of the Eucharift and likewife the Cup of the " Eucharift, faying that we glorify his Name but *l you profane it." And again he fays, * " All " thofe who in that Name offer the Sacrifices in- " ftituted by Jefus Chrift, that is the Bread and " Cup in the E"ucharift, which is performed by ** Chriftians in all Places, are declared by God to *' be pleating to him." Irenceus who was Contenv porary with Juftin fpeaks alfo the fame Language* faying, f " The Oblation of the Church which '** our Lord taught us to offer in all the World* '* is accounted by God to be a pure Sacrifice and ct acceptable to him. Not that he needs any Sa- " crifice from us, but becaufe he that offers is glo- " rified in that he offers if his Gift be accepted.—* " The pure Church alone offers this Oblation to ** the Creator, with Thankfgiving offering to hirn *' of his own Creature." Then having fhewed the Marcionites, who maintained vthat the Father t>f Jefus Chrift was not the Creator of the World, how abfurd it was for them to offer to him the Creatures which were made by another, he fays* *' But our Opinion is agreeable to the Eucharift* " and the Eucharift confirms our Opinion, for we *' offer unto him that which is his Own." TerttilliaH * n«'»T»5 3« A«S TS otofbliTe; TaVg 9w+«S eii Keif ihiKit ,ltnrS( ¦ • Xptf «s yiim&xt, rarfoit itr) t? It»jj«pi?i'« tb «pra xj Ta ncTyfis,. T ( n) who flourifhed not long after Irenaeus ufes the fame Language, faying, f " Many think they fhould " not cOme to the Prayers of the Sacrifices upon *' the Faft-days becaufe the Faft will be broken " by receiving the Body of the Lord. Does the " Eucharift then make void the Service you " have devoted to God, does it not rather make " it more acceptable to him ? Will not your Faft " be more folemn if you ftand at the Altar of *' God?" St. Cyprian who was Bifliop of Car thage within one hundred and fifty Years after tho Death of St. John writes the fame Language, and gives the Name of Sacrifice to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharift, faying, * " In the Prieft Mel- " chifedech we fee the Sacrament of the Lord's Sa- " crifice prefigured, according as the Divine Scrip, ** ture teftifies, and fays, And Melchifedech King " of Salem brought forth Bread and Wine, and he f ' was the Prieft of the moft High God, and he bleffi " fed Abraham : And that Melchifedech was aType of Chrift the Holy Ghoft declares in the Pfalms, «< •J- De ftationum diebus non putant pferique facrificiorum ora- tionibus intervcniendum, quid ftatio folvenda fit accepto corpore Domini : ergo devotum Deo ohfequium Euchariftia refolvit, an magis Deo obligat ? Nonne folennior erit ftatio tua, fi ad Aram Dei fteteris. De Orat. c. 1 4. * In facerdote Melchifedech facrificii dominici facramentum prasfiguratum videmus, fecundum quod fcriptura divina teftatur & dicit, Et Melchifedech Rex Salem protulit panem &> vinum, fuit autem facerdos Dei fummit fsf benedixit Abraham ; quo4 autem Melchifedech typum Chrifti portaret, declarat in Pfalmb Spiritus Sanftus, ex perfona Patris ad Filium dicens, Tu tes fa cerdos in teternum fecundum ordinem Melchifedech ; qui Ordo utique hie eft de facrificio illo veniens, & inde defcendens, quod Melchifedech facerdos Dei fummi fuit, quod panem & vinum obtulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis facerdos Dei fummi, quam Dominus nofter Jefus Chriftus, qui facrificium Deo patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchifedech obtHr lerat, id eft, panem & vinum, fuum fcilicet. corpus & fangui- nem ? Et circa Abraham Benediftio ilk praecedens ad nortrura populum pertinebat. Epift. 63. ad Cadlium, $• 2. "Edit. Ox. K " faying '.* faying unto the Son in the Perfon- ofthe Father^ « * Thdu art a Prieft for ever after the Order of Mel- " chifedech: The Order which is thence handed " down to us concerns his Sacrifice, that MelchiT " fedech, was Prieft of the moft High God, that «' he offered Bread and Wirie, that he bleffed Abra- ft ham. For who is more a Prieft of the Moft " High God, than our Lord Jefus Chrift, who " offered a Sacrifice to God the Father, and of- {C fered the fame that Melchifedech offered, that is " Bread and Wine which were his own Body and *' Blood ? And that preceding Benediction to Abra- " ham belonged alfo to our People." I cite this to fhew that in St. Cyprian's Time it was the Doc trine of the Church that our Lord offered a. Sacrifice of Bread and Wine as a Prieft according to the Order of Melchifedech, confequently as wp are com manded to Do what he did, we muft alfo offer Bread and Wine as a Sacrifice in Remembrance of him. . The Scripture indeed does not exprefly give the Name of Sacrifice or Oblation to the Holy Eucharift, but it teaches us that Chrift did here on Earth as our1 great High' Prieft offer himfelf to God a Sacrifice for Sin ; this is fo plainly taught that this Author can not deny it, but he will have it that this Oblation was made upon the Crofs only. But I have fhewed that to make an Oblation as a Prieft, is to do or perform an Act, but the Crucifixion was not Chrift's Act, he was there perfectly paffive, He was opprejfed and he was afflitled, yet he opened not his Mouth. He is brought as a Lamb to the Slaughter, and as a Sheep before her Shearers is dumb, fo he openeth not his Mouth. He Was taken from Prifion and from Judg ment. If. liii. j. In all this he was apparently paf five. It is true that he fuffered all this willingly and freelv, he had Power more than fufficient to have delivered himfelf from this fhameful Death, as he demonftrated when by only faying lam, he. made' ( 7S J made the Band of Soldiers which came to appre hend him go back and fall to the Ground. Joh. xviii. 6. And had he pleafed with a Word fpeaking he could have fixed them there that they fhould have rifen ho more. Therefore they could not have put him to Death if he had not voluntarily furrendred him felf into their Hands, as he before told his Difci ples when he faid Joh. x. 15, 17, 18. I lay down my Life for the Sheep. I lay down my Life that I might take it again. No Man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myfelf: I have Power to lay it down, 'and I have Power to take it again. However tho* he may be truly faid to have laid down his Life by voluntarily furrendring himfelf to the Will of his Enerhies who were refolved to murder him, yet in all that followed after even to his Death and Burial he was perfectly paffive. How could he then as a Prieft perform the Act of Offering when he only fuffered? He bOre our Sins indeed upon the Crofs as I have before obferved, but he was firft offered to bear them', Heb. ix. 28. and that was in the Eu~ tharift, for there he exprefly teaches us that he galic Or offered his Body for us. For when he gave the Bread to his Difciples he faid, Luk. xxii. 19. This is my Body, which is given for you. Which ne- ceffarily implies that he had then actually given or offered his Body a Sacrifice to God. If Chrift had not at the very Time actually given or offered his Body to God, he would not have fpoken in the Prefent Tenfe, as all the Writers of the New Teftament who have given us the Hiftory of Chrift's celebrating and inftituting the Holy Eu charift, reprefenthim to have done. St. Paul indeed iCor. xi. 20. does not ufe the Word given, but reprefents Chrift to have faid which is broken for you: But that alters not the Senfe, for as Chrift then gave or offered Bread and Wine as Reprefentatives Of his natural Body, and therefore dignified them K 2 with (7*) with the Name of his Body and Blood, fo he actu* a\\y, broke the Bread his reprefentative Body, and thereby configned his natural Body to be broken on the Crofs. Here then he plainly offered himfelf to fuffer: . Here he fhewed himfelf to be a Prieft af ter the Order of Melchifedech, as he is faid to be Heb. vi. 20. Melchifedech 's Sacrifice was Bread and Wine, Gen. xiv. 18. and fo was Chrift's. In deed the Scripture does not exprefly fay that Mel chifedech offered Bread and Wine as a Sacrifice to God, but it tells us that he was a Prieft of the moft high God, And if he was a Prieft he muft do Sacrifice to God, that being the proper peculiar Office of a Prieft. Now we read that he brought forth Bread and Wine. But why did he bring it forth unlefs for Sacrifice? For it immediately follows, And he was the' Prieft of the moft high God. Why is fuch particular notice taken of his being a Prieft if it had not been to inform us that the Bread and Wine was the Sacrifice offered ? He had no occa fion to bring forth fuch Provifion merely to enter tain Abraham who at that Time certainly had no need of thep being plentifully ftor'd with the Spoils of his Enemies. If then the Bread and Wine was not brought forth as a Sacrifice it was brought without any occafion for it. It is certain Melchifedech came to meet Abram as a Prieft4 for Mofes exprefly mentions his coming as fuch, faying he was the Prieft of the moft high God ; and he blejfed him and faid, blejfed be Abram of. the moft high God Poffeffor of Heaven and Earth. And accordingly Abram gave him Tythes of all the Spoils he had taken, as to a Prieft his Superior in that Office, for Abram was a Prieft alfo : And as Mr. Johnfon fays in. his Unbloody Sacrifice, Part 1, p. 50. " 1 fuppofe it needs no Proof that he ** was a Sacrificer alfo ; for it is imported in his tt being ( 7* ) ¦ et being a Prieft, and we are exprefly tdld by " the by, the Author of the Epiftle to the He* " brews, when he is fpeaking of this Matter, that " every High- Prieft is ordained of God to offer Gifts " and Sacrifices, chap. viii. 3. And it could not " have been faid, that our Saviour was a Prieft " according to the Order of Melchifedech, if the " one had been a facrificing Prieft and not the " other. As fure therefore as our Saviour offered ** Sacrifice, fo fure is it that Melchifedech did fb " too." And if we inquire what Melchifedech offered, we can find only Bread and Wine, we read of nothing elfe brought forth by him. And as our Saviour was a Prieft according to his Order* it was neceffary that he fhould alfo offer Bread and Wine as Melchifedech. Though as Melchifedech was but the Type and Chrift the Antitype, his offering was of infinitely greater Value than that of the former. For though he offered Bread and Wine he made them his Body and Blood in Power and Effect i And by thatOblation configned and offered his own Natural Body to be broken, and his moft precious Blood to be fhed on the Crofs for our Sins. And if Chrift offered Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucha- rift3 we alfo muft do the fame, for we are com manded to do as he did, only with this Difference, he offered in Order to his Suffering upon the Crofs, we offer in Remembrance of his Death there. But we have further Proof from Scripture that Chrift intended to leave a Sacrifice to be offered in his Church, becaufe he certainly intended ta have an Altar there, as appears from his Pre cept, Matt. v. 23, 24. If thou bring thy Gift to the Altar, and there remembreft that thy Brother hath ought againft thee ; leave there thy Gift before the Altar, and go thy way, firft be reconciled to. thy Bro* tber, and then come and offer thy Gift. Now that he could not here mean the Jewifh Altar in the Temple 0;8 ) Temple at Jerufalem, Mr. Mede has very weii proved in his Treatife of the Name Altar ancientlj pven to the Holy Table, Sect. II. Firft', ?' becaufe " there was no fuch Thing commanded in the *¦' Law to fuch as came to offer Sacrifice ; ndr " any fuch Deuierofis to be found amongft the M Traditions of the Elders. Now it is altoge- " ther improbable our Saviour would annex i. *' New Rite to the legal Sacrifices, when he wii *' fo fOon after, to abdlifh them by his own Sacri- ** fice of himfelf which was within two Or thrtt *' Years after. Secondly * becaufe the Sermon^ " whereof this was Part, is that famous Sermori '.' of our Saviour upbrt the Mount, which he ** read as a Lecture to his Difciples to inftrucl '* them in the Myfteries of the Kingdom of God,' " & little before he fent them out to preach, and *' fo, in all likelyhood, contained the Sum of " *' that they were to preach -, which no doubt ** was a Doctrine Evangelical. In all other Parts " of the SermOn we find it fo. Wherefore then *' fhould We not efteem it fo in this alfo ? Third* *c ly, becaufe it is brought in (and that in the firft *' Placed as an Exemplification of that Righte* *' oufnefs, wherein the Citizens of the Kingdom1 *' of Chrift were to out-gO the Righteoufnefs of *' the Scribes and Pharifees : I fay unto you (faitH *' our Saviour) except your Righteoufnefs fhall exceed ' " the Righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Pharifees, ye " Jhall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then t{ fellows this Text, fhewing how far we are to *' out-ftrip the Scribes and Pharifees in that Pre- " cept, Thou Jhalt not kill. Fourthly, This Paffage " fhould be Evangelical, forafmuch as it feems, *' together with the reft that follow it, to be A *' Part of that zsKvio,ai&t$ or Complementum Legis, ** Whereof our Saviour fpake a little before, fay* *' ing, Think not that I am come to deftrey thi "! Law ( 79 ) fe Law and- the , Prophets, (i.e. to aboljfh ox ?c abrogate the Observation of them in my King^ " dom) aAAoc. zs^aisoti but to accompliffi, fupply, or c* perfefl them. For this to be the Meaning of tc that zrAng<2a-«i, the whole Difcourfe following " it feemeth to evince: Wherein namely our Sa- *' viour puts in Practice, and makes good defaflot *c in feveral Particulars, what he formerly faid, " he came to do." If it be objected that no Offerings are appointed to be brought to any Chriftian Altar, and therefore this Text cannot. prove that Chrift intende4 to have an Altar in his Church, or that this Text has any neceffary Con- pection with the Eucharift : This Objection is anfwered by Mr, Johnfon in his Unbloody Sacrifice, Part I. p. 494. " Our Saviour, fays he, thought " it fufficient, to let his Difciples know, that " there was to be an Altar in his Church to " which they were to bring their Gifts. What fort " of Gifts they were to be, and in what Propor- " tion to be offered, he no where declares ; only *' when he confecrated and offered the Eucharift^ <6 he plainly enough declares, that Bread and u Wine are the Materials, which are principally " required to be offered on his Altar. He could " not fuppofe, that any Body of Men, who *' called themfelves Chriftians, would bring their " Gifts in fo fparing and niggardly a Meafure, " that there fhould not be a fufficient Quantity of *' Elements for the Celebration of the Divine " Myfteries ; much lefs did he caution Men " againft offering more than was abfolutely necef- " fary to this Purpofe. Now it is certain the fa- " cred Symbols muft ,be taken out of a Mafs of " Bread and Wine, or elfe only juft.fo much " Bread and Wine muft be. offered, aswasnecef- " fary for the Holy Action ; and therefore except 6f. it can be proved that no more was to be offered, "• than if SO i* than what was abfolutely neceffary, it mu$ ** unavoidably follow, that the facramental Bread " and Wine muft be taken out of the Mafs of " Bread and Wine prefented at the Altar.— And «' it is very evident, that the wholeChurch of Chrift *' in the moft pure and primitive Times, did believe " that our Saviour did intend the bringing the Gifts " to the Altar, to be neceffarily previous to the *' Holy Sacrament, as their Univerfal Practice, *' does effectually teftify. And let the Objector, *' when he is at leifure, tell us where we fhall find " a better Comment on the Words of Our Savi- *' our." And that the People's offering that Bread and Wine to the Prieft, which was afterwards to be confecrated for the Holy Eucharift, was the univerfal Ufage of the Primitive and Apoftolical Church, he proves alfo in the fame Book, p. 329. This Practice feems to have been the Ori ginal of thofe Feafts which St. Paul blames the Corinthians for abufirig, 1 Cor. xi. 20. and which neverthelefs were continued for fome hundreds of Years in' the Church and were called Agapa or, Love-Feafts. For the People having brought a, much larger Provifion of Bread and Wine than was neceffary for the Celebration of the Eucharift, as foon as that Solemnity was over they fat down together and feafted upon the Remainder. But the Rich among the Corinthians who had brought large Quantities of thefe Provifions thought they had the Right to the greateft Share of them and would not let the Poor partake equally with them for which the Apoftle reproved them; but the Fault being corrected thefe Feafts continued, till. at laft being generally corrupted they were every where abolilhed ; and then it became the Cuftom to offer Money (which anfwers all Things') to, be employed for the Service of the Altar and Relief A|f the Poor, and fuch are the Offerings now ap pointed » ( «i ) pointed by the Church of England to be brought to the Altar, over and above a fufficient Quantity of Bread and Wine for the Celebration of the Eucharift. But there is yet. a more evident Proof to be found in the Scripture, even in the very Words of the Inftitution to prove that we are required to offer the Bread and Wine to God when we cele brate the Holy Eucharift. And that is in thofe very Words which this Author afferts to be the moft fignificant of alj, and by which all the reft are to be expounded : This do in Remembrance of me. Dr. Hickes in his Chriftian Priefthood, p. fS, &c. proves by a great many Inftances that the Word Ttoietv to do alfo lignifies to offer, and is very fre quently ufed both by profane Authors and by the Greek Tranflators of the Old Teftament in that Senfe, and fo alfo is the Latin Word Facere. I will tranferibe a few of thefe Inftances, and thofe who defire more may confult Dr. Hickes's Book. Herodotus Lib. i. Cap. 132. fays, "Avsu yap rS tAxyx a ffQi vopos i?i 3-ufA,»ra. tlf B\)f(ats, « Ttoiriffouty Kvp/w tw ©saT ijuuv. And Mofes faid, thou muft give us alfo Sacrifices L and ( 8* ) and Burnt-Offerings, which we may Jacrifice unfa the Lord our God. In all which Places the Word which, is tranflated offer, and whichv in this laft Text is tranflated Sacrifice, and which in thefe and many other Places will bear no other Senfe, is the very Word which in the Inftitution of the Eucharift is tranflated do. And even our Englijh Tranfla tors have fometimes ufed the Word do in this fa crificial Senfe, as particularly Levit. iv. lo. it, 7tonie& rov pma^pv ov rpoitov titowei tov jwoj^ov tov t>j? etpeiprioic, Sro 7roiti^. zi. is pleafed to paraphrale the Words thus, " As foon as ye fhall meet to drink " Wine profeftedly for this Purpofe ; take care " that ye always do it, not as drinking at a com- " mon Meal ; but in a religious Remembrance of " me" And in a Note ac the bottom he fays* " This feems to be the true Meaning of thefe " Words recorded by St. Paul, This do ye, as oft *' as you drink it, in Remembrance of me : Which " thus underftood are far from a Tautology, or fig- And laftly^ they are confumed by eating and drinking in fuch Manner as our Lord Jefus Chrift the Author of the Sacrifice has appointed. Thus the Church of Eng land has taken Care that the Holy Eucharift may be duly celebrated as an Oblation or Sacrifice, by directing the Miniftration of it to be performed in fuch Manner that it may want nothing neceffa ry ,to a true Sacrifice. If any of her Priefts wilful ly malm it in a principal Part, and do not himfelf folemnly and devoutly place them on the Lord's- Table or Altar, the Fault is wholly iq them and not in the Church, whofe plain Rule and Precept they have no regard to. However we may hope God will not punifh the People who fincerely de fires to receive this Holy Sacrament according to Chrift's Inftitution for che Prieft's neglecting to pffer it as Chrift has appointed. But we have Reafon to believe the Priefts who ought to know (*9) know and perform their Duty better will not be fo eafily excufed in this Matter. It may be wifhed our Liturgy had retained the Form it had at the beginning of the Reformation, we fhould then more generally have underftood and celebrated the Holy Communion as a Sacri fice of Bread and Wine as full and perfect Repre fentatives of the Body and Blood of Chrift offer ed for us. But within a Year or two after that Liturgy had been compiled, approved by the Convocation and eftablifhed by an Act of Parlia ment, Bucer and Martyr and fome other foreign Presbyterian Reformers were, invited hither, and to pleafe them many Alterations were made in this firft Liturgy, efpecially in the Communion Service. The Word Altar was changed for that of the Table, the Rubrick which required the Prieft to place the Bread and Wine on the Table, and to mix the Wine with Water according to the conftant Ufage of the Church from the Apo ftles Days to that very Time was put out, and the Prieft left at Liberty either to place the Ele ments there himfelf, or to have them placed there by any one elfe, which introduced that fcandalous Practice of placing them there by the Clerk or Sexton or other unfit Perfon before the beginning of Divine Service, which the Reftoration of that Rubrick has not been able to correct. The Prayers were alfo altered and put in another Form. In the Confecration Prayer the Words Vouchfiafe to blefs and fantiify thefe thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy moft dearly beloved Son Jefus Chrift, were caft out, an excellent Prayer which immedi ately followed the Words of the Inftitution was mangled, the Remainder caft into the Polt- Com munion, and the Lord's Prayer was likewife re moved to the Poft-Communion, with other Al- M terations ( *o ) terations too many to be here mentioned. In the beginning of the Reign of King James I. upon a Conference held at Hampton-Court between the Chiefs of the Presbyterians and fome Bifhops and Divines of the Church of England, the King him felf being Moderator fome other Alterations were made, but I think not in the' Communion Service. Soon after theReftoration of KingCbarles II. a Con ference was held at the Savoy between a Committee of Presbyterians and Epifcopal Divines, and in con fequence of it the whole Liturgy was reviewed and received feveral Alterations. Now fince the Li turgy has had fo many Reviews and Alterations at the Requeft of the Presbyterians, and yet they have never been pleafed with it, I could wifh it might have one Review more to be intirely brought to theJForm and Pattern of the Primitive Church. ' The late Dr. Marffiall in the Preface to his Tranflation of St. Cyprian, p.' 12. obferves, that " It is the Glory of the Englijh Church, and *' what fhe often boafts of, that fhe is the neareft " of any now in the Chriftian World to the Pri- *' mitive Model : It is not, I prefume denied, " that fhe might be nearer ft ill, and, if her Glory " begreat for being fo near ; it would certainly be *' greater if fhe yet were nearer." And I am verily perfuaded that fuch Reformation of our Liturgy as fhould bring it nearer to the Primitive . Standard than it is already, would prove a more effectual Means to bring the Presbyterians and o: ther Difleriters of that Sort to conform to the Church of England, than all the Alterations of . the Liturgy which have been yet made in their Favour. At leaft we fhould be better able to clear our felves from the Charge they bring againft us of pretending to keep clofe to the Primitive Church and not doing it. Thus Thomas de Launi - in his Plea for the Nonconformifts, Ca Book fa, efteemed O' ) efteemed by therti that it has had no lefs than fifteen Editions) objects to the Church of England, " We fee how vainly it is pretended that thefe " Ceremonies were retained and impofed to mani- " feft the Juftice and Equity of the Reformation* " by letting their Enemies fee they did not break " with them for meer indifferent Things, or that " they left the Church of Rome no further than *' fhe left the ancient Church, as faith Dr. Stil- ft lingfteet, when it is manifeft that we left off many " Things that were retained in the ancient Church ** and in the firft Liturgy of Edward VI." And the late Mr. Pierce of Exeter, who was a great Champion of the Presbyterians, and Who appears by his Writings to have been a Man of confiderable Learning, urges the fame Charge in his Vindication of the Diffentcrs, Part I. p. 16. where he fays, " There were many Things in " Ufe among the Primitive Chriftians, which they " have rejected. Whence Dr. Whitby in his Pror £< teftant Reconciler taxes, them with Hypocrify in *' making fuch a Pretence." And a little after, p. 18, 19. he fays, " But farther, as tp the An- *' tiquity of our Adverfaries, fometimes they are *c fo ftrait laced that they will not allow thatHo- *' nour to the third Century, which upon other " Occafioos they are free togive to the fourth and " fifth. Thus when we argue they may as well •" bring in Infant- Communion, as many other *' Things jn Ufe among them, fince it appears to "'• have -,-jbeen practiced at leaft from Cyprian's *' Time through many Ages of the Church: " They anfwer us, that Cyprian is not an Author ct ancient enough for fuch aCuftomto be brought " in uppft his Authority. Nay, fometimes they " rnuft exclude the fecond Century from being «' any Part of the Antiquity they pretend to pay *• fuch, a Deference to. Why elfe have they laid) M 2 " afide (pa.) 4t afide the mixing Water and Wine in the Cup in " the Lord's Supper, which Juftin Martyr, who " flourifhed in the middle of the fecond Century, " teftifies was in Ufe in his Time, and which " Cyprian in the next Age labours to prove to 4) Communion, believe that the Church thinks a Man that has not duly prepared himfelf for theHolyCom- munion fome Time before can furficiently examine himfelf at theTime of the Hearing that Exhortation read to him and others; But the Church here puts the Communicants in Mind of St. Paul's Exhorta tion, not that She fuppofes they can then have Time to examine Themfelves as they ought to do on this Occafion, but to acquaint them that if they have not already duly confidered that Matter and exa mined their Confciences, thereby to be well affured of their having that true SorrOw for Sin, together with Faith in God's Mercy through Chrift which our Holy Religion requires of us, though they are now ftanding before the Lord4s Table, they had better withdraw in Order to prepare Them felves againft another Opportunity; Why does the Church order an Exhortation to be read to the People the Sunday before the Celebration, if She believes fuch a fhort Examination, as this Author fuppofes, to be fufficient ? Dr. Comber has told us why the Church thinks it proper to renew the Ex hortation here. " Some, fays he, will fay it is tad " late for Men to confider now, when they come " to the Altar, and it is impertinent to urge "it *' here, fince all is done that can be done in this " Matter in Order to Communion. Anfwer. Not " fo, for firft, if any have prefumed to come un-^ «) hortation of our Church then gives no Counts* nance to that flight Examination he feems tb (up? pofe fufficient for this Purpofe. ¦ But he fays p. y6. " It is evident, from the ** Paffage now before us, that the whole Affair «' of Eating and Drinking UNWORTHILY, *' in St. Paul's Senfe, is confined to the Frame of '* our Minds and our Behaviour, A T the very *' Time of our Performance of this Religious Du- *' ty." And is it to be fuppofed that a Man who has lived in a conftant Courfe of Sin, or who tho* he have not been guilty of any grofs wilful Sins, has yet had his Mind fo filled with the Cares of the World as to have neglected all Thoughts of Religion and religious Duties, can in a Moment and without previous Confideration and due Exa mination of his Confcience frame his Mind, how- foever he may his Behaviour, to a right Perfor mance of this Religious Duty? Can he in a Mo ment fatisfy himfelf (as this Author in the very next Paragraph teaches he ought t.o do) that he is a fincere Difciple of Chrift, and under the Senfe of his 'ewnftriH Obligations as fuch, when his Confcience tells him that Chrift has not been in his Thoughts for many Days, or it may be for many Months or Years ? Surely a previous Confideration or Exa mination of his own Heart for fome confiderable •Time before he comes to the Lord's Table is ne ceffary for fuch a Man before he can fatisfy himfelf that he is a fincere Difciple of Chrift, and under a due Senfe of his ftrict Obligations as fuch. For can he be a fincere Difciple of Chrift, or have any Senfe of his ftrict Obligations as fuch, who never has a Thought of Chrift or any Regard to him as his Difciple except juft for the Time that he is at his Holy Table? Does not he apparently receive the ¦Bread and Wine in Remembrance of Chrift hypo critically, who pretends to partake, of it as a fin cere (97) , cere Difciple of Chrift, and under a Senfe of, his own ftrict Obligations as fuch, and yet neither before nor after fuch receiving fhews any Regrad for Chrift or any of thofe ftrict Obligations : How then can a Man have a due Frame of Mind when he partakes of this Sacrament without examining him felf before he prefumes to come to it? Thus contra dictory to himfelf is this Author in his Inftructions on this Occafion. I fhall therefore take no Notice of what he fays more on the Subject of Examination, for either I do not underftand his Meaning or one of his Propofitions is contrary to another. At p. ioo. He fays, " There is a long Difcourfe " of our Bleffed Saviour's, in the Sixth Chapter of " St. John's Gofpel about eating his Flefh and " drinking his Blood ; which many have laboured u to interpret concerning the Lord's Supper, ef- " pecially fince the abfurd Doctrine of Tranfiub- ** ftantiation and other dark and unintelligible " Notions have been brought into this Subject. *' But as there is no Appearance that this Paf- " fage was underftood in the very firft Days of the " Church to concern this Rite; fo, whoever will " ferioufly confider the Whole of it will pre- " fently find that it could not relate to a Duty, " which was not then inftituted, nor fo much as " hinted at to his Difciples; but was indeed only " a very hign figurative Reprefen cation to the Jews " then about him, of their Duty and Obligation " to receive into their Hearts and digeft his whole " Doctrine as the Food and Life of their Souls." Now whereas he intimates as if none had interpre ted this Chapter as relating to the Holy Eucharift before the abfurd Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation was received in the Roman Church, and alfo flatly denies that it was fo underftood in the firft Days. of the Church, I fhall fhew that he is intirely mif taken in this particular, and only difcovers that N. hg> ( P8 ) he had not examined the Authors who lived in thofe firft Days of the Church, that is within an hundred or an hundred and fifty Years after St. John's Gofpel was written, and many hundreds of Years before the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation was heard of. Dr. Milks in his Prolegomena to his Edi tion of the New Teftament p. 21. tells us upon very good Authority, that St. John's Gofpef was written the laft of all the Books of the New Tef tament in the Year of our Lord Ninety feven, a- bout a Year before his own Death. Therefore fuch as lived in about an hundred or an hundred and fifty Years after that Time may be faid to live in the firft Days of the Church, confequently, to have better Means of underftanding the Books of the New Teftament written fo near their own Time, than we have at above Sixteen Hundred Years Dif- tance from it, Now Mr. Johnfon in his Unbloody Sacrifice, Part. I. ^>. i 386. has fhewed that St. Cy prian, who was Bifhop of Carthage but 153 Years after the Writing of this Gofpel, St, Ireneus who was Bifhop of Lyons in France within 70 Years af ter St. John wrote it, and had been the Difciple, of St. Polycarp who had been St. John's Difciple and therefore could not but have learned from him what St. John taught, and, how his Books were to be underftood, and St. Ignatius who had been Bi fhop of Antioch almoft thirty Years before that Apoftle wrote his Gofpel, befide many other later Fathers, who lived fome hundreds of Years before 'tranfubftantiation was thought of, do interpret the Sixth Chapter of St. John asfpoken of the Eucha rift. I fhall content tny felf to tranfcribe what he has taken from thefe three moft ancient Fathers to prove his Point in this Matter, which will be ful ly fufficient to fhew that this Gentleman has, here afferted what he is not able to prove. " St.. Cy- y prian, fays he, is very full in this Point, for he. * in- (99) u interprets daily Bread, in the Lord's Prayer, of " the Eucharift ; and adds, * We defire this Bread " to be daily given us, left we, that are in Chrift, and " daily receive the Eucharift, as the Food of Sal- " vation, while we are repelled and forbid the hea- " venly Bread, by Reafon of fome grievous Sin, art " thus alfo by not communicating, feparated from " the Body of Chrift ; fince he himfelf hath adver- " tifed us, faying, I am the Bread of Life which " came down from Heaven. If any one eats *' of my Bread, he fhall live for ever, and the " Bread which I will give is my Flefh, which I " will give for the Life of the World. Since *' then he hath faid, he who eat eth of this Bread " Jhall live for ever; as it is manifeft, that they " are alive, who take hold of this Body by right of *' Communion ; fo on the other fide we ought to " pray, and fear, left any one being repell'd, be " feparated from the Body of Chrift, and remain ** far from Salvation ; fince he threatens, and fays, " Except ye eat the Flefh of the Son of Man " and drink his Blood, ye fhall have no Life * Hunc autem Panem dari nobis quotidie poftu'amusj lie qui in Chrifto fumus, & Euchariftiam quotidie ad Cibum falutis ae- cipimus, intercedente aliquo graviore delifto, dum abftenti & hon communicantes a celefti pane prohibemur, a Chrifti cof- pore fepararemur; ipfo prasdicante & monente : Ego fum panis viu qui de cash defcendi. Si quis ederit de meo "Pane, viuoniam Membra fumus Corporis ejus, de Caw ejus &> de Ofjibus ejus. Non de fpirituali aliquo & invifibili fiomine dicens hsec: (fpiritus enim neque Qfla neque Carne» ' * habot) I 102 ; '« and made Bread has received the Word of God<< " and is made the Blood and the Body of Chrifti " whereby the Subftance of our Flefh is increased " and fubfifts ; how do ( they deny the Flefh,' " which is nourifhed by the Blood and Body, of «' Chrift, and is a Member of him, to be capable t* of the Gift of God, which is eternal Life ? As *c th© bleffed Apoftle fays in the Epiftle to the «' Ephefians, For we are Members of his Body and «' of his Flefh, and of his Bones : not faying this *' of a fpiritual or invifible Man (for a Spirit has *c not Fleffi and Bones) but according to the Oeco- «' nomy of a true Man, which confifts of. Flefh, ** and Nerves, and Bones ; which is nourifhed *' and augmented of the Cup which is his Blood, «' and of the Bread which is his Body. And as tC the Wood of the Vine laid in the. Earth fructi- tC fies in its Time, and a Grain of Wheat falling " in the Earth is multiplied as it fprings up by " the Spirit of God, which contains all things ; " which then by Wifdom come into the Ufe of *' Men, and receiving the Word of God are made " the Eucharift, which is the Body and Blood of " Chrift : fo alfo our Bodies being nourifhed " thereby, and being laid in the Earth, and dif- li folved therein fhall rife again in their due time ; " the Word of God giving them a Refurrectipn habet) fed de ea difpofitione, qua; eft fecundum verum homi nem, quae ex Carnibus, & Nervis, & Oflibus confiftit ; quae de calice, qui eft Sanguis ejus, nutritur ; & de Pane, quod ell Corpus ejus, augetut. Ett quemadmodum lignum vitis depofi- tum in terra fud fruftificat tempore, & granum tritici deadens in terram, Sc diffolutam multiplex furgit per Spiritum Dei, qui continet omnia, quse deinde per fapientiam in ufum hominibus veniunt, & percipientja Verbun\ Dei Euchariftia fiant, quod eft Corpus & Sanguis Chrifti : fie & noftra Corpora ex ea nu- trita, & repofita in terram, & reloluta in ea, refurgenf in fuo tempore, Verbo Dei refurre&iopem eis dgnante, in gloriam Dei Patri?. ¦ Ibi,/. C 103 ) V to the Glory of God the Father." Here Ire- n » '\wa XpiyS Sin sraMTag. Ad Epef. • •f'Zvriptpiv M avrsis otytcntit, "vet urttfuew. Ad Sniyrn. § • 7- " ft ( JOJ ) " is this, viz. that the Effects and Confequences " there attributed to the eating and drinking " Chrift's Flefh and Blood (efpecially that qf " eternal Life) are too great and valuable to be cC applied to the Communion : but 'tis evident " St. Ignatius was of another Judgment, he be- ft lieved Immortality itfelf tq be the Effect of Ct duly receiving the Sacrament. 'Tis certain, tc he learned his Principles from the Apoftle Sr. Interpretations of 'thofe Scriptures which . taught that -the Son and Holy. Spirit were God even as the Father himfelf; and taught that the Son of God had no Exiftenee till he was born of the bleffed Virgin ; that being an extraordi nary Man, who taught excellent Doctrine, and explained the moral' Law better than had ever been .: before, and died for our Good, to teftify that his Doctrine was true, and fealed that Te ftimony with his Blood, much in the fame manner as this Author has done.; but being anfwered from the Scriptures, arid it being made apparent to all how they wrefted the facred Text, and gave it fuch a Senfe as it could not poflibly bear, their Difciples in this Age are many of them become D'eiJis. -. For finding the Holy Scriptures cannot be C '17 ) be fairly brought to countenance their Opinions, they have difcarded them and all revealed Reli gion, pretending that natural Religion ii fuch a Religion .as their own natural Reafon may dic tate to them without any other Affiftance, is fuf ficient both with regard to this Life and another, if there be any other ; for whether natural Rea- fonTalone may give them any certain Affurance of another Life may be doubted. Thus by de pending intirely on their own Underftanding, and rejecting all Helps they may receive from others, Men come firft to wreft the Scriptures to their own preconceived Opinions, and afterwards when they are convinced that thefe Opinions are not to be maintained by Scripture, their Pride is fuch', that they will rather deny the Divine Authority of the Scripture, than change an Opinion they have once undertaken to maintain.- Thus Socir nianifm naturally introduced Deifm into the Chri ftian World ; which being a Religion, if I may fo term it, that fets Men at Liberty from all the Precepts of the Gofpel, and frees them from the Trouble offubduing their corrupt Lufts and Af fections, eafily gains Profelytes, and by this means has of late Years been very much increafed amongft us. Whether this Author be a Socinian or not, I fhall not determine ; but I conceive he has in this Book given too much Grounds for Sufpicion, hav ing no where fpoken of Jefus Chrift any otherwife than as of a mere Man, who died and fijed his Blood in Teftimony of the Truth of all that he bad- declared to be the Will of God-, Making him no more than the firft Teacher of the Chriftian, Re ligion, and the firft Martyr for i.t. No more than- this does he allow to be the Caufe for which -.he1 fhed his Blood, although one of the Texts on: which he pretends to found this Doctrine exprefly tells us, that his Blood was Jhed for many, for the Remiffion of Sins. And not one of the Texts produced ( 12* > produced by him fo much as intimates that It was done in Teftimony of the Truth of hisDoctrine. However I do not deny that to bear Teftimony to the Truth of his Doctrine was one of the Purpofes for which he died, becaufe he himfelf told Pilate, faying, For this Caufe came I into the World, that I Jhould bear Witriefs unto the Truth, John xviii. 37. Butthis was not the chief End or Caufe for which he laid down his Life; neither did he, whehheinfti- tuted theHolyEucharift, require his Difciples to re member him on this Account, but becaufe his Body was broken, and his Blood Jhed for them foY the Remiffion of Sins. Thefe Words our Author concerns himfelf very little with, the whole which we are to learn from all the Texts where the Inftitution of the Lord's Supper is recorded,* is, according to him, to eat Bread and drink Wine ferioufly and religioufly in Remembrance of Chrift's dying for our Good. In. this he tells us the Effience of this Inftitution or Ritt. confifts. Yet he could not. but obferve, pag. 14, 15. that St. Matthew and St. Mark do not men tion this effential Part. But this he. looks upon as no great matter, becaufe the Apoftles and Evan geiifts were not nicely fcrupulous in numbering •Chrift's Words. But however though they did not regard fuch Nicety, yet it is ftrange they fhould record only what was leaft effential, and omit that which was the moft fo. But he fays, *' It was enough to record thefe Words concern* *' ing the Bread, Take, eat, This is my Body, at a " Time when all Chriftians could not but know, ** from the Mouths of the Apoftles themfelves, ** that this Rite was to be continued in the Church, " as a Memorial of Chrift:' But did thefe two Evangeiifts write and publifh their Gofpels only for the fake of thofe Chriftians who lived in the Time of the Apoftles ? Had that been the Cafe, ( 130 ) Cafe, there was little need of their Writing amy Gofpel at all. The Chriftians could not but know the whole that is contained in their Gofpels from the Mouth of the Apoftles. For what St. Paul fays of himfelf wc need not queftion was performed alfo by the other Apoftjes. And he thus fpeaks to the Elders of Epbejus, Acl. xx. 10, 27. faying, / kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have ffiewed you and have taught youpublickly, and from Houft to Houfe. For I have not 'ffiunned to declare unto you all the Counfel of God. If there fore St. Matthew and St. Mark wrote only or chiefly to inftru<5t the Chriftians -who lived in the Apoftles Times, and for thofe who cpuld know whatever Chriftians ought to know and believe from the Apoftles own Mouths, they might have fpared their Pains of writing. But they, and the other Apoftles and Evangeiifts, wrote the Gofpels and their Epiftles, all the Books pf the New Tefta ment for the Ufe of thofe who had not Opportu nity tp know from the Mouths of the Apoftles what they were tp believe and do in Matters of Religion. That is, fuch.Gbriftians as fhould live after the Apoftles were all dead, or who,- though living in the VAppfties. Time, had noc always ch£ Oppprtuptfy of the Apoftles Pretence with them;, and mighjt forget or mi.ftake what they had learned from the] Apoitles Mouths. But fuch a Duty as .this, which was conftantly prgctiled upon every iblemn Affembly, St. Matthew- and St. Mark might ¦eafily believe would not jje-fo forgotten or miliar jken as chat any fhould' believe ic was not to be .continued in the Church. However, as the Holy ¦Ghoft, which moved thjem to write, and guided -them in what they did write, fo that they ihould write nothing but the Truth, yet. intending to move %t.Lukf and St: Paul to wr;|e after them, he in this, particular, as well as fome,othefs,perrhttted them to omitfomeThings which he intended fhould R, be ( 1 3o ) be fupplied by the others'* that no one Apoftle cr Evangelift fhould have the Honour to tfanfmit tb Pofterity all Things neceffary for us co know • buc that every Writer of the New Teftament, as well as thofe of the Old Teftament, might have fomething to teach us which we had not learned from the others, and yet that a perfect Harmony and Agreement fhould be found amongft them all. Therefore St. Matthew and St. Mark were per mitted to leave out the Words, Do this in Ret membrance of me, becaufe the Spirit which guided them knew and intended they fhould be recorded by St. Luke and St. Paul ¦ and St. Luke and St. Paulhwe taken no notice of what Liquor the Cup contained which they were to drink, becaufe St. Matthew and St. Mark had already recorded it in thefe Words, / will not drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Fine* By which we are "taught that it was Wine, or Wine mixt with Water, (as St. Cyprian and other of the Ancients underftood thefe Words to mean) which he gave them to drink. St. Luke has alfo told us, that before he began this Inftitution, He took a Gup, and gave Thanks, and faid, Take this and divide it among yourfelves, to teach us that he gave that which- the Jews called the Thankfgiving Cup, before he began the Mini- ftration of the Holy Eucharift, and that the" Paf cbal Supper was entirely ended before the Begin ning of this Inftitution of the Lord's Supper i which therefore could be no Part of the Pafchai Solenv- nity. But the other Evangeiifts fay nothing of this Cup which concluded that Solemnity: St. PaM alfo fays, This Cup is the New Teftament in my Blood, without taking any notice of the Blood's being fhed. But St. Luke fays, which is fhed for you. But St. Matthew and St. Mark fay, which is ffied for many. From whence we may learri!, that he faid (as our Church does in her recital pF the Words of Inftitution) for you and for many. One ( i3i ) One Evangelift having fupplied what the othet omitted. Therefore we muft not take the Ac count of the Inftitution from any one of them alone ; but comparing all together, we may be as fully inftructed as the Holy Spirit intended we fhould be, Therefore this Author has done well in laying together what the three Evangeiifts and Sc. Paul have written concerning this Inftitution; but then I conceive he has not given us either a good or a true Reafon why Si. Matthew and Sc. Mark omitted thofe Words which according to him are the moft effiential Pare of che Inftitution, incimating as if they recorded what they thought proper to fay concerning this Matter, only for the Ufe of thofe Chriftians who lived in the Apoftles Time, and that what thofe two omitted, not what they wrote, was that wherein chiefly the Ef- fence of this Sacrament confifted. But I take it that the Effience of an Inftitution confifts not fo much in the Command as in the Thing commandr ed, and that they are diftinct the one from the other. The Effence of this Sacrament therefore confifts not, as he pretends it does, barely in the Remem brance of Chrift, and exprefling that Remembrance by partaking of Bread and Wine as Memorials of his Body and Blood, but likewife in the doing or offering them in the fame manner as he did. This neceffarily requires a particular Perfon to execute this Prieftly Office, who may do or offer as Chrift did in the Inftitution and requires to be done by us till he come. A Prieft therefore is neceflary and , effential to the due Adminiftration of this Sacra ment. He as Chrift did, and whofe Perfon he on this Occafion reprefents, muft take Bread and give Thanks, and blefs it, and break it, and give , it to thofe that are prefent as the Body of Chrift, before they can partake of it : In like manner, he muft take tfie Cup, and having euchariftized it or bleffed R a H tt •with Thankfgiving he muft give it to them as the 'New Teftament in the Blood of Christ ffied for many for the Remiffion of Sins, that they may All drink of it. And if the Lord's- Supper be not ce lebrated in this manner by a Prieft then it is not celebrated in the manner Chrift has appointed it to be done. But this Author in his plain Account of the Nature and End of the Lord's Supper, makes this Part of the Inftitution a matter of no Moment, he denies any Sacrifice or Oblation of the Bread and Wine, and denies that they are to be offered upon an Altar, although the Words touto isoi&jt •which in our Englifh Bibles are tranflated do this, muft fignify offer this or be a Tautology, as I have before fhewed ; and all this Author's Skill, though he has heartily endeavoured it, has not been able to prove not to be fo, if interpreted to Senfe; and che Apoftle alfo plainly fays, in the moft exprefs Terms, that we Chriftians have an Altar, of which they have no Right to eat who ferve the Tabernacle. Nay lie denies the Breadznd Cup are to be bleffed, altho' St. Paul exprefly calls the Euchariftic Cup, The Cup of Bleffing which we blefs. Could the Apoftle have told us in plainer Words, that when he and the other Apoftles adminiftred the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper, that the Cup was bleffed by them? Is not the Cup of Bleffing the plain Antecedent to the Relative which. But he expounds it over which we blefs or praife Gad. Is not this plain wrefting the Apoftle's Words ? He that cun take fuch a Liberty in the Interpretation of Holy Scrip ture may make it fpeak juft what he pleafes. But it is hoped fuch apparent Mif-reprefentations of as plain Words as any are in the Holy Scripture will but expofe the Author of them, and convince his Reader that his Defign is not to fhew them what the Scriptures do really teach ; but to lead them into his own erroneous Opinions by falfe and. falla cious Expofitions of the Scripture which he fhame- ( 133 ) Shamefully wrefts to fupporc a Doctrine fo plainly contrary to the exprefs Words of Scripture. So alfo as to the Text we have an Altar, he calls it an ob fcure Text, becaufe it will not agree with his no tion that the Holy Eucharift is not a Sacrifice, but as that Holy Sacrament has been fully proved to be a Sacrifice, that Text is as plain and eafy to be underftood as any Text in the Bible. Let a Man but take the Liberty to do as this Author does, that is to caft off a Text as obfcure and un intelligible when he cannot expound it fo as to make ic agreeable to his own preconceived Opinions, or add what Words he pleafe to it to make it agree with his Opinion, and he may prove from Scrip ture whatever he has a mind to. And by this Method it is that this Author proves that the Lord's Supper is noc a Sacrifice, and that the Bread and Cup there offered are noc to be bleffed. Thus he makes what our Saviour did when he inftituted this Sacrament, and what he then commanded his Apoftles to do, to be of no Signification. And by fuch Methods of Interpretation he may make the Words do this in Remembrance of me, as in fignificant as the former. It is but adding a Word or two to them to alter the Senfe of them, or faying they are obfcure and unintelligible, and the Bufi- nefs is done. However this Part of the Inftitution is what he pleads for, provided we will underftand and practife agreeable co his low Notions of Chrift and his Sufferings, and of the exceeding and won derful Benefits he has purchafed for us by his Death. " The Effence of his Duty, fays he, confifts in K the Remembrance of Chrift, by partaking of «' Bread and Wine as Memorials of his Body and w Blood." Now the Effence of a Thing is that which conftitutes its Being ; and when we have the Effence • of any Thing we have all that is necef fary for us to have of it, Therefore according to his ( 134 ) his Account of this Matter, if a Company of Men meet together in a ferious religious manner, and foberly and gravely place themlelves round a Table, having Bread and Wine fet before them, and each Man takes a piece of Bread and drinks a little out of the Cup that is before him, faying, I do this in Remembrance of Chrift, or but thinks of Chrift, and fo remembers him in his Heart, though he fiys nothing, he does all that is effen- tial to the Celebration of the Lord's Supper. Ic may be proper or convenient to do fomething more, but this is all that is neceflary to be done, and he that does this, tho' without Repentance or Amendment of Life, is not an unworthy Commu nicant. But we fay that in a Divine Inftitution, whatever is inftituted or appointed to be done be longs to the Effence of it. Now Chrift did not fay partake of Bread and Wine as Memorials of my Body and Blood, as if that was all that was to be done : But he faid do or offer this in Remembrance of *»0.|Do or offer what in Remembrance ? The very fame that you have feen me do. This is the Precept, this is the Inftitution. All that was, done by Chrift and his Apoftles at that Time is now required to be done by us when we celebrate this. Holy Sacra ment. Now Chrift took Bread and bleffed it, and brake it, and gave it to his Difciples, faying, Take, eat, this is my Body given for you. And the Dif ciples took and eat as they were commanded. Now we may here obferve that Chrift not only took Bread, bleffed it and brake it, but he alfo gave or offered it to God ; for he not only gave ic to his, Difciples, but he likewife gave it for them and for many, that is for all Mankind, for fo tie ex-. prefly tells them, this is my Body given for ytu or for many, as St. Matthew and St. Mark tells us concerning the Wine or Blood. Now he could noc then have faid This is my Body given or Offered for you if he had not then actually given,. or Cv I3J" ) or Offered the Bread as the Reprefentative of his Body, and in fo doing affigned or yielded his Body up to undergo what he fuffered immediately after. For here as I have before proved from Heb. ix. 28. he offered himfelf to bear our Sins, and from 1 Pet. ii. 24. that he did actually bear them on the Crofs. We cannot therefore celebrate the Lord's Sup per except we have a Prieft ftanding in the Place of Chrift and reprefenting him, who may take the Bread and having given or offered it to God by de voutly placing it on his Holy Table, may then blefs it by Prayer and Thankfgiving, and break it and give it to the Communicants as the Reprefen>- tativeBodyof Chrift, and in Remembrance of him, of all that he did for us, and more efpecially his "dying for us. The difference between the Oblation which Chrift made at his laft Supper, and what wc now make when we rightly and duly celebrate the Lord's Supper is only this, he offered Bread and Wine as Reprefentatives of his Body and Blood, in order that he might fuffer and bear our Sins in his Body on the Crofs ; we offer the fame in Remem- •brance that he did fuffer and bear our Sins there. But having before treated concerning the Offering !and blefling the Bread and Wine , I fhall fay no •more here. Only obferve from what I have there and here proved, that without a Perfon to repre- fent Chrift (who being our High-Prieft after the Order of Melchifedech, offered Bread and Wine) 'and to act as his Deputy or Subftitute as a Prieft -under him appointed to offer as he did, the Holy Eucharift cannot be rightly celebrated as it ought to be, and the Practice of the Univerfal Church from the Apoftle's D.iys downwards in all Ages 'arid all Countries where Chriftianity has been pro feffed to the Times of John Calvin at leaft, is a ftrong Confirmation of this. Whether this Prieft- hood has been thought neceffary by all that profefs Chriftianity fince Calvin's Time is not material to inquire; ( *3« ) inquire : For fuch Innovations as were introduced by him or others in this or other Matters concern ing our Religion deferve no Regard. It is certain the Church of England in Conformity to the Doe- trine and Practice of the Primitive, Catholick and Apoftolick Church has continued and preferved the Orders of Priefthood to perform all the Offices of Chriftian Priefts and this in particular. But are we to think that Chrift intended or meant nothing by giving Bread and Wine to hjs Difciples and dignifying thofe Elements withtheName of his Body and Blood? Did he folemnly take Bread and Wine, offer the Bread or give it to God for them, and call it his Body,- pour out or make a Libation or Drink-offering of the Wine and call it his Blopjd ffied for the Remiffion of '&'»;, and mean nothing by it, but only that hereafter, when he wasjgone from them, they fhould eat Bread and drink Wine in Remem brance of him ? Did he ufe all this Solemnity and give them Bread and Wine which he called his Body and Blood, and yet defigned no Benefit to them thereby, only to tell them they muft remem ber him after he was gone from them ? Why fo. much Solemnity and fuch high Language only to let them know that when he was gone from them it would be their Duty to remember him fometimes, and to eat and drink to his pious Memory ? He was then going to fuffer Death, and this was plainly a Legacy which he left them. And that he intended it as fuch wc may collect from the Words he fpoke when he gave the Cup to them, faying, *this is my Blood of the New Teftament which is Jhed for many ; as St. Matthew and St. Mark have recked his Words ; or This Cup is the New Tefta ment in my Blood, which is ffied for you. As St. Luk$ jjrecitesit. This Author p. 16, 17. would change the Word Teftament here into Covenant, becaufe the Original Word ^laBtfun, does fometimes figni fy a Covenant ; but that in this place it muft figr snjfy aTeftament is mo&. certain, becaufe that which Chrift ( *37 ) Chrift here gave his Difciples received its Vertue and Efficacy from his Death, that which he gave was, he tells us, His Blood ffied for many, the Ver tue and Efficacy of which was the Remiffion of Sins. This, fays he, is my Blood of the New Tefta ment, which is ffied for many for the Remiffion of Sins. As therefore Chrift's Death was required before our Sins could be remitted, and that he actually did bear our Sins in his Body on the Tree or Crofs, where his Blood was actually fhed, the Co venant which he thus fealed with his Blood, muft be a Teftament, fince it received all its Force from his Death. For a Teftament is of Force after" Men, are dead :. otherwife it is of no Strength at all while the Teftator liveth, Heb. ix. 17. Here therefore he declared or made his Teftament, which he con firmed or fealed with an Oblation of Bread broken and Wine poured out as a Libation, to reprefent his Body which was then configned to be broken and his Blood to be ffied on the Crofs. And by giv ing them Bread and Wine thus bleffed and offered, and fo made his Body and Blood, in Power and Vertue, he beftowed upon them all the Benefits purchafed by his Death. Now by comparing thefe Words of our Saviour which he fpake when he communicated this Bread and Wine to his Difciples, and called thofe Ele ments his Body and Blood, with thofe he before fpake in the fixth Chapter of St. John, which I have already proved were fpoken with relation to the Holy Eucharift ; for in that Chapter, ver. 51. The Bread that I will give is my Fleffi, whieh I will give for the Life of the World ; we may thus paraphrafe them: " You may remember thaf " fome time ago when I taught in Capernaum, and *' the Jews there told me of their Fathers, eating f * Manna in the Defcrt, which they called Bread *' from Heaven, upon which I promifcd them, '¦ S "that ( 138) " that if they would believe in me, I would give «« them true Bread from Heaven* which fhould " diate. Benefit, or Privilege annexed to the par> " taking of this Rite, viz. That of St. Paul ia ct which the partaking of the Cup 2nd of the " Bread at the Lord's Table is faid to be The " Communion of the- Blood and of the Body of *' Chrift. This, I acknowledge, has been jntpr- ** preted by many to fignify an atlual partaking '* of all the Benefits of his Sufferings and Death for " our fakes. But I have already fhewn at fome " lengthy (p. 39, fcfV.) That the Apoftle's Argu- " ment in that Place, and his plain Infcentipp " in ic, neither require nor admit this Senfe of ** his Words. And I was the more follicitpus tp -*' put this in a clear Light, becaufe I efteemed it ¦*' of very great Confequence to lead Chriftians tp •*< chink that this or any one fingle Inftance, ojf ** Obedience to the Will of God, however wor- '* thily performed, and fuitably to its Nature " and End, could poflibly be to them the Par- " taking -of all the Benefits of Chrift's Life and f Death;" Now as to there being,no other Paf- S 2 fag© ( H° ) fage in the New Teftament which implies any im mediate Benefit or Privilege annexed to the Par taking of the Holy Eucharift, befide that here mentioned, I have fhewed the contrary, and proved what Chrift fays concerning eating his Flefh and drinking his Blood in the fixth Chapter of St. John teaches alfo that great Benefits are annexed to it. And as to the Proofs he pretends to have given p. 39, &c. why the Apoftle's Words nei ther require nor will admit that Senfe of the Words learned Men have put upon them, I have alfo anfwered in my Remarks on that Place. I have therefore no occafion here to do more than to enquire into the pernicious Confequence he feems fO much afraid of, which is, " That it may lead ** Chriftians to think that This or any One fingle %t Inftance of Obedience to the Will of God, how-1 '*' ever worthily performed* and fuicably to its ** Nature and End, could poflibly be to Them', *' the partaking of all the Benefits of Chrift's Life '*' and Death."' But does not this Gentleman know that thofe who believe that fuch greafBenefits are annexed to the worthy Participation of this Holy Sacrament, do not efteem it to be but one Inftance of Obedience to the Will of God ? They teach that no Man can worthily receive this Holy "Sacrament, but he who is obedient to the Will of jGod in all Things. They do not teach, as this ^Author does, that . he is a worthy Receiver, who Without Repentance and Amendment of Life, pre- fumes to partake of it, notwithftanding they ap- ,'pear and be very ferious and devout all the Time they attend at the Lord's Table, and never fo plainly diftinguifh it from a common Meal. I xonfefs indeed a Man may be fuch a worthy Re ceiver as this Author defcribes, without receiving any Benefit from this Sacrament, on the contrary he will render himfelf liable to God's greater An ger ( 141 ) gerfor his Prefumption. The Church, Linear* the true Primitive Catholick and Apoftolick Church, which always believed that the Benefits* Chrift purchafed for us by the breaking of his Body, and the fhedding of his Blood, were an nexed to the receiving this Holy Sacrament war-, tbily, has alfo taught that none could receive ic worthily, but fuch as lived foberly, righteoufly and godly ; and who, as far as the Infirmities of hu^ man Nature permitted, were entirely obedient to the whole Will of God, not obedient in one In ftance only, as this Gentleman would fuggeft, in order to reprefent this Doctrine of the whole Chri ftian Church in all Ages, as abfurd : which if he, has done it ignorantly, (which it is hard to be-. heve he has, fince fcarce any who have written on, this Subject but has required a holy and religious Life as a neceffary Preparation to the worthy re7 ceiving) he deferves to be pitied, if he has done it knowingly and wilfully (which it is to be feared he has) it deferves a harder Name than I am will-i ing to give it. For while Difcipline, was retained in the Church all notorious Sinners were kept frora this Holy Sacrament, and were not. permitted ita come to it untill they, had actually amended their Lives : They were often obliged to undergo fevere Penances for feveral Years as Teftimonies of their fincere true Repentance and Reformation. And though this fevere Difcipline has been long difufed, and fuch Penances are not now inflicted upon open Sinners as were in the Primitive Church, and Men are now left intirely to themfelves in this as in all other Matters of Religion, yet our Church has, provided Exhortations to be read to all her Mem bers before the Adminiftration of the Holy Com-. munion, to inftruct Them what they muft do and what is neceffarily required of < them before they ought to prefume to come to the Lord's Table., She (142) She tells them, that as " It is a divine and comfof- «¦' table a Thing to them who receive it Worthily, ** fo it is dangerous to therh who will prefume to "receive it unworthily: She exhorts Them to " confider the Dignity of. that Holy Myftery, " and the great Peril of the unworthy receiving " thereof, and fo to fearch and examine their " own Confciences (and that not lightly, and af- " ter the Manner of Diffemblers with God, but " fo) that they may come holy and clean to fuch " a heavenly Feafl." And then directs them to reconcile Themfelves both to God and their. Neighbour, and to repent them of their Sins or elfe not to come to that Holy Table. And does all this amount to no more than one fingle Inftance Of Obedience to the Will of God ? And again in the Exhortation given at the Communion Tabled When the Comihunicants are attending to celebrate this Sacrament, the Prieft in the Exhortation then read, fays to Them, " Judge your felves1 Bre- " threri that you be not judged of the Lord i " repent you truly for your Sins paft, havea/live- *' ly: and ftedfaft Faith in Chrift our Saviour, a- " mend your Lives, and be in perfect Charity rt with all Men ; fo fhall ye be meet Partakers *c of thofe Holy Myfteries." Not that the Church fuppofes, as this Author pretends, p. J4~. •* That even fo fhort art Examination^ in the ** Church itfelf, juft before the partaking of the * in the Lord's Supper." But as I have proved' the Lord's Supper to be a Sacrifice, the Wood'oi tafc Covenant in the f'ewiffi Sacrifices do very well anfwer to the Wine in the Lord' s Supper, and our Lord himfelf filled that Wine the New Teftament & Covenant in hi* Bleodt Which I- think is agood Proof H 160 ) ^roof that he appointed it fhould anfwer to the5 Blood of the Jewifh Sacrifices ; that as the Blood of the ancient inftituted Sacrifices typified the Blood of Chrift to be fhed, the Wine in the Lord's Supper fliould typify or reprefent the fame Blood long fince fhed. However this Author cannot. deny but that the Lord's Supper fucceeds in the Place of the Paffover, and feems tp grant that it does fo. But then he fay's, '' This will likewife " help to fhew that it cannot be itfelf a. federal or " covenanting Rite. For the Pafcbal Supper itfelf '.' was inftituted, in Remembrance of that Re- " demption or Deliverance of Ifrael out of Egypt, ^ by which God claimed them for his People. " And fo the Lord's Supper was inftituted for the " Remembrance pf that Redemption or Delive- " ranee of Chriftians, which God propofed to ct them, by Chrift, in his New Covenant. As " therefore the Paffover was a perpetual Memorial " of the one Deliverance, and the Covenant, formed ci upon it : So is the Lord's Supper the Memorial *.* of the other, and of the Covenant formed upon " that ; and neither of them therefore, can be cf efteemed as the atlual making thofe Covenants *c which are only retnembered in them." But who.. eyer faid that the Lord's Supper was the atlual making, as that may fignify the firft entring into - Covenant with God ? We made or entred into Covenant with Gpdat our Baptifm : In the Lord's' Supper we folemnly and religioufly renew our Engagements to keep the Covenant before made, - which may properly be called renewing our Cove nant : And thus it was that the Jewifh Sacrifices became federal or covenanting Rites. They were entred into Covenant with God by Circumcifion, and thereby became Debtors to the whole Law, Gal.v. 3. In Sacrifices according to the Law, they made no New (Covenant, but thofe Sacrifices implied ( Itfl ) implied that they laid themfelves under pew Obli gations to adhere to the Covenant before made, from whence they became Federal Rites : And even this Author fpeaks of them as covenanting Rites ; and if Sacrifices are covenanting Rites, as this Author cannot deny them to be, then the Paffover was a covenanting Rite alfo, though he has afferted che contrary. For that was a Sacrifice and is fo called in the Narrative of its Inftitution, Exod. xii. 2.7. It is the Sacrifice of the Lord's Paffover. Therefore the Paffover's being a Memo rial of a Deliverance and of a Covenant formed upon it, is no Proof that it was not alfo a cove nanting Rite as this Author pretends ; buc as che Narracive of ics Inftitution fhews it to have been a Sacrifice or covenanting Rite, though it was alfo a Memorial of a Deliverance, ic is a very good Proof that fuch a Memorial is alfo a Sacrifice or cove nanting Rite. As therefore the Lord's Supper even according to this Author is fuch a Memorial to us Chriftians as the Paffover was to the Jews , it is ma nifest chac it is alfo a Sacrifice or covenanting Rite as the other was. The Confequence of which is, that when we partake of chis Sacramenr we do actually renew che Covenant made wich God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghoft at our Bap tifm : And that this Author lies under a great Miftake in affertingthe contrary. Page ijf. this Author fays, " That the beft " of thofe Writers on this Subject, who have *' taught that by this Sacrament Men are entitled, f */ they be worthy Receivers, to the Benefits of " Chrift's Death : And that by worthily receiving u the Lord's Supper we renew our Part in the Cbrifi- *' tian Covenant, and fie cure to our felves his con- " timal Favour and Acceptance through Chrift : f That after all this, they themfelves feem to ?' fufpect this Doctrine to be uncertain and ha- il. zardous i and therefore guard it with fome fuch X " R,eftriaiott {Ml) _ «« Reftriaioh and Caution as this, Unkfs by any " Ficioufnefs in the Cpurfe of our Lives